M. Gilbert Brown. An Answer to a certain Libel or Writing, sent by M. JOHN WELSCH to a Catholick, as an Answer to an ob­jection of the Roman Church, &c.

I received a little scrol which was sent to you by M. John Welsch Minister at Kirkubright, in the which there is much promised, and little done. And because it may appear to some to be something, I will, God willing, answer the same in particular.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

AS to your judgement and censure of this my answer to your objection, wherein ye think there is much pro­mised and little done, I do not re­gard it: For so long as your heart is bewitched with the pleasures of Ba­bel, your light is but darkness: so while the Lord anoint your eyes with that eye-salve promised in the Revelation 3. and purge your heart by faith, ye cannot discern of things different, and give upright judgement. What I promised, I am now, by the grace of God, ready to perform. And whether it was something or nothing, much or little that I did, let work bear witness, and let them that love the truth judge.

M. Gilbert Brown.

First, he tittles his libel, An answer to an objection of the Roman Church, whereby they go about to deface the verity of that only true Re­ligion which we profess.

God forbid that we Catholicks, whom he calls the Roman Church, seeing that we are the only defenders of the truth, as our predecessors the Pastors of the true Church was before us, should go about to deface the truth. But we go about to impugn all false doctrine repugnant to the truth, as the holy Fathers of the primi­tive Church did before us, against the hereticks in their dayes, as Ireneus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Basile, Gregory, Chrysostome, with the rest of the true Pastors of the Church. And seeing that the Ministers of this new Evangel have not only inven­ted some heresies themselves, but also have renewed many old con­demned heresies confuted by them before (as they cannot deny) as I shal give some examples afterward, as the heresie of Simon Magus, of Manicheus, Pelagius, Aerius, Jovinianus, Vigilantius, with many others; what less can we do nor impugn the same, as our predecessors did before?

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As to your answer: First, ye deny it and detest it as a blasphemy. Next, ye go about to clear your selves from the suspicion of it. Thirdly, ye challenge us and our do­ctrine with the crimes of novelty and heresie: And so ye conclud, ye could do no less nor impugn it.

As to your denying of the defacing of the truth of God, so doth the whorish woman, Prov. 30.20. after she hath eaten, she wipes her mouth, and saith, she hath not sinned: which is true as well in spiritual as in bodily fornication: So not­withstanding your Church hath buried the truth of God in the graves of darkness, and did overcover it with their traditions and glosses these many years by gone, yet you wipe your mouthes, and say, you have not sinned. But look to it in time; for ignorance, and zeal without know­ledge, will not excuse you in the day of the Lord. That you detest it as a blasphemy, so did the high Priest rent his clothes, and said Christ blasphemed, Matth. 26.65. when he spake but the truth. As for your golden styles which you take to your selves of Catholicks, defenders of the truth, suc­cessors to the Pastors of the true Church, and impugners of all false doctrine. Your doctrine indeed could not deceive so many, if it were not covered with these styles: your poy­son and abomination would not be drunken so universally, if it were not in such a golden cup as this, Rev. 17.4. So these are the hyssop wherewith ye would wash you from this iniquity, and cleanse you from this sin. But may not false Prophets come in sheeps clothing? Matth. 7.15. And the ministers of Satan, can they not transform themselves, as though they were the ministers of Christ, 2. Cor. 11.13.14. The Scrip­tures have fore-told it: And did not the false Apostles in Ephesus, call themselves the Apostles of Christ, and yet they were found lyars? And did not the synagogue of Satan call [Page 4] her self the synagogue of the Jews, Rev. 2.4.9. (that is, the Church of God) and yet they were not so▪ but the syna­gogue of the devil? Yea, and did not Abrahams seed, and they that sate in Moses chair, and was the successors of Aaron, condemn the Savior of the world, John 8.37. Matth. 23.2. Therefore not by your styles, but by your fruits ye must be tryed, Matth. 7.16. For if ye be Catho­licks, &c. ye will teach the doctrine of that good Pastor, and chief shepherd the Lord Jesus, John 10.14. So it is your doctrine, and not your styles, that must defend you.

M. John Welsch.

SAy they, our Religion is so ancient that it hath conti­nued ever by a lineal succession of Pastors and Bishops, from the dayes of Christ and his Apostles till now, ne­ver interrupted, never spoken against, but of late since Martin Luthers dayes: But yours, say they, is newlie for­ged, and invented, never heard tell of, but since Luther and Calvins dayes. Therefore yours cannot be the true Religion, and ours must be the only true Religion.

M. Gilbert Brown.

This objection consists partly of a truth, and partly of an un­truth. It appears by this, that either M. John knows not our proofs; or if he doth, he alters the same, that he may the better op­pugn his own invention.

Our objection, or rather one of our proofs, whereby we prove that we Catholicks is the only true Church of Christ, and have the only truth in all things, is this.

We have aboundantly set down to us by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy writ, that the kingdom and Church of Christ shal never fail in this earth, and that the gates of hell shal not pre­vail against it. But shal be permanent for ever, and shal have al­wayes the presence and assistance of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, who shal teach it all truth, and remain with it for ever, as may be perceived by these places noted here, which were over long­some to be set down at length. To the which I adjoyn some of the ancient Fathers exponing the same.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

I will follow your footsteps, and first answer to that part which ye say is true, and then unto that which ye say is false. And as to the first, the ground which ye laid down, whereupon ye go about to build the truth of your Religion, is the Church of Christ shal never fail, nor be interrupted, [Page 14] &c. It is recorded in Histories, Athenaeus dip­nosophist lib. 12. of one Thrasilaus a frantick man among the Greeks, whensoever he saw any ships arrive at the haven of Athens, he thought them all his own, and took an in­ventarie of their wares, and met them with great joy: Even so it is with you, wheresoever you see the name of the Church in the holy Scripture, & the promises of God made unto the same, ye take all to be yours, and books the treasures of it, and boasts thereof, as though they were your own, crying, The gates of hell shal never prevail against it: It shal never fail: It hath always the holy Ghost to lead it in all truth. To remove you therefore out of the haven, and to give every merchant his own ware, and his own ship, and to set the Church it self in possession of the Church, we must distinguish the name of the Church. The Church therefore is taken sometimes for the com­panie of the elect and chosen, whereof a part is in heaven triumphing with Christ their Lord; a part here in the earth fighting her battels, lying in her camp, and awaiting for the victorie. And these are termed the invisible Church, because Gods election cannot be discerned by the judge­ment of mans senses or eyes, and we cannot know who are his chosen. And unto this Church, that is, to the cho­sen, appertains all the promises set down in the Scripture, and in them only are they fulfilled: And sometimes it is taken for the company of them who professes the true Religion, wherein both the chaff and the wheat, the pop­ple and the good seed, Matth. 3.12. and 13.24.25 the dregs and the wine, the good and the evil are mixed toge­ther; the which suppose they be in the Church, yet they are not of the Church, no more then the superfluous hu­mors of the bodie are true and livelie members thereof. So then if ye mean by the Church, The Church of the elect, and if ye mean by this, That it shal never fail, nor be inter­rupted, [Page 15] &c. only this, that it shal never be utterly abolished, but shal have alwayes the presence of the holy Ghost to lead her in all truth, yea and in all holiness also, in so far, as shal serve for her salvation: We grant that with you, as Bellarmin confesseth of us; and therefore he saith, Lib. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 13. That many of their number spend but time, while as they go about to prove that the Church here beneath absolutelie cannot perish, or make absolute defection: for Cal­vin (saith he) and the rest of the hereticks grant that, but they speak and mean (saith he) of the invisible Church. So if ye mean no further but this, then Bellarmin telleth you that all the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers, that ye have hea­ped up here to prove the same, is but to spend the time, & so are fetched as needless witnesses in a matter [...]at is not doubt some, or called in question. And if ye had under­stood his language, ye needed not to have cumbred your self in fetching of this mortar and stone to build up your Babel: For this was not required at your hands. But be­cause it is Babel which ye are bigging, a tower of confusion, therefore the Lord hath sent such a confusion of language among you, that few of you understands what another sayes; when some cryes for mortar, others brings stone. Bellarmin, the great maister-builder, cryes for proofs to prove that the visible Church here beneath cannot err, neither in the matters which are needful to salvation, neither in the mat­ters which are not needful, which she propones to be believed or to be done, whither they be doctrine contained in the Scripture or extra scripturam, that is, not contained in the Scripture. He cryes to prove that, and ye cumber your self in bringing in a number of Scriptures to prove that the Church shal alwayes remain till the end of the world; whereas in the examination of your proofs, it will be found that they will go no further with you. But if ye mean of the visible Church, that it shal never fail, &c. that is, it shal never fail [Page 16] in doctrine, nor be interrupted in the same, not only in the matters needful to salvation, but in all truth, as ye affirm of your Church, and as Bellarmin sayes, as hath been said before. If ye go this far, as ye do indeed, and as Bellarmin doth and your self must do, if ye be a right defender of your Catholick faith here, or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the puretie and truth of your Church and Religion. Then I say, that your ground is as false and erroneous, as the stuff that ye build upon it; for both they have failed, and have been interrupted, as shal be proved afterward. And mark this, Christian reader, as the Philistins Church wherein they praised their God, Judg. 16. and mocked Samson the Lords servant, had two chief pil­lars whereon the whole house leaned and was born up, so hath the Church of Rome two chief pillars, whereon the whole weight of their Church and Religion hings: the one whereof is this, that the Church cannot err: the other, that the Pope is the head of the Church. Take these two from them, their house must fall, and their Religion can stand no longer. For when they are brought to this strait, that they see they cannot defend their Religion, neither by the testi­monies of the Scripture, nor yet by the examples of the Church of God, when she was in her greater purity and sincerity, they are compelled to lay this as a ground to hold all their errors on, that the Church of Christ cannot err: So take this ground from them, their Church and Religion cannot stand.

Now, as to the testimonies which ye quote out of the Old Testament, & out of Luke 1.33. in the New Testament, they only prove that the Church and Kingdom of Christ shal endure for evermore, and that his covenant made with her, is everlasting. The which cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine; for both the chaff and evil seed in the Church, that is, these [Page 17] that are called, but not chosen, may err, and that to death and damnation, and yet his Church and Kingdom, and his covenant, remaineth sure, stable, and inviolate: for the Lord only offers his covenant unto them, and they through incredulitie reject it, and so he is not bound to sanctifie or save them, much less to keep them from error. And as for these who are called and chosen, all these pro­mises are made and performed in every one of them, and the covenant of God is so sure in every one of them, that our Savior saith, None of them can perish, John 10.28. And yet for all this, every one of them may err in doctrine, suppose not to death and damnation, which ye will not deny. And if ye would, infinit examples not only of the Saints of God, of the laicks (as ye call them) but also of the Priests, Prophets, Apostles, yea and of Popes also, and of your own Doctors and Bishops, as a cloud of witnesses, would stand up and avow the same in your face. Now I gather, seeing that the militant Church here on earth hath but two sorts of persons in her, these that are called and chosen, and these that are only called, but not chosen, and both may err in points of doctrine, the one finally to death and damnation: the other may err, suppose not finally to death and damnation: and yet the covenant of God remain sure, everlasting, and inviolate with his Church. Therefore, I say, the promises of the stabilitie of Christs Kingdom, and the perpetuitie of his covenant made with her, cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine. So ye have lost your vant­guard. Let us come to the rest, and see if they will favor your cause any better then the former hath done.

The next place ye quote is, Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shal not prevail against it. And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of Scripture which shal fight more for [Page 18] you then this, let us therefore try it to the uttermost, and see how far it can be stretched out. What argument will ye frame out of this place? For if you gather no more but this, Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal never prevail against the Church that is built on the Rock, that is, on Christ: Therefore the Church that is built on him, shal never be all utterlie extinguished and abolished by Satan. Then Bellarmin tells you that ye spend but time in proving of this: for we grant it, That the Church of the chosen shal never perish. But if you go further, and say; That the Church of Christ shal never err, because Christ hath pro­mised that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it: then, I say, either that exposition is false, or else the gates of hell should have prevailed long since against your Church: for when it prevailed against the rock whereon the Church was built, it prevailed against the Church. For raze and overturn the foundation of a house, the house cannot stand, seeing the standing of the house con­sists on the firmness & sureness of the foundation thereof. Now the rock whereon ye say the Church is built, unto whom this promise is made, is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome, for so ye all with one consent expone the same. Rhemists annotation upon this place. Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Church, as ye say, and the gates of hell hath prevailed against them, as I shal prove, by the grace of God: it must follow, if your exposition be true, that the gates of hell hath prevailed, not once only, but at many times against [...]he Church.

For, first, Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine, when he thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ, the Kingdom of Christ not to be heavenlie but earthlie; not spiritual, but like the Kingdoms of this world, proper to Israel, Acts 1.6. not common to all, by vertue of the promise: and also he is commanded [Page 19] to preach the Gospel to the Gentils, doubting nothing, Acts 10.20. Which testifies, that he doubted before, whither the Gospel should be preached to them or not, and there­fore erred in a matter of faith, and that after he had recei­ved the promise of the holy Ghost. And also he erred in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, Acts 10.14. for he believed that some meats were unclean after the death and resurrection of Christ, and therefore he refused to eat thereof. And this was a matter of faith also. And last of all, the holy Ghost testifies, that he went not a right foot to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2.11. and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paul to his face. And as for them whom ye call his successors, the Popes of Rome, not only may they be hereticks, but also some of them have been here­ticks. And therefore if your argument be good, the gates of hell both may, and have prevailed against them. That they may be hereticks, I will fetch no other witnesses, but your own Councils, Canons, Cardinals, and your own Popes; for they shal be your Judges in this matter. Bellar­min saith, lib. 7. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 30. that the Pope being a manifest heretick, ceaseth to be Pope, and to be head of the Church. Caietan a Cardinal saith, lib. de authoritate Papae & Consilij, cap. 20. & 21. That the Pope being a manifest heretick, should be deposed by the Church. Johannes de Turrecremata a Cardinal saith, lib. 4 part. 2. cap. 20. That when the Pope falls in heresie, he is deposed of God. Alphonsus de Castro saith, lib. 1. cap. 2. That the Pope, as he is a Pope, may be an he­retick, and teach heresie, which also hath sometimes (saith he) fallen out in them. Innocentius the 3. serm. 2. de consecr. Pon­tificis. And Hadrian the 2. Popes; as also the 6. and 8. Sy­node, and their own Canon Law, Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa, do testifie that they may be hereticks. And also Pope Ha­drian 6. Bellar. lib. 4. de Romano Pontif. cap. 2.

And some of them have been hereticks also. Zepherinus [Page 20] a Montanist, Tertuli. ad prax. Marcellinus, one that sacri­ficed [...]o Devils, the Idols of the Gentils, Damasus & Concil. Sinuess [...]num. Liberius an Arrien, that denyed the God­head of the Son, Athanas. in Epist. ad solit. vita. Hieron. in Catal. Script. Fascic. tem. aetate sexta. Hermannus contra­ctus. Marianus Scotus compilatio Chronologica. Supplemen­tum chronic. Platina. Anastasius a favorer of the Nesto­rian heresie, Platina in vita Anastas. & supplement. Chro­nic. & distinct. 19. cap. Anastasius. Fascic. temp. Vigilius an Eutychian, whose heresie was, that after the incarna­tion of Christ, there was but one nature in Christ, made of his Divinity and Humanity, which overthrows the foun­dation of our salvation, Liberatus in Breviario, cap. 22. Ho­norius a Monothelite, and therefore damned and accur­sed in the sixth Council of Constantinople, act. 13. John the 22. held, that the souls of the blessed being separat from their bodies, did not see the Lord before the resurrection, Occam. in opere 93. dierum. Adrian de confirmatione circa fi­nem. Gerson in sermone de Pascha. John the 23. denyed eternal life, whereof he was accused, and deposed in the Council of Constance, Sessione 11. Eugenius the 4. depo­sed in the Council of Basile for heresie, Sessione 34. I omit the rest. Seeing then these whom ye call the rock and foundation of your Church have erred, and that in mat­ters of doctrine and Religion, and in the principal points thereof, and that by the testimonies both of the Scripture, and of your own Councils, Doctors, Cardinals, and Popes. Therefore if your argument hold forth, then I say, the gates of hell hath prevailed against your Church, because they have prevailed against the rocks and founda­tions thereof; for they have erred, as hath been proved; the which, I suppose, ye will not grant. And therefore the furthest that ye can gather here, is but this; That the gates of hell, that is, the power of condemnation shal [Page 21] not [...]; that is, totally and finally overcome: So that suppose they may [...], that is be strong, and make them to fail in many things, yet they cannot prevail totally and finally against the Church of God, that is, the elect and chosen, who are built not on the Pope, but on the immoveable Rock the Lord Jesus. I say further, this promise is made and performed in every one of the elect: For the gates of hell shal not prevail; that is, get the final and full victory over any of them. And therefore our Sa­vior saith, None of my sheep shal perish, John 10 28. and yet ye will not deny, but every one of the elect may err. There­fore this promise doth not priviledge the Church of God from erring, but the chaff and evil seed; that is these that are called and not chosen, may err, and err finally; be­cause this promise is not made unto them, for they are not built upon this Rock, but upon the sand: for none is built upon this Rock, but these who are blessed, and hea­reth the word, and doth it, Matth. 7. as our Savior testifieth. And the good seed, which are these that are called and chosen, may err, suppose not finally and totally.

The next place which ye quote, is that prayer of Christ for Peter, Luke 22.32. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, Matth. 26. It is true he prayed. It is true also that Peters faith failed not; but yet it swooned, as it were, when he denyed his Lord, and that by perjuring and cursing of himself; and yet he erred both in the qua­litie of Christs Kingdom, in the calling of the Gentils, and in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, Acts 10 14. As also, he went not rightly to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2.11. as hath been proved. So this prayer was not that he should be kept absolutely from all erring; for then it shal follow, that Christ obtained not that which he prayed for: seeing he erred (which is impious to think) but that his faith should not decay finally and totally.

Secondly, the Lord Jesus prayed also for all believers, John 17.18.19.20. which place ye also quote, and yet there is not one of the believers but they may err, as your selves cannot deny, and we have proved by examples of your own Popes: for if any were exeemed from erring, in your judgement it should be these that are the founda­tion of your Church, which ye call your Popes; but they may err, and have erred, as hath been proved.

Thirdly, I say, it will not follow, Christ prayed for Pe­ters faith that it should not fail: Therefore he prayed for the Popes, whom ye will have to be successors to Peter, that their faith should not fail (for that is the thing ye would be at) for their faith hath failed. For if by faith ye understand the doctrine of the faith of Christ, as it is taken sometimes in the Scripture, 1. Tim. 4. then I say your own Doctors, Canons, Councils, Cardinals, and Popes them­selves, as they have been cited before, testifieth, that not only they may err, but also that some of them have erred, and have been hereticks. And if by that faith which our Lord prayed for, ye understand that lively faith that em­braceth the promises of Gods mercie in Christ, which wor­keth by love, and showeth forth the self by good works; as by keeping of Christs commandments, and by loving one another, Rom. 3.25. Gal. 5.6. 1. John 2.4. Then I say, your own writers, friends, favorers, and Cardinals te­stifieth of them, Platin, Genebrard, Crantz, that they have gone from Peters steps, that they got the Popedom by brybery and bargaining with the Devil: That they were monstrous and pro­digious men; yea, rather beasts and monsters. So that of all men that ever professed the faith of Jesus, they have failed most foully in that lively faith, as I have proved in another place concerning the Antichrist.

As to that place which ye quote John 14.16.17. where the Spirit of Christ is promised to the Apostles to dwel with [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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 him see so much of his light in the face of Christ, as may save him. But yet so long as they are in this house of clay, they see but in part; & that part which they see, is but obscurely and dimly, as the Apostle speaketh, 1. Cor. 13.12. So that as long as they are in this world, they are subject to sin, ignorance and errors. But as there are two sorts of men in the visible Church, some called and chosen, some called, and not chosen; and as in the diseases of the body, some are curable, whereof men recovers; some are deadly, whereof men dies: so it is in the errors of the militant Church, some are deadly, & some are curable. The chosen that are called, may err, but their errors are not deadly, as the errors of the Apostles were, Acts 1.6. and 10. and 11. Gal. 2. Rev. 19. and 22. they recovered by grace from them. The called that are not chosen, may err, and err deadly, and never recover; as these of whom John speaketh; They went out from us (saith he) because they were not of us, &c. John 2.19. Now seeing the visible Church here beneath stands but of these two sorts, to [Page 27] wit, of these that are called and chosen, and these that are called, but not chosen, and both may err. Therefore it is manifest, that the Church militant here beneath, may err. And to prove this more amply, that she hath erred before the Law, under the Law, in Christs time, and after Christ.

First, Adam being made in perfect holiness and inte­gritie, how grievously did he err, when contrarie Gods commandment, giving more credit to the Devil then to his Maker, he brake that first covenant? For Tertullian saith, Who will doubt to call Adams fall an heresie, Contra Marcionem, lib. 1. Now if Adam in his full light did not stand, but so foullie erred, which is he that is come forth of his loyns, born in ignorance and blindness, that dare challenge this prerogative to himself, that he cannot err, except the man of sin, and son of perdition? that is, the Popes of Rome. Now, he being thrust out of Paradise, hath two sons: the elder Cain, for the murther of his bro­ther is accursed of God, and the author of the Synagogue of Babel, that is the wicked. The Church of God remai­ned in the posteritie of Seth, Gen. 5. and at the last, Reli­gion began to be so prophaned, that at length it grew to such a hight, that Religion being contracted only in the familie of Noah, it could be punished with no less then with an universal destruction of all living creatures by the flood, except only these that were preserved in the Ark with him, Gen. 6. Of Noahs three children, two of them fell, both themselves and their posterity. The true Church and Religion remained in the family of Sem; and neither were they free from Idolatrie, God calling, Gen. 12. Abraham out of his own countrey, serving strange Gods, Josu. 24.2.3. His eldest son Ismael being circumcised, is commanded to be casten out of the Church of God, Gen. 21.12. and 25.23. and 31.34. and 35.2. Isaac hath two sons, the elder is refused, the youngest is chosen, and so the elder with his [Page 28] posteritie fell away. Jacobs familie was not clean, neither from Idolatrie, being polluted with strange Gods by his wife Rachel, till he cleansed his house. And as for his poste­ritie, what stiff-neckedness, what rebellion, what Idolatrie was among them, so that no threatning no blessing, no correction, nor teaching, could keep them in the puritie of Gods worship and Religion?

In the Church under the Law, the people are Idolaters, the hie-Priest Aaron the maker of the Idol to the people, Exod. 32. In the time of the Judges after the death of Josua, they worshipped Baal and strange Gods, Judges 1.12.13. and every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes, when there was not a King in Israel, which was very oft in those dayes, and therefore they are given over to the crueltie and tyrannie of their enemies round about them. In the time of Heli, there was no open vision, 1 Samuel 3.1. And Solomon saith, Where there is no vision, the people perish, Prov. 29.18. In Sauls time the Ark of the Lord was not sought, 1. Chro. 13.3. and so there wanted a chief part of the publick worship of God: for God was consul­ted at the Ark. And in the time of Solomon, in his old age, when his heart was turned from the Lord, the Scripture testifieth, that they forsook the Lord, and worshipped strange Gods of the Ammonites, 1. Kings 11. Such like in the time of Rehoboam, Solomons son, Juda committed Idolatrie, and built hie places, wherein they worshipped contrary to Gods commandment. Jehoram King of Juda, made Juda and Jerusalem to commit spiritual fornication and Idola­trie. 1. Kings 14 22.23 as the house of Ahab made Israel to commit Idolatrie. Seeing then the worship of God was corrupted both in Juda and in Israel, and there was no other visible Churches upon the earth, except in Juda and Israel, will it not follow then, that all the particular Churches on the earth may err, and fall also to Idolatrie? [Page 29] Such like in the time of Achaz, a strange altar is placed in the temple of the Lord, at the commandment of the King, by Vriah the Priest: and the King with the whole people, at the Kings commandment, offers upon that altar, and the altar of the Lord is removed out of his place, 2. Kings 16.10.11. &c. In the time of Joash, both the King and the Nobilitie forsake the house of the Lord, and worship Idols, so that the hot wrath of the Lord was kindled against Juda and Jerusalem for their Idolatrie, 2. Chro. 24. Such like in the time of Achaz, he made hie places in all the corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Juda, and there burnt incense to strange Gods, 2. Chro. 28. In the time of Manasses, the whole publick worship of God was so defaced, and Idolatrie so universallie set up, that the Scriptures testifie, Juda sinned more hainouslie then the very nations did whom the Lord cast out before their face, Chron. 33.9. The whole host of heaven was worshipped in stead of the true God. I beseech thee (Reader) to read this chap­ter, and there thou shalt find that there was not so much as an outward face of a Church at that time. Yea, in the very time of good Kings, as Joash and Amasia, who both in the beginning embraced the worship of God, but yet made defection in the end. The hie places were not removed, 2. Kings 12.3.4. and 14.4. which was an error in the worship of God. The Scripture testifies that the feast of the Passover was not kept so preciselie, according to the Word of God since the days of Samuel, no not in the reign of the best Kings, as it was in the 18. year of Josias, Chr. 35.18. and there was 400. years and more between. Also the Scripture testifieth that the feast of the Tabernacles was not so kept, as it was then since the dayes of Josua, which was more then a thousand years, Nehem. 8.18. And all the time of the captivitie, where was there any publick face of the Church of God, with his publick worship un­corrupted [Page 30] in all things as the Lord commanded it? As concerning the Kingdom of Israel, from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Juda, they never had the worship of God in integritie; but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him, and after another manner, and by other Priests then they were commanded. Next, they fell to the worshipping of Idols, till they were transported out of their land, and scattered upon the face of the earth. What, shal I pursue the sayings of the Prophets, how the only visible Church in the world, is called an harlot, Isai. 1. the Temple a den of thieves, Jer. 7. the Prophets all blind guides, and dumb dogs that cannot bark? Isai. 57.10.11. Hosea 2.

Now when God of his infinit mercy sent his only be­gotten Son in the world, the light, the life, the salvation of the world, what did the Church and the Clergie, the Scribes and the Pharisies that sate in the chair of Moses? Mat. 23. Surely Christ had none so great enemies as they were, who were the Doctors, the lights, the successors of Aaron, to whom the Law was concredited. When Christ testified of himself that he was the light of the world, they said, his testimony was not true, John 8.13. When others belie­ved in him, they said they were deceived, John 7.47. They or­dain, that if any man should confess Christ, he should be excōmu­nicat, John 9.22. So that many that did believe in him, durst not for them confess him, John 12.42. They watched him, of purpose that they might have matter of accusation against him, Luke 6.7. And when he cast out Devils, the Scribes and the Pharisies said, that he did cast out Devils by Beelze­bub the Prince of Devils, Mark 3.22. Mat. 12.24. They said, they found him a man perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay tribut to Cesar, Luke 32.2. They condemn him in a so­lemn Council as worthy of death, Mark 14.64. Yea, as Christ testifies of them, they neither entred in the Kingdom of [Page 31] heaven themselves, nor suffered others to enter in, Mat. 23.13. And yet they are these, that if ye look to their antiquitie, they have their beginning from Abraham: if to their suc­cession, they succeeded to Aaron: if to their callings, they were Scribes and Pharisies, and sate in the chair of Moses, Mat. 23 if to the place, it was to the house of God: if to the people whom they taught, they were the only people of God: if to their prerogatives, to them appertained the adoption, and the glorie, and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises, of whom are the Fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed forever. Amen. Rom. 9.4.5. And if ye will look to their Council, they were solemnlie called toge­ther, where they condemned the Lord of life, and cruci­fied the Prince of glorie. What can you say to these? That they erred in the person of Christ, but not in the expo­ning of the Law, (as some of you saith) But first, Mo­ses did write of Christ, John 5.46. and Christ is the end of the Law, Rom. 10.4. So that if they had not erred in expo­ning of the Law, they had not erred in the person of Christ, because the Law testified of Christ, & he was the end of it. Next, the Scripture testifies that they erred in exponing of the Law, that they both brake the Law, and teached others so to do, Mat. 5. And therefore Christ saith, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisies, ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 5.20. For whereas the Law of God counts hatred murther, and lust adultery, and rash swearing unlawful swearing, and our enemies our neighbors, whom we ought to love and to do good unto: They by the contrary, taught that our friends was only our neighbors whom we should love, and therefore they said, that we should hate our enemies, vers. 43. That hatred was not the breaking of the sixth com­mand, and lust no breaking of the seventh command, [Page 32] and rash swearing no breaking of the third command. And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Mat­thew, doth vindicat the true meaning of the command­ments from their false expositions. And he testifies of them, that they did abrogat the Law of God through their tradi­tions, and so in vain they worshipped God, teaching for Gods Law (which he calls doctrine) mens precepts, Mat. 15.6. which he proves there by an example of abrogating and annulling of that duty which we ow to father and mother, commanded us in the fifth commandment, by their tradi­tion. And therefore he gives charge to his disciples to be­ware of the leaven (that is the doctrine) of the Pharisies, Mat. 15.6. Seeing then they who had their ordinary suc­cession from Aaron erred, how can the Doctors of your Church, yea, your Popes be priviledged from erring? But it may be ye grant all this; for how can ye deny it, that the Church before the Law, under the Law, in the time of Moses, in the time of the Judges, in the time of the Kings, in the time of the captivitie, and in the time of Christ, erred: but yet the Christian Church hath greater priviledges and promises that it cannot err? Let us exa­mine this also, whither the Christian Church be privi­ledged from erring, or not. And certainlie, if any Christian Church, at any time had this prerogative, appearantlie the primitive Church which was in the dayes of Christ, and of his Apostles, should have had it. But they had it not. There­fore what Church since under the heaven can challenge it? For in the time of Christs suffering, the Apostles and Disciples, who only then were the Christian Church, yea, after that they had been Apostles, and after that they had been sent to preach the Gospel, and work miracles, yet in that time, did they not err in the article of Christs resurrection? Mat. 10 And erred they not concerning the estat of Christs kingdom after the resurrection? Acts 1.6. [Page 33] and 11. And concerning the teaching of the Gentils, af­ter they had received the holy Ghost, Acts 10. Gal. 2. And Peter himself, as hath been shown. And sundrie Pa­pists, as Alex. Hallensis in 3. parte, quaest. ult. art. 2. & Johan. de Turrecrem. in lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 30. 1. Cor. 3. & in lib. 3. cap. 61. saith, that true faith remained only in the heart of Marie in the time of Christs suffering. Was not here then an uni­versal erring? Now to go forward, did not the Church of the Corinthians err in building hay and stubble on the foundation, and in the use of the Lords Supper, and some of them also concerning the resurrection of the dead, 1. Cor. 3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel, and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification, Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Ar­rius (who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father) spread its self so far, that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles. lib. 2. & Hier. dial. contra Lucif. cap. 7. & in chron. Athanas. Epist. de Synod. Alim. & Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians: that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian. What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East, Grecia, Asia and Africa, Churches planted by the Apostles? I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism, but of them that admits the Scripture, ac­knowledges Christ their Savior, who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops, as well as your Church of Rome hath, who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church. For first, yours is but in Europe, except ye will claim to the New-found land, and not all Europe; for all the Churches in Greece, which is a great part of Europe, acknowledges not your supremacy. Now take the Greek Churches from you; next, the Reformed Churches in [Page 34] 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, [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 say, and would ye have the salvation of mens souls to lean to this point of do­ctrine, that they cānot err which is the rock & foundation of your Church, which above all others have erred most grievously? O malicious and cruel man, that would de­ceive [Page 37] the poor flock of Jesus Christ, for whom he shed his blood, with such heresie and abomination. Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes, the head and foundation of your Church. And surely if the founda­tion may be turned up-side-down, and the head may be­come sensless and dead, I see not how the house can stand, and the body can be whole: and one of your greatest Pa­pists B [...]llarmin plainly confesseth, lib. 4 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. that if the Pope err, of necessity, tota Ecclesia errabit, that is, the whole Church shal err. Upon the which I rea­son, If the Pope may err, and hath erred, then the whole Church may err, and hath erred: (so Bellarmin one of the learnedest Papists that ever was, writ) But the first hath been proved by your own Doctors, Cardinals, Popes, Councils, Canon Law. Ergo, by your own doctrine the whole Church may err.

Here we might stay now and go no further; for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine, that the Church cānot err, & that by the confession of the lear­nedest of your side. But yet I will pursue the rest. If you say it is granted to the body, then it is either grāted to the peo­ple, or to the Clergy. To the people, I suppose ye will not; for if your Popes may err, much more may your people err: And if the Apostles, & other famous Churches may err, much more may your people err: yea, if not, it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope, which I suppose ye wil not say. If ye say the Clergy, then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves, or as they are gathered together in a Council. But as they are several, ye will not say. For your Bellarmin controversies would convince you to the face: for almost there are few contro­versies which he handles (and he handles more then 300) but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him, and whom in many places he confutes. And I think [Page 38] if Popes have not this priviledge, surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this priviledge. But be­cause (as Bellarmin confesseth, Lib. 2. de author. Concil. c. 11.) If a general Council err, then the whole Church may err, for it represents the whole Church. And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove, That general Councils cannot err, because the whole Church cannot err: For (saith he) the general Council represents the whole Church, therefore it can­not err. Let us examine this: for if it be found that gene­ral Councils may err, surely your cause is gone. First then, what will ye say to thirteen general Councils, whereof se­ven is utterly rejected, & the other six are in part allowed, and in part rejected, which all have erred, as Bellarmin de Concilijs, lib. 1. cap. 6. & 7. confesseth. But it may be you answer, that these were not approved by the Popes of Rome, and therefore they might err, and have erred; but these Councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err, nor have not erred. Indeed it is true that this is your doctrine, That neither general nor provincial Councils can err that is allowed by the Pope, Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. & 5. and that general Councils lawfully conveaned may err, unless they follow the instructions of the Pope. And therefore Bellarmin saith, cap. 11. that they may err three manner of wayes. 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council dissent from the Popes Legats. 2. If it be against the Popes instruction, suppose both the Fathers and the Legats of the Council agree together. 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirma­tion and judgement, suppose all both Fathers and Legats consent together; because (saith he) the Popes judgement is the last, from the which no man may appeal, and he may approve and dis­prove the General Council, notwithstanding of their consent with his own Legats. And therefore he saith in another place, Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. That the whole strength or certainty of lawful Councils, depends only of the Pope. So [Page 39] then this is your last refuge▪ All depends on his instruction and confirmation, he hath a priviledge that he cannot err, and the General Councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation. But I answer: The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others, then he hath himself: But (as hath been proved before) the Popes may err, and have been hereticks: therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others And if ye will say (as some of you do) that the Pope, suppose he may err privatly, as he is a privat man, and as a privat teacher, yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office judicially. Whereunto I answer, first, That some of your own Church, as Gerson and Al­mane, de potestate Ecclesiae, Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. cap. 2. contra haeres. Canus, loci Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 1. and Pope Adrian the sixth, all these teaches. That the Popes may err and teach heresie, as they are Popes. Either therefore the Popes may err, as they are Popes judicially, and teach heresie, or else not only these Doctors of your own Church, but also the Pope himself hath erred, and that in a point of doctrine: and so however it be, the Popes as they are Popes, judicially may err in points of doctrine. Secondly, I say, besides nine Popes which have been here­ticks, and that when they were Popes, sundrie of them have made decrees, not only contrary to Gods Word, but also contrary one to another, and that in matters of do­ctrine. As for example. Pope Celestin the third, made a decree, cap. laudabilem de conversione infidelium, that when of married persons the one falls in heresie, the marriage is dissol­ved, and the Catholick partie is free to marry again; contrary to the truth of God, Matth. 6. and 19.9. and also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third, lib 4. decretal. cap. Quanto. Thirdly, either your Canon Law errs, or else Clements decrees, that all things should be common, and that wives also should be common, causa 12 quaest. 1. Dile­ctissimis. [Page 40] Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat. cap. Comperimus. That the mistery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided, and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacriledge: and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary, and the whole Romane Church practises the contrary. Pope Martin decreed, dist. 50. cap. Qui semel, that the Priests who are deposed for any fault, may never be admitted to any degree of the Priesthood again. Pope Syricus, distinct. 82. cap. Quia, and Pope Calix­tus distinct. 82. cap. Presbyter, have decreed the contrary. Pope Gregory the third, he permits one to have two wives, if the first be sickly, decret. causa 32. quaest. 7. cap. Quod proposuisti, contrary both to the Gospel, Matth. 19. and to another decreet of the Canon Law, Decretal. lib. 4. tit. 9. cap. Quoniam. Pope Nicolas saith, Dist. 40. cap. A quo­dam Judaeo, that that Baptism which is ministred without express mention of the three persons of the Trinity, is firm and sure enough. But Pope Zacharie, Dist. eadem de conse­crat. cap. In Synodo, hath decreed the contrary. All these decreets are set down in their Canon Law, and hath the strength of a law in the Roman Church, not as privat mens, but as Popes decreets. And yet some of them are directly repugnant to the Word of God, that themselves cannot deny but they are heresies, and some of them so directly repugnant to the decreets of other Popes, that either the one or the other must be heresie.

But it may be ye will answer, that suppose the Pope may err as he is Pope, and that in matters of doctrine, yet he cannot err with his Council, either Provincial or Gene­ral, as Bellarmin saith. Whereunto I answer, first, if Gene­ral Councils lawfully conveaned together, may err in mat­ters of doctrine, unless they be confirmed by the Pope, as Bellarmin grants; and if the Popes may err themselves alone, and that judicially in matters of doctrine, as hath [Page 41] been proved: why may they not err also being joyned together, seeing Councils have this priviledge only by his confirmation and allowance? As Bellarmin saith, lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. Secondly, I say, either Pope Steven the 6. with his Council erred in condemning of Formosus and his acts which he made as Pope, and in decreeing his ordinations to be void and null, because the man was wic­ked by whom they were ordained, Sigebert in Chron. which is an error of the Donatists, or else Pope John the 9. with his Council of 72. Bishops, erred, in justifying Formosus and his decreets, and condemning the acts of Pope Steven with his Council. Last of all, since General Councils that have been confirmed by their Popes have erred, the sixth General Council confirmed by Pope Hadrian, in epist. ad Thracium quae est in 2. actione, 7. Syn. Canon. 2. hath sun­dry errors which they themselves will not defend, as the rebaptizing of hereticks. For the counsel of Cyprian is con­firmed there, wherein this is decreeted. And also it is ordained Canon 13. that Elders, Deacons, Subdeacons, should not separat from their wives, contrary to the Canon of the Roman Church, as is said there. And the marriage of Ca­tholicks and Hereticks is judged null and voyd, Canon 67. which your self cannot deny to be an error contrary to the ex­press truth of God, 1. Cor. 7.13. And the forbidding of Ministers to remain with their wives, Canon 12. con­trary to the sixth Canon of the Apostles. Either there­fore a General Council confirmed by a Pope hath erred, or else the Apostles have erred in this Canon, for they judge them to be the Canons of the Apostles. The first General Council of Constantinople, and the General Coun­cil of Chalcedon, which are both by their own confession approved by the Popes, Bellarm lib. 1. de Concilijs, cap. 5. And yet both these have decreeed▪ that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges of authority, [Page 42] honor and dignity in Ecclesiastical affaires with the Bishop of Rome, except only the first place or seat, the which by their own confession is an error. Therefore either law­ful General Councils confirmed by the Pope, have erred, or else the Pope is not the head of the Church, and hath not a preeminence of authority over the rest, for they have made the Bishop of Constantinople equal with him; or else there are two heads of thier Church, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Constantinople. I omit the rest. Au­gustin saith, de baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. 2. cap. 3. That Provincial Councils may be corrected by General Coun­cils, and of General Councils, the former may be amended by the latter; If they may be mended, then they may err. And here he speaks not of a matter of fact, but of a matter of faith: For he speaks of the baptism of hereticks. Now to conclud, seeing the Churches in all ages, before the Law, in the time of the Law and in the time of grace yea and the Apostles, and Peter himself have erred: and see­ing the Church of Rome that claims this priviledge of not erring above all other Churches, hath erred also, and that not only her people which they call Laicks, but also her Clergy, severally, and together in Councils, as well Pro­vincial as General. And seeing the head, which (as they say) is the Rock and foundation of the Church, hath erred in life, in Office, in matters of Faith and Religion, not as privat men only, but as Popes, both by themselves alone, as also with their Councils, as well Provincial as General. Seeing, I hope, I have proved all these things sufficient­ly, then may I not with the judgement of all men safely conclud, that that main pillar whereupon the whole weight and pillar of your Religion depends (that the Church cannot err) that it is an error, and such a dange­rous and damnable error, whereupon all the errors of your Religion is built, that whosoever will believe it, they [Page 43] hazard the endless salvation of their souls. Ground then (Christian Reader) thy salvation not upon this, that the Church cannot err; for that is false: but upon this that as long as she sticks to the Word of God written in the Old and New Testament, she errs not; and when she swerves and it were but an inch broad from the Scripture, then she errs. And therefore two learned Papists, Gerson. de exa­minat. part. 1. consid. 5. and Panorm. affirms: the one saith, Simplici non authorizato, sed excellenter in sacris literis erudi­to, &c. that is, that more credit is to be given to one un­learned and simple, but yet excellently beseen in the holy Writ in a point of doctrine, then to the Pope. And such a learned man saith, he ought to oppone himself to a Ge­neral Council, if he perceive the greater part to decline to the contrary of the Gospel, either of malice, or of igno­rance. The other saith, extra de elect. cap. Significasti, That more credit is to be given to an unlearned and simple man that brings for him the Scripture, then to a whole General Council. And this for answer to the testimonies of Scrip­ture which ye cited.

Now, as concerning the Fathers testimonies which ye bring in, they will serve you no further then the Scripture hath done: For they will go no further with you, then this that the Church of Christ and his covenant with her shal endure for ever, the which we grant, and they that will read them will find them so. And if ye prove any further out of them, it shal be answered by Gods grace: For it were too fashous to the 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.

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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 it out of the histories, leaving it free to Histo­riographers to write what they please, and omit what they please.

Thirdly, it is manifest, that the Church of the Jewes in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine and manners from that estat that it was in the time of Aaron, Eleazar, and sundry others: and also the Churches of Ga­latia and Corinth, that they were changed from the estat wherein they were. And yet I suppose that neither ye, nor any Papist in the earth, is able to assign to me all the circumstances of the mutations and changes in the same, as the first authors, time, place, &c. and yet there was a great change in doctrine and Religion in all these Chur­ches, as hath been proved before. And we read that our Savior and the Apostles, convicted them of a change, and yet they designed not the first authors, time, and place, &c. The like I say of the Church of Greece, Asia and Africa, which in number exceeds yours. That there is a wonderful change in their Church and Religion, ye will not deny, or else your Religion is heresie: For (as said is) they acknowledge not your Popes supremacy, [Page 48] transubstantiation, &c. And yet I suppose, ye nor no Papist in the earth, is able to assign all the circumstances of chan­ges in their Church and Religion which they have pre­sently: yea, more unable to do this, then we are able to do the same in yours. I mean not the heresies of Arrius, Samosatenus, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sergius, and the rest, which long ago were damned by the Councils of the Greek Churches. (For I suppose ye shal not be able to prove that they now maintain these heresies which they condemned and refuted long ago.) But I mean of the present errors and corruptions in their worship and Reli­gion which now they maintain and profess. If then ye judge the Churches of the East heretical, because they are not agreeable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome, and yet not be able to assign the circumstances of the changes and mutations of the same, will ye not grant the same li­berty to us, to account and judge your Church and Reli­gion failed, because it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, set down in the Scripture, suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of the same?

Fourthly, I say, if you have read Epiphanius, there ye shal find many heresies, which I omit for shortness, which he accounts heresies, whose beginnings and authors are unknown.

Fifthly, there is such an universal complaint of the mon­strous abominations & decays in your Religion, discipline, and manners, and that by your own Councils, Concil. Con­stant. sess. 4. 5. Trident. sess. 6. Basil. sess. 2. 3. Fathers, Ber­nard. in Cant. 33. Popes, Cardinals, and Friers, that I would have thought it uncredible, unless I had read them, that either your own mouthes should have so condemned your selves, or else that the posterity afterward should have been so shameless as to have boasted of the purity of their [Page 49] Church and Religion. Therefore the Council of Trent hath proclaimed it to the world in writ, that the Church hath need to be reformed in the head and members. Now, I ask that of you concerning these abuses in discipline and manners, which ye ask of us concerning your doctrine. Show me all the circumstances of mutation and change distinctly, if ye can, what time, what place, by what au­thor, &c. such monstrous abominations first brake in in your Church and Religion? Now seeing there is no man who hath a spark of judgement, that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and discipline in your Church, and yet the circumstances of the changes un­known: think ye then that ye shal assure men that no chan­ges could fall in your doctrine, unless we knew the circum­stances of the changes of the same?

Sixthly, the Scripture testifies, Matth. 13.27.28 that even the tares which is the evil seed, doth not appear so soon as they are sown; and that neither the times, nor the first author of them was known, no not to the most dili­gent laborers of the Lords ground at the first: and yet it was enough to know them to be evil seed, by the diffe­rence that was seen betwixt them and the good seed, sup­pose the time, place and author was unknown at the first. So it is proof enough against your doctrine, that it is but tares, if the difference be made manifest between it and the Lords truth in the Scripture, suppose the circumstances of the changes of it cannot be assigned.

Seventhly, error is likened to leaven and a canker, which doth not all at once infect the whole mass, and fester the whole body, but piece and piece: so your corruption came not in all at once, but piece and piece infected your Church, and festered your Religion. And therefore it is no wonder suppose the beginnings of infection and cir­cumstances of it hath not been marked: For if they had [Page 50] broken in all at once, and suddenly overthrown the whole Church, it had been no difficulty to have assigned the cir­cumstances of the overthrow of it. For if any having a whole constitution with a stroke were slain, if a ship with a wave were drowned, it were no difficulty to assign the circumstances of the sudden changes. But in a consump­tion, and in a leck that hath come in piece and piece in the body and in the ship, the beginnings thereof cannot be so easily perceived: For a little leck in process of time will sink a great ship. And if it be so hard to discern the be­ginnings of these things which our senses may grope, how much more hard is it to perceive the beginnings of these spiritual corruptions which cannot be perceived by the na­tural man, but only by the light of Gods Spirit by the spiri­tual man?

Eightly, if now it be so in other heresies, as the Scrip­ture testifies of them, that their beginnings are ofttimes un­known, even unto the most diligent laborers of the Lords husbandrie, and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once, how much more is this true in your Antichristian Religion, which (as it was fore-told) should deceive all Nations, and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication? And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture, an iniquitie, but a secret iniquitie: an unrighteousness, but yet a deceivable unrighteousness: a de­lusion, but yet a strong delusion, 2. Thess. an abomination and spiritual fornication, Rev. 17. but yet put in a golden cup; that is, having the show of godliness and Religion; and your Church is called, a harlot, but yet finely decked in purple, &c. not like a harlot, but a Queen. Your Kingdō is called, a beast that speaks like the dragon, but yet like the lamb in his horns, resembling the power and authority of the Lord Jesus. Seeing then your Church, Kingdom and Doctrine, is such a mystery of iniquity; hath such a show of godliness, hath [Page 51] such a resemblance with the lamb, hath such clokes of styles, is so deceivable, and is such a strong delusion, as the Scripture testifies of it: Is it any wonder, suppose the beginnings of this mystery, and of the whoredoms of this Queen, be not distinctly marked and set down?

Ninthly, it is likely enough that the great credit where­in the first Bishops of Rome was for their piety and godli­ness, and the lofty estat of their successors after them, to­gether with their cruelty and tyranny, did so dazel on the one side the eyes of the godly, that they were not inquisi­tive in marking the changes and beginnings of their cor­ruptions, and so bridled the mouthes of other some, that they durst not write the things they saw; and if they writ any thing, they writ it but barely and corruptly; for the tyranny of your Church was such, that none durst mutter against your Church and Religion, but he was taken with­out further as an heretick, and condemned and executed where ever your tyranny reached.

Last of all, suppose they had been written by the Hi­stories of every age, and that distinctly; yet considering the universal power, craft and policy of your Church and Kingdom, is it any wonder suppose they be not now ex­tant at all, but either burnt, or else so falsified and corrup­ted, that the beginnings thereof should not have been per­ceived? For seeing in the purer times, when the power and dominion of your Church was not yet come to the hight, such was the ambition and falshood of your Popes, that in the presence of a Council of 217. Bishops in Car­thage, anno 430. where Augustin was present, they did alledge a false Canon of the Council of Nice, for to have established their supremacy, and under one of their hands sent it to the Council by their Legats; the which was espyed and found out by the whole Council, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that Council he should [Page 52] have no prerogative over the Churches of Africk, and that none should appeal to him under the pain of deposi­tion and excommunication: but al [...]o he was rebuked by the Fathers of that Council in their letters to him. If he was so bold then, what marvel suppose since he hath falsi­fied and corrupted every History and Writing that he saw might bear any wayes witness of the corruptions, tyran­nies and abominations of that Church and Religion of his? And hence it is, I am sure, that we find so little writ­ten of the beginnings of their corruptions, and of them that resisted it. And your Index expurgatorius, devised in the Council of Trent, for blotting out every thing in the writings of men that might testifie of your corruptions, doth also sufficiently witness unto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclud this, suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of your Religion, yet it follows not but your Religion and Church may be corrupted and decayed.

But to satisfie your demand (suppose I hope the things already said, will satisfie the consciences of the godly) What crave you, that all the circumstances of changes in your Religion may be assigned to you? First then, I say, there is nothing that may serve either to make the man of God w [...]se unto salvation, or yet that may make him perfect in every good work, but the Scripture testifies: For it is able to do both these. If these circumstances then serve either for salvation or perfection, I say they are set down in the Scripture, so that we need not to go to Histories to search the same.

The first then ye crave, is the time when the change be­gan. The Scripture tells you, That the mystery of iniquity began to work even then in the Apostles days, and that it doth already work, and so grew on from degree to degree, till he that withheld it was removed; that is, till the Empire of [Page 53] Rome began to decay, and the seat of it removed from thence, as the Fathers expounded it, Augustin, Chryso­stome, Jerome, and so the city left to the Pope, the man of sin, for him to set his throne there: for Rome that seven hilled City, Rev. 17 9 behoved to be the seat of the Anti­christ, as it was fore told by the Scripture. So, if you will believe the Scripture, you have the time.

What crave you next? The place? I say the Scripture testifieth of the same, that that mystical Babylon, which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap 2. Rev. 17. your chief champion, grants to be Rome, that sits upon s [...]ven hills, that had the dominion over the Kings of the earth; that is the place where first your Church and Religion began to decay. So there the place, if you will believe the Scripture.

What crave you next? The author? The Scripture also hath fore told, That the beast that came out of the bot­tomless pit, and slew the witnesses of God, and made war with the Saints, and overcame them, and made all to worship the image of the beast and the harlot Babel (the city of Rome) the mo­ther of whoredoms, who made all Nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, Rev. 12 7. and 14.8. That is your head and Church, they are the authors and mothers of this decay and corruption.

What is the fourth thing ye require? The Church that said against the same? The Scripture will tell you that too: The two witnesses of God whom she killed, the wo­man that fled in the wilderness, the Saints with whom she made war, and who would not worship the beast, nor receive his image; the hundred forty and four thousand that John saw stan­ding with the Lamb on mount Sion, who was not defiled with your idolatry, but followed the Lamb whith [...]rsoever he went, Rev. 11. and 12 and 13. and 14. These then are the true Church which spake against your corruptions, who are like unto Eliahs seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baal.

What crave you more? The matter it self they said against? The Scripture, and ye will believe, will satisfie you in this point also. The doctrine then that was said against, Was the mystery of iniquity, that deceivableness of un­righteousness, that strong delusion, 1. Thess. 2 Rev. 13. That doctrine of the dragon, that spiritual idolatrie and abomination, Rev. 17.18. That doctrine of Devils, in forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence of meat, &c. 1. Tim. 4.

What crave you last? The number from whom they departed? The Scripture will also bear witness of this, seeing your Religion is a departure from the faith, 1. Thess. 2. then all these that ever professed the faith of Jesus set down in his written Word, even the Lord Jesus the head, the Apostles, the layers of the foundation, the primitive Churh, the woman that fled in the wilderness, the Saints with whom ye made war, and all the elect and chosen of God that abhorred your idolatrie. These are the true Churches from whom you departed.

What now crave you more? Will not the abundance of the rivers of the Scriptures of God quench and satisfie this your desire, but that you must go unto the unpure fountains of mens writings, as though the Scriptures were not sufficient, not only to make a man wise unto salvation, but to make him perfect in every thing? These things, I am sure, will satisfie the souls of them that love the truth. But because you give no credit to the Scriptures, but counts them as a nose of wax; and as one of your Popes, speaking to Bembus a Cardinal, called them a fable of Christ, and yet such a fable as hath inriched your treasures And Sylvester Prierias writing against Luther, saith, That the Roman Church and Pope is of greater authority then the Scrip­tures. O horrible blasphemies of the holy truth of God. Therefore we will go to the Histories, and see what they have testified of these circumstances. And although all [Page 55] things here be not expressed to the full, yet there is so much left uncorrupted and unscraped out (by the gra­cious providence of God, that would not want his wit­ness in all ages) out of the Fathers, and your own Wri­ters, that I hope will satisfie the consciences of all the mo­dest and godly. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, lib. 1. strom. that the Apostles successors received the doctrine from them, as the sons from their fathers. But he subjoyns, That there was very few children that was like their fathers. Aegesippus, as Nicephorus reports, saith, lib. 3. cap. 16. That the Church re­mained a pure virgin as long as the Apostles lived, unto Tra­jans time; but they being dead, he writes that it was speedily corrupted. So if ye credit the testimonies of these men, ye see the Church remaineth not long in her integrity. And if you would hear any thing of your Roman Church, So­crates lib. 7. cap. 11. saith, That Celestin your Pope past the bounds of his Priesthood. Read Basilius de Spiritu sancto, cap. ult. and there ye may see what change of Religion was in his time. Augustin testifies, epist. 119. c. 19. That the multitude of ceremonies grew so in his time, that the condition of the Jews seemed to be more tollerable, then the condition of the Church. Now did not this sickness, suppose ye, grow by time? And to come to your own Writers, Bernard saith, in Cant. 33. That the Ministers of Christ (meaning of the Roman Church) serves Antichrist. And to the Pope himself, Eugenius the 3. he saith, lib. 4. And thou the shepherd goeth forth being clothed with a glorious attyr, if I durst say it: these are the feeding places of Devils, rather then of sheep: Thy court is accustomed rather to receive good men, then to make them good: not the evil profits, but the good decays there. And in another place, he saith, From the sole of the foot (speaking of the Church of Rome) to the crown of the head there is no health nor soundness. And de conv. Pauli, Psal. 91. ser. 6. he saith, What remains now (speaking of the [Page 56] corruption of that Church of Rome) but that the man of sin be revealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modò diurnum, sed & meridianum; that is, a devilry not only in the day-tyde, but in the very noon-tyde. And lib. 4. to Eugenius the Pope, he saith, In these secular attyrs and powers, thou hast not succeeded to Peter, but to Constantine. The day would sooner fail me, then the writing of his complaints against the Church of Rome.

Pope Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his Legats who were sent to the Council of Noremberg, he grants and bids them say to the Council, That we know that in this chair (meaning Peters Sea in Rome) for certain years many abominable things have been in it: the abuse in spiritual things, the excess in commandments; and in a word, all things are chan­ged in a worse. And the Council of the Cardinals to Paul the third: they say, Out of this fountain (holy Father) as from the Troyan horse, hath broken so many abuses in the Church of God, such heavy diseases, whereby we see now that she is despai­red almost of health. Aeneas Sylvius a Cardinal, who also was Pope afterward, saith of your Church, That all faith hath perished in her, and love is grown yce-cold. And Corne­lius Bitontinus Bishop, who was present at the Council of Trent, saith; Would to God (speaking of your Church) that unanimes velut prorsus, &c. all with one heart all utterly they had not declined from Religion to superstition, from Faith to in­fidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, (What would ye have more? Will ye yet be so shameless as to boast of the pu­rity of your Church?) and from God to Epicurism: ex Epi­stola 54 ad Caspar. Schlick Oratio Cornelii Epis Bitonti. 3. Dom. advent. I leave the rest, as Platin, Genebrard, Frier Mantuan, Nicolaus Clemangis, Franciscus Petrarcha, Aven­tinus, and a number of others, who are full of complaints of the abominations of your Church of Rome, that cer­tainly I cānot but wonder at your shamelesness in opening [Page 57] of your mouth, and saying, That your Church had the truth in all things, and never failed nor was interrupted, against such a cloud of witnesses, whose testimonies ye dare not refuse. But I leave you to the Lord. The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord, Prov. 20 So your own mouthes shal rise up in the day of the Lord and condemn you that saith, Your Church hath not failed in any substantial point of Religion. But you require more distinctly the time, place, and persons, &c. that hath brought in this mutation and change. If these are to be accounted authors of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders there­of; then I say, the Popes of Rome (for the most part) are the authors of the same; for they were the chief defenders thereof, suppose they had not been the first teachers there­of. For otherwise Luther cannot be said to be the author of our Religion, as ye say, because he was not the first that taught the same, and that by your own confession. For ye say, that sundry other hereticks before Luther taught the same heads of doctrine which he taught, and which we profess now: as that fasting should be free, that only faith justifieth, that man hath not free will, &c.

Next, because it were too longsome to go through the whole heads of your Religion, therefore I will only bring a few examples, and that in some of the substantial points thereof. As for the sacrifice of the Mass, and the ceremo­nies thereof. I have shown the authors thereof in another place, therefore I omit that now.

The first that ever took upon him to exercise jurisdi­ction over the Churches of the East, was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who took upon him to excommunicat the Bishops of the East, because they would not follow his fashion in the celebration of Easter. There the person, time, and place, resisted by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France, and the Bishops of the East, and the brethren [Page 58] there, Polycarpus and sundrie others, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25.26.

The first that took upon him the style to be called Uni­versal Bishop, was the Bishop of Constantinople, anno 581. resisted by Pelagius, and after him by Gregorius Bishops of Rome, lib. 4. epistola 32.38 39. And yet for all this, Boni­face the 3. anno 607. obtained this style of Phocas the Em­peror, the murtherer of his predecessor, Platina Sabelli­cus, Marianus Scotus, complained of by the Church of Ra­venna in Italie, and resisted by sundrie, as shal be proved afterwards.

The first that appointed laws of fasting, was Montanus the heretick, anno 145. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. accounted he­resie by Apolonius and Augustine, against the fasting of the Manicheans. The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministred the Communion under one kind, as the Papists do now: so forth of many other old condemned heresies which your Church hath renewed, as shal be pro­ved afterward.

The first that gave the rise to Transubstantiation, was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his inchant­ment, having first caused a cup of white wine to bear the color of blood, made his followers believe that by his invocation over it, that grace which is above all things, had powred his blood into the cup, refuted by Epiphanius, Haeres. 34. and Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 8.

The first that decreed Transubstantiation in effect, was Pope Nicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in causing Berengarius to recant, De consecrat. Distinct. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius. but yet it was not decreed as an universal doctrine, before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a Council of Lateran anno 1215. as Tonstal witnesses, de Sacramenta. The Greek Church never consented to it: Bertramus, Berengarius, Waldensis, withstood it. The first that decreed the wor­shipping [Page 59] of Images, was Hadrian in the 2. Council of Nice, against the express Scripture, after the example of Marcel­lina an heretick, who worshipped the Image of Jesus, re­sisted by sundry Fathers, and Councils, Concil. Eliber. Concil. Constant. Conc. Francof. The first that imposed single life, and condemned marriage in their Clergy, was Pope Syricius, anno 290. distinct. 82. cap. Proposuisti. as the Manichees did before him, resisted by sundrie, Sigebert. & H. Mutius. Let these examples serve as a taste to the reader.

How stronglie now ye have manned and fortified your own Church and Religion by your proofs, let the reader judge. Now let us see, how ye disprove ours. The que­stion now comes in of the truth of our Church and Reli­gion, whither it be from Jesus Christ, or not? You say, it is not from him, but from others since his time. If ye had gone the straight way to have proved this, and to have satisfied the consciences of men, you would at the nearest have run to the Scripture, and by the same have disproved it. But you in stead of this go a far by-way, and would father our Religion on flesh and blood, dust and ashes, in pointing us out Martin Luther to be the father and author of the same, as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon unto, nor had not the beginning and foundation of it from the root of Jesse, the bud of the Lord, from whom it hath sprung. And for to get your self the better credit, you busie your self in marking the circumstances of his preaching, as time, place, matter, opposition, &c. Now that ye are so skilled and acquainted with that hi­story of Martin Luther, that you can assign all these circum­stances, it is no wonder, for that was the most notable and remarkable period of the decaying of your Babel, and of the erecting up again of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which your head and Clergy had stamped under foot for [Page 60] so many years; which suppose the beginning of it was but like a little leaven, and as a grain of mustard seed which of all seeds is the least, yet now since it hath so sowred almost the whole mass, even the most part of the Kingdoms of Eu­rope, which once was under your spiritual bondage, and hath grown up into such a high tree having fair and great branches, under the which the Lords sheep may get rest and warmness, and in the which his souls that mounts up­wards to that Kingdom, doth build their nests, so that nei­ther can all your purgations, nor yet all your axes of fire and sword, of buls and pardons, of preachings and wri­tings, stay the spreading of the one, nor cut down the branches and root of the other. That M. Luther began at that time, and in that place, and preached against these doctrines, we do not deny, and that is not controverted: But here lyes all the question, whither if that doctrine that he preached against, was Antichristian or not? and whither that Religion which he neither invented, nor yet first preached (for sundry before him did preach that same doctrine, whose names I set down in my answer to your objection) but only raised it out of the grave of darkness wherein ye had buried the truth of God? Here then, I say, is the question whither that Religion which he prea­ched hath the warrant from Jesus Christ in his Testament, or not? The which if ye ever disprove by the written Word of God, then shal we grant you all that ye say, the which is as impossible to you to do, no not suppose your King would call all your wise men and Clergy together, as it was to all the wise men of Babel, to tell and interpret Nebuchadnezar his dream: yea suppose your King would reward you gloriously with honor and riches if ye could do it, yet are ye not able to win your wages: yea, sup­pose he would tear you in pieces, and make your house a jakes, unless ye did it, as the wise men of Babel was, [Page 61] because they could not tell and interpret the Kings dream. This is therefore the point which lyes in question betwixt us, which ye should have proved, if ye could. But know ye for a truth; that suppose he raised out of the grave the truth of God which ye had buried, yet was he neither the inventer, nor the first preacher of it: but it hath for the be­ginning and Author of it, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the foundation of it in the New Testament of his holy Scripture. This for the Author, time, and place which ye assign.

Now, to the Churches that spake against him. I an­swer, They were but such as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication, and deluded by your strong de­lusions, being deceived by the golden cup, wherein you propined them to be drunken out, as it was prophesied of you, Rev. 17.4. But the measure of your iniquity being full, and the time of the lurking of the truth of God being run out. God of his infinit mercy by his ministery, and the rest that followed since, hath opened the eyes of a great part of these Kingdoms who first said against him, to see your Church to be the whore, Rev. 17.1. your Kingdom to be the beast, Rev. 13.11. and your head to be the Anti­christ, your doctrine to be delusions, 2. Thess. 2.3.4.11. and your Rome to be that mystical Babylon, Rev. 18 4. And so the Lord hath made them believe, and give obe­dience to that commandment of his, Go out of her, my peo­ple, &c. That ye call these the true Church that spake against him, that lyes in the weights and ballance yet be­twixt us: For ere ye prove them to be the true Church, ye must first prove your doctrine which they then profes­sed to have the warrant out of the Word of God. So let them have the name of a Church, but of an impure and corrupted Church: of a Church infected by the pest of your doctrine, oppressed by the tyranny of your Pope [Page 62] and Clergy, and consumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatry. So then, it was not the true Church, that is, the called ones by the light of the Gospel (for they are the true Church that spake against him) but only these that were infected and poysoned with your abominations, the which, I grant, did over-spread these Nations, as it was fore-told of her, Rev. 17.2. and 18.3. and 13.14.

And as for these first heads of Religion which he op­pugned: Of your pardons, justification by works, and the sa­crifice of the Mass, their condemnation is set down in the great Register and Testament of Jesus Christ the Lord of life, as shal be proved hereafter. So that he was not the first that oppugned them.

Now as to the last, the Churches from whom he de­parted: he departed not from their body, but from the consumption of your heresie that consumed the body: Not from the Church, but from the corruptions of your Idolatry and abominations in the Church. Not from the Commonwealth of Israel, but from your tyranny and op­pression of the Commonwealth. Not from the city of God, but from the pest of your doctrine that infected the city. And last of all, not from the spiritual communion and society of the Saints of God in these parts, but from the communion with Babel, with Antichrist, with the beast, and with the dragon, and that at the command­ment of the Lord, Flie from idolatry; Go out of Babel, my people. 1. Tim. 6.3.4.5. Matth. 7.15. Acts 19. and 8.9. 1. Cor. 10.14. 2. Cor. 5.14.15.16.17.18. Hosea 4.15. Rev. 18.4.

Now after you have assigned the mutations of our Re­ligion since Christ and his Apostles (as you think) you gather the whole force of it together, and makes the stream of your argument to run as strongly as it can upon our Church and Religion, that the face and form of it [Page 63] might be so washen away, that it be not known to be a true Church. Your reason then is this. The true Church of Christ hath never failed universally for the space of one day, because our Savior hath promised to be with it to the end of the world. But our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes: therefore it is not the true Church of Christ.

As to your proposition, if ye take failing for erring in matters of doctrine, then I deny your proposition; for I hope I have proved sufficiently before, that the Church both may err and hath erred in all ages. But if you take failing to be utterly abolished and rooted out of the face of the earth, then I grant your proposition, that God hath ever a Church, the Church of his elect, with whom he will be to the end of the world. And as to your assump­tion, that our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes, I deny it. Let us see how ye prove it. There was none (say ye) before his dayes, neither visible nor invisible that professed his Religion. But how do ye prove that, for that is still denied to you? For if your Religion hath the Old and New Testament to bear witness to it, and Jesus Christ to be the author of it in every point, (as shal be made manifest by the grace of God) then I say whoso­ever they were from the beginning of the world to this day, visible or invisible, that professed the true Jesus, the true Savior, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherein Religion stands, they are our predecessors, and are of our profession and Religion: so then ye should first (if ye had gone squarely to work) have disproved the heads of our Religion, not to have their warrant from the tables of Christs Testament, ere ye had concluded that we had none of our profession and Religion before Martin Luther. And this is the point you should have begun at, for it is not the Church that makes the Religion, but the Religion that [Page 64] makes the Church. Have we a warrant out of the Word of God for our Religion, then are we the true Church, and the successors of all them who ever from the beginning of the world have professed the same. Have we not this warrant then, I grant you we have no true Church. So there is the point of our controversie, whither our doctrine be from God, out of his Word, or not? But how prove ye that Martin Luther had none of his profession before him?

First, you gathered upon the former things that all the true Churches said against him, and that he departed from them: unto the which I answered before, that these was not the true Church, but only so many of every Nation who was deceived by your doctrine, and whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his ministery, and by the ministery of others whom the Lord did stir up since, so that neither did the true Church who saw the truth, speak against, nor yet did he depart from their societie.

Next, as the Lord had a true Church in Israel in the time of Elias, even these who did not bow their knee to Baal, 1. Kings 19 10.18. who was neither known to Elias the Prophet, nor yet to the persecuters: so did the Lord in the midst of your darkness and Idolatry, reserve to him­self a true Church, even these hundred forty and four thousand which John saw standing with the Lamb on mount Sion. Rev. 14 1. who did not defile themselves with your Idolatry, and did not worship the beast, and receive his mark: which suppose neither ye nor we had known, yet the Lord did reserve them as he promised.

Thirdly, I say Martin Luther had sundry who profes­sed his Religion immediatly before him, who was even known to the world, as I shal prove afterward.

Your next proof is taken from a testimony of one of our own Writers, where ye alledge that it is written of Martin [Page 65] Luther and Zuinglius, that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel. I say ye are not faithful in citing of this testimony for it saith not that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel, but these are the words, That it was an easie thing to them (meaning of your Church) to devise against us (meaning the English Protestants, as ye call them) these cursed speaches, when Mar­tin Luther and Zuinglius first came to the Gospel. The Latin words are cum Martinus Luther & Zuinglius primum acces­sissent ad Evangelium. So it saith not, that they were the first that came to the Gospel, but that it was easie to you to spew out cursed speaches when they came first to the Gospel. So that this word primum, that is, first, is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospel before, but in comparison with that time in the which they themselves knew not the Gospel. It is an adverb of time, and you take it for an adjective noun. But there is a vail over your eyes, that ye can neither see what we or your selves writes. So then to conclud, seeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught, hath the warrant from Christs Testament; and seeing all that ever professed the true Religion that hath Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture, visible or invisible, are his predecessors: Therefore the Religion which Martin Luther taught was the true Religion. And seeing your Religion hath not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament, but is that apostasie and defe­ction, that Antichristian Kingdom that was fore-spoken of in the Scripture: Therefore I conclud, that your Church and Religion which he oppugned, is not the true Church and Religion, but that Antichristian Kingdom. And this for the first part of your objection. Now we come to the second.

M. Gilbert Brown.

As for the other part of the objection which he alledges to be [Page 66] ours; that is, that our Religion was never said against, we say not so: for why all hereticks, and others infected with false doctrine, have ever said against the same, almost at all times. For how soon that Christ our Savior planted the truth, the Devil immediatly sew popple in the same, according to the parable set down in S. Matthew.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

I come now to that part which ye say is untruly alled­ged of you, which moved you to say, that either I knew not your proofs, or if I knew them, that I altered the same that I might the better oppugn my own invention. Of my knowledge of your proofs, I will speak nothing. But let us see whither this be my invention or not, or rather your own proof. You, for the confirmation of the truth of your Church and Religion, brought in this as a proof, that I, nor no Minister in Scotland, was able to assign the true Church that spake against it. Either then ye prove no­thing, or else this must be one of your proofs, because it was never spoken against by a true Church. Now com­pare these words with mine, and see whither I speak igno­rantly or untruly of your proofs. I said, that ye affirmed your Religion to be true, because it was never spoken against. Here our words are one, except this that ye add (be a true Church.) I understand the same; and therefore I gave the instances: first, of Christ and his Apostles: next, of the primitive Church: thirdly, of these that lived in Po­pery, which spake against your Religion: all which I ap­peal your conscience, whither think ye that I judge them a true Church or not? Now in that ye expound it other­wise of hereticks, this is neither my words nor meaning, but your own invention. So that by this it may appear, that either ye have not understood my words alled­ging your objection, or else ye have altered the meaning of the same, that ye might the more easily answer to [Page 67] your own inventions, and gain-say my words.

M. John Welsch his Answer to the objection.

Your Religion of the Roman Church was never insti­stituted, nor preached, neither by Christ, nor by his Apo­stles, as I offer me to prove by their writings: which is the only touchstone whereby all Religion should be and must be tryed.

M. Gilbert Brown.

I think in this M. John takes upon him an impossibility; for it is said that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition, except it be set down in the Word of God, which is of authority: and that I am sure he cannot find, because Papistry by him is not so old as the Word of God is. But in the mean time M. John proves no­thing. He offers very fair, and when ever he proves any thing con­trary to us, with Gods grace he shal get an answer. And note here, that M. John can say nothing to our argument, for to it he gives no answer.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

In your answer to this Section: First, ye think it im­possible, because of the form of it. Next, ye say it is but an offer, and I prove nothing. Thirdly, that I answer no­thing to your argument, nor can answer nothing. Now of all these in order. And first to the form: ye think it im­possible to prove, because it is a negative proposition. Is not this a negative proposition, that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist? You cannot deny it. Again, I ask is this sentence to be found in the whole Scripture? I sup­pose ye will never be able to find it. Then, I say, if it be true that ye say, then ye your self in your book, and this your answer, and Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and San­derus 40. demonstrations, and all the rest of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichrist, takes [Page 68] in hand, in your judgement, an impossibility (and so do you indeed; not because it is a negative proposition, but because he is the Antichrist in very truth.) What would the Pope your head think of you, if he heard you say so? Certainly, I think he would not inrol your name among the defenders of his Catholick faith, whereof this is the foundation.

Secondly, is there not many formal syllogisms that have the proposition or assumption negatives; and will you say they cannot be proved if the matter be true, because they are negatives? What is this but to raise the foundation of Logick and Raison? Logick is not Rhetorick, and Phy­sick is not Logick: both these are negative propositions, and I suppose neither of them are so found in the Scrip­ture; and will you say that it is impossible to prove them, because they are negatives? What you mean by this, I understand not, unless you do [...], strive about words, prove and improve, forbidden by the Apostle, 2. Tim. 2.14.

Thirdly, ye except these negative propositions which are set down in the Word of God, which hath authority, as ye say, I assume. But your Religion in substance is condemned in the Word of God: therefore by your own confession, it may be proved, suppose it be negative. For Nazianzen saith, lib. 5. de Theologia, That these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessary consequence, are of the same truth and authority with these sentences that are ex­presly set down in the Scripture. And whereas ye say Pa­pistrie by me is not so old as the Scripture, I grant that. What then? Therefore it is not 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 [Page 69] 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 h [...]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 [Page 70] 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.

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 [Page 72] conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word, ye would never decline the judica­torie of it: and the declining of the same, is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to your selves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word. But wherefore say I that ye are privy to your selves of this? Ye have made it known to the world by your confession in your own books, that many of the chief points of your Religion controverted between you and us, which ye maintain, have not their original beginning, nor authors in the Scriptures, but in your unwritten tradi­tions. So Petrus a Soto a Papist of great name confessed. He calls all these observations Apostolick traditions, whose beginning, principium, origo & author, cannot be found in the whole Scriptures, in his book against Brentius. And then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their Religion, saying, Of the which sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar, the invocation or prayers to Saints, the prayer for the dead, the supremacie of the Pope of Rome, the consecration of the water in baptism, the whole sacraments of orders, matrimonie, pennance, confirmation and extream un­ction, the merits of works, the necessitie of satisfaction the num­bering over the sins to the Priest. Canisius a great Papist, in his Catechism, cap. 5. de praeceptis Ecclesiae saith, That the wor­shipping of images, the set fastes, and the forty dayes of Lent, and all that are done in the sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and oblations for the dead, & alia, and others, he saith, all these are traditions, because they are such that they cannot be defended by the Scripture. And Lindanus another great defender of your Romish faith and Religion, he reckons out for Tra­ditions, lib 4. Panopliae, cap. 100. & in fine illius libri, tab. 6. that there are seven Sacraments, the consecration of the water and oyl in Baptism; the real presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Sacrament, Communion under one kind, that [Page 73] the Lords Supper is a sacrifice, that it should be kept and ado­red, privat Masses, Confession of sins to the Priests, satisfa­ctions, pardons, Purgatorie, and that Peter was in Rome. Martinus Peresius another Papist, numbers the single life of Priests, among the unwritten traditions. The truth is strong, that hath so far glanced in the consciences of some of you, and hath opened your mouthes to confess and to set it down in writ to the world, that the principal heads of your Religion, yea the very foundation and ground of it, (as the supremacie of your Popes, and the sacrifice of your Mass, and the rest) are unwritten traditions which have not the beginning, nor original, nor authoritie in the Lords written Word; and which cannot be defended by the same, as some of your selves have confessed. So it is no wonder, suppose ye refuse to have the controversies of Religion decided by the same. Let the Reader now judge what he may think of your Religion, that hath not God in his Scripture in the principal and main foundations thereof (as some of your selves have confessed) to be the author and beginner thereof. So what needs any further proof against their Religion? Out of their own mouthes the falshood of their Religion is convicted. This there­fore was the true cause wherefore ye refused to have the cōtroversies of Religion decided by the Scripture. And for this cause also hath your Church heaped up so many false calumnies, accusations, and blasphemies against the same, calling it obscure, ^a darksome, doubtsome ^b not necessary, but only profitable, imperfect, ^c a dead ink, a dumb and dead thing, ^d dumb Judges, ^e a black Gospel, an inky Divinity, ^f a nose of wax that may be drawn every way, ^g contai­ning in them diverse erroneous and damnable opinions, ^h which w [...]re of no greater authority then the fables of Asop, without the approbation of the Church, and by the ⁱ Pope him­self, a fable of Christ. [Page 74] And for this cause also, did they hide it up in an unknown language, forbidding the translating of it in the vulgar language, and the reading of it by the people in their mother tongue, lest they should have perceived the falshood of their Religion, and so it should have lost the credit at their hands. So ye have been wise in your generation: Sed veritas tandem vin­cet: but the truth shal overcome at the last.

You grant it to be a witness, but yet you deal sub­tilly, while as ye put in an exception, if it be not corrup­ted. For if you be of that mind with your Church, and especially with Canus lib. 3. cap. 13. de locis Theologicis. Lindanus lib. 1. cap. 11. de Optimo Genere interpret. and the Colledge of Rhemes, you think the Hebrew and Greek fountains of the Scripture to be corrupted. And therefore it is decreed in the Council of Trent, the old Latin vulgar translation to be authentick, which notwith­standing by the confession of some Papists, as Andradius, Pagnin, and Arias Montanus, it hath missed the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost sometimes. So you not only put the Lord in his Scripture out of the bench, that he should not judge and give out the sentence of doom against your doctrine, but by this exception also ye remove him from the bar, that his testimony in the Hebrew and Greek fountains against you, should have no credit. Let all men judge now what prejudice ye give against your own Re­ligion, when as ye will not admit the Lord in his Word in the Hebrew and Greek fountains, neither Judge nor witness.

But you say, I have no Scripture for me, that the Scrip­ture ought to be Judge. What will ye say then to Jesus Christ in John 12.48. speaking to such as ye are, He that refuseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, it shal judge him in the last day. Unless now ye be a man of perdition, ye must confess that the Word of Jesus Christ, (whereof so much is written as may make a man believe, and by believing to get eternal life) is Judge and judgeth presently, and shal judge also in the latter day. Therefore the Apostle saith, That God shal judge the secrets of mens hearts by Jesus Christ, according to his Go­spel. So the Gospel shal be the rule of that great judge­ment in that great day, and so is it the rule of his worship while we are in the way to that judgement. Suppose you now decline the judicatorie of the same here, because in your conscience ye know, and your own mouthes have confessed it, that ye are not able to justifie your Religion thereby, yet nill ye will ye, ye shal be judged by the same Word in the last day. But whom will ye have to be your Judge? Ye say, the holy Ghost. Bellarmin saith, that we and your Church agrees in that, that the holy Ghost should be supream Judge of all controversies, lib. 3. de verbi interpret, cap. 3. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts own in­fallible voice and breath? So then when the Scripture is Judge, the holy Ghost is Judge, because the Scripture is the immediat voice of the holy Ghost; and the holy Ghost hath given out, and gives out his judgement in all contro­versies of Religion, in, and by the Scripture: and the holy Ghost illuminats the eyes of those that are fore-ordained to life, to see the truth in the Scripture, 2. Tim. 3.16. Rom. 10.17. and works in their heart faith to apprehend it, and believe it, and formes a spiritual judgement in their hearts to try and judge; for the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1. Cor. 2.15. And all this he works by the means of the [Page 76] Scripture: for it is the only means and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts. Thus I reason therefore: He only can be Judge in controversies of Re­ligion, whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same, whose judgement is infallible true, who will not be partial, nor favor parties: and who is able to convict and perswade the conscience of the truth, and make the party to rest in the same. But only the holy Ghost, in & by the Scripture, hath these proprieties & no other: There­fore the holy Ghost, in and by the Scripture, is only Judge.

And whereas you say, that the holy Writ must bear witn ss to it: What will you say then to all the chief points of your Religion almost, which the learned and great defen­ders of your faith, before cited, have confessed, are un­written traditions, which have not their beginning nor autho­rity from the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same? Upon the which I reason thus: That doctrine is not the holie Ghosts, which the Scripture bears not witness to: this ye say your self; for ye say, The Scripture must bear wit­ness to it. But all the chief points almost of your Religion, as the supremacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass, invoca­tion of Saints, the five bastard Sacraments, the worshipping of Images, Transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, Satisfactions, Pardons, Purgatory, Merits of works, &c. have not their authoritie from the Scripture, nor cannot be de­fended by the same, as your own Catholicks (as ye call them) testifies: Therefore your Doctrine and Religion is not the holie Ghosts, and that by your own testimonie. Now trulie M. Gilbert, I fear ye lose your style, if you de­fend your Religion no better then this.

And whereas you say, That the holy Ghost gives out his judgement by the Pastors of the true Church: I grant indeed that the Pastors gives out publick sentence in controver­sies of Religion, because they are the Lords witnesses, mes­sengers, [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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. [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] man have that professes your Religion, which teaches that the certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scrip­ture, and the Scripture it self, that they are of God, but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy? What is it to expone the certainty of the Lords Scripture, and of all Religion comprehended in the same, to the mocking and derision of the wicked, if this be not? Yea, is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Cler­gie to the voice of God himself? For what is the testi­monie of your Church, but the testimonie of men? And is not the Scripture the testimonie and voice of God him­self? Do ye not therefore lift up the authoritie of your Church; that is, your Popes and Clergie, above the au­thoritie of God in his Word, which (as you say) that there is no other warrant of the Divinitie of the Scripture, but only the testimonie of your Church? But God be than­ked in Christ Jesus, who hath delivered us from this blind­ness: for we have other warrants, whereupon the cer­taintie of our salvation, and the Divinitie of the Scripture depends, then by the testimonie of the true Church, much less the testimonie of your Church which is Antichristian, and given over of God to believe lies, and so worthy of no credit. But how prove ye it? Ye say there was no other Church immediatly before Luther, but that of yours, which was worthy of credit. Whereunto I answer: first, that is false: for there was a true Church immediatly before him which ye persecuted, as I have proved else where. Next, I say, your argument will not follow: there was no other Church immediatly before him, &c. Ergo, we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God. For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament, and of the pri­mitive Church in all ages, concerning both the Old and New Testament; which are not only other warrants then [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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.

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 [Page 86] 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, as far in word as ye do in deed, the consciences of the poor people would at the last withdraw themselves from under your tyranny, and would go out of your fellowship for the safety of their souls: so under the cloke and pretence of the Scripture, ye keep them in your communion. And surelie, were not for this cause only, you would regard no more of the testimony of the Scripture, then of the testi­mony of the fables of Esop. For, the chief authority, and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you, as Bellarmin [Page 87] de sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. and Stapleton lib. 1. cont. Whitaker, cap. 10. confesses, is (not the testimony of the Scripture) but the authority of your own Church. So I assure thee, Reader, it is but for a show that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their Religion. Let the matter there­fore be tryed betwixt us, by these examples which ye set down here.

M. Gilbert Brown.

1. We say with Saint Augustin, Epist. 28. ad Hier. that the Sacrament of Baptism is so necessary to infants, that they cannot come to heaven without the same, which is contrary to their nega­tive saith, where they call it the Popes cruel judgement against infants departing without the Sacrament. First, I say, that Christ taught the same doctrine, in these words, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God, John 3.5. We say this is spoken properly of the Sacrament of Bap­tism, because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God, but in Baptism. The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also, When they exspected the patience of God, saith S. Peter, in the days of Noe when the Ark was building, in the which few, that is eight souls, were saved by water: whereunto Baptism being of the like form now saves you also, 1. Pet. 3.20.21. And S. Paul saith, For as many of you as are baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, Galat 3.27. And Ananias said to S. Paul, And now what tarriest thou, rise up and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invocating his name, Acts 22.17. and 2.38. And S. Paul himself in another place, Christ hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost, Tit. 3.5. Rom. 6.3.4. 1. Cor. 6.11. Mark 16.16. I think there is no Christian reader that sees these places, but he must say that Baptism is most necessary to infants, except he will be­lieve rather the exposition of the Ministers, then the Word of God.

Maister John Welsch his Reply.

First, ye begin at the necessity of the Sacrament of Bap­tism, whereof ye affirm that it is so necessary, that infants cannot come to heaven without the same. As for Baptism, [Page 88] we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Jesus, and of the remission of our sins through his blood, and regeneration through his Spirit; so that either the neglect or the contempt of it (be­cause it is the neglect and contempt of the covenant it self, and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant) is damnable. But that it is so absolutly necessary to infants, that without it they cannot come to heaven; to wit, these whom he hath predestinat, it being neither neglected nor contemned, but death preventing the receiving of it: that we allutterly deny as impious, ungodly, and cruel.

For first, I say, there is none that is in the covenant of grace, and who hath God to be their God, and are holy, that can perish. This you cannot deny. But the children of the faithful who are of his secret election, are such be­fore they be baptized. And this I prove, The Lord pro­mised to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Gen. 17.17. And this Peter also testifies, The promise, saith he, is made to you and to your children, Acts 2.39. And the Apostle saith, That the children of the faithful are holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. Therefore the children of the faithful who are of Gods secret election, suppose they die without Bap­tism, do not perish.

Secondlie, if Baptism were absolutly necessary to sal­vation, then the grace of God were bound to the Sacra­ment. This cannot be denyed But your Master of Senten­ces saith, that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacra­ments; and it is impious so to think, that Gods free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument.

Thirdlie, if Circumcision was not absolutly necessary to salvation in the Old Testament, then Baptism is not ab­solutly necessary now, because Circumcision was as strait­ly enjoyned to them, as Baptism is enjoyned to us, and Baptism is suceeded in the room of the same, but Circum­cision [Page 89] is not absolutly necessarie. For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris because he so thought. And David doubts not to say of his child who died the seventh day, and so before he was circumcised, I shal go to him, &c. and so he pronounced that he was saved: and all the time that they were in the wilderness, almost 40 years, Circumci­sion was neglected; which plainly shows, that it was not so absolutly necessary, that salvation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptism is not so absolutly necessary to salvation, as ye suppose: for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament, then it was in the Old.

Fourthlie, we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptized, and seeing the holy Ghost where he is, regenerats to eternal life: Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutly to Baptism

Fifthlie, what a cross and disturbance is this, that your doctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents, whose children have been prevented by death, before they could be offered to be baptized? If they believe your doctrine, how often will this come in their mind, that their children are damned? And seeing the infants themselves are not in the cause that they are not bapti­zed, but their death preventing by Gods providence, or the Parents neglecting or contemning the same, or perse­cution, or one impediment or other hindering, wherefore are ye so cruel to judge them to be damned for that, whereof themselves are causeless?

And last of all, if ye be acquainted in the Histories of the Church of God in the first age, ye will find many that delayed to be baptized, until their latter age; which they would never have done, if they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation, as ye do. And Ambrosius doubts not to say, That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Bap­tism, suppose he wanted Baptism it self: the which he would [Page 90] never have said, if he had thought it absolutly necessary to salvation. And Bernard saith I cannot altogether despair of the salvation of them who wants Baptism, not through contempt, but only through impossibility to get it. And in that same place he saith; So also if our Savior Christ for this cause, when he had said, he that believeth and is baptized, shal be saved: did of purpose in repeating the sentence, omit to say: He that is not baptized, but he that believeth not, shal be damned; for he saw that faith only might suffise to salvation, and without faith no­thing can suffise. Justly then might your Popes sentence and your own be said to be cruel, in our confession. But how prove ye this doctrine of yours to be Christs? Ye cite John 3.2. where our Savior saith, Except a man be born again, &c. which, say ye, is properly meant of the Sacrament of Baptism. Upon the which ye infer the ne­cessity of the same. Whereunto I answer, that interpreta­tion of yours is false: for our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism: and that for these reasons.

First, our Savior speaks here generally of all men, and not of infants only, and therefore he saith, Except a man be born, &c. speaking to Nicodemus who was a man and not an infant, so that if your exposition were true, all men that died without baptism, and not infants only, are excluded from heaven. But that is false: for first the good thief was not baptized with water, and yet our Savior said to him, This night thou shall be with me in paradise. And therefore our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism: for he speaks of that new birth by water and the spirit, without the which none can be saved: but this thief and others, were saved without the Baptism of water: there­fore he speaks not here of it.

Next, our Savior in that place speaks of that new birth by the spirit and water, which is so absolutly necessary to the salvation of all men, that it admits no exception. This [Page 91] cannot be denyed. But Bellarmin makes two exceptions against the absolut necessity of Baptism: one of the mar­tyrdom, the other of true conversion and pennance, whereof, saith he, either of them supplies the want of Bap­tism, lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 6 Therefore our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism.

Thirdly, if we will believe Christ Jesus expounding himself, and Scripture expounding Scripture, I say, by water is not alwayes meant the Sacrament of Baptism; but the purifying grace of Christ, which is called the water of life; so our Savior speaks in John 4.11. and 7.38. And in that same sense water is here added to the spirit, to ex­pound the more sensibly the efficacy of the Spirit in wa­shing and cleansing us, as fire is added to the Spirit in the third of Matthew, 11. verse, He will baptize you with the Spirit and with fire; which is not properly understood of any natural fire, but taken figuratively to expound more sensibly the force and efficacy of the Spirit, in burning up our corruption.

Fourthly, what an absurd thing were this which should follow, if your exposition were true, that for the want of the sprinkling of a little water, the infants should perish that are in the covenant, seeing they were not the cause of the want of it.

Further, I say, that suppose Baptism were here meant, yet there is no such necessitie, as ye suppose; for if martyr­dom and pennance may supplie the want of this water (as Bellarmin confesseth) how much more may the holy Ghost supply the want of the same in infants: and if any thing may supply the want of it, then it is not so absolutly neces­sary that all these infants are damned that wants it.

2. Our Savior speaks as generallie and absolutlie, Un­less you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John 6.53. which ye interpret of the [Page 92] other Sacrament: so that if your interpretation were true, the Eucharist should be as absolutly necessary to the salva­tion of infants, as you say Baptism is. But the first you will not grant. Therefore the other must also be falfe.

3. If here ye would infer a necessity of Baptism, then I say at that same time it began to be necessary: for he saith not, He that shal not be born again, &c. but he that is not born, &c. But Bellarmin saith. lib. de bapt. cap. 5. It was not necessary while Christs death, yet not while the Pen­tecost fifty days after his death; therefore it is not like that any necessity of Baptism is here understood: for it had been good reason that Christs Baptism which was mini­stred while he lived in the flesh, should have been as ne­cessary as the Apostles Baptism which was ministred after­ward But the first was not absolutly necessary, as Bellar­min testifies, therefore neither is the second.

And last of all, lest ye should say all this is our exposi­tion, the Master of the Sentences expounding this place, sent. lib. 4. distinct 4. cap. His autem, who suppose he be of this judgement with you concerning infants departed, yet he saith that this place is to be understood of them who might have been baptized, but contemned the same: therefore this place imputes no absolut necessity of it.

As for the rest of the places of Scripture which ye quote, they serve nothing to prove such an absolut neces­sitie of Baptism, as ye suppose, but only sets down the ef­fects of the same which are sealed up in the hearts of the believers by the holy Ghost, as the inward worker, and Baptism as the outward instrument, as our salvation through the death of Christ. 1. Pet. 3.20.21. Tit. 3.5. Mark 16.16. our union with Christ, Gal. 3.27. and with his death, Rom. 6 3.4. and remission of sins, regeneration, mortification of the old man, Acts 22.17. and 2.38. 1. Cor. 6.11. And therefore Circumcision, in whose room [Page 93] Baptism is succeeded, it is called the seal of righteousness which is by faith, Rom. 4. Take away therefore your exposition from these places, and there will no such absolut necessitie of Baptism follow here, as ye suppose. And therefore Bellarmin the learnedst of your writers, lib. 1. de sacr. bapt. cap. 4. because he knew that these places which ye quote here could not prove such an absolut necessitie of Baptism, nor have no appearance to prove the same, doth not cite one of them for the proof of the necessity, except only the third of John, leaving all the rest. And as for that of Au­gustin, we grant he was of that mind, that Baptism was ne­cessary to infants, but he was also of that judgement, that the Eucharist was necessary unto them; and yet your Ro­man Church, nor you neither, I hope, will subscribe to this error of his. Seeing therefore you dissent from him in the necessity of the one, and that upon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we also dissent from him in the other, having so many grounds and reasons out of the Word of God to the contrary, as hath been said? And this for the first point. Now let the Christian Reader judge upon whose side the Word of God is.

Master Gilbert Brown.

SEcondly, our doctrine is, that a man by the grace of God, may keep the Commands of God, and obey him, which is contrary to their Confession of Faith. Our doctrine in this, is the do­ctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Christ saith, If you will enter into life, keep the commands, Matth. 19.17 And again, If ye love me, keep my commands, John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place, He that loves me not, keeps not my words, &c. Also, [Page 94] Take up my yoke upon you, &c. For my yoke is sweet, and my burden light. Now I believe that no man can deny, but this yoke and bur­den of Christ, is his Commands and Laws. This same doctrine the Apostles teached. S. Paul saith, Phil. 4.13. and 2.13. I can do all things in him that comforts me. And before, For it is God that works in you both to will, and to accomplish according to his good will. And S. John 1.5.3. saith, This is the charity of God, that we keep his Commands, and his Commands are not heavy. Now further then these we read that Noe, Gen. 6.9. Abraham, Gen. 26.5. Job 1.22. were just men, and obeyed God. And S. Luke 1.6. saith, that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife, were both just before God, and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame. There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter, of the which I have noted some, as 3. Kings 14.8.4. and 18.3.4. and 20.3.4. and 23.25. 2. Chron. 15.15. Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries, and I believe that all men will confess, that our doctrine in this, and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people, because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same, their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the con­trary. Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it, and co­vered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark, the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain.

For first, where as ye say, that a man by the grace of God, may keep the Commands, Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes, By the help of the grace of God, Lib. de ju­stific. cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith, That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will, may keep the commands. So that where­as your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Com­mandments in the faithful, and so I think every one almost [Page 95] who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it, and so it may be ye teach them. The rest of your brethren are more plain, in halfing it betwixt free-will, and the grace of God helping free-will, as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause, and the grace of God but a helper to it.

And secondly, whereas ye say, that a man by the grace of God may keep the, Commandments of God, and obey them, Bellarmin saith more plainly, cap. 19 pag. 364 & lib. 2 de justifi. cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them, and they may absolutly fulfil the Law, and keep the whole Law; and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous, and proceeding of a perfect holiness, without all blemish of sin, and that they please God, not for the imputation of Christs righteousness, covering their imperfecti­ons, and forgiving them, but for the excellencie of the work it self. So this is their doctrine, Christian Reader. Now, as he hid his own, so hath he hid ours also. For our Confes­sion of Faith saith, That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect, which word he omitted: as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure, nor degree keep the Commandments of God. Our doctrine therefore is this: That of our own nature we are dead in sin, Eph. 2.1. and of our selves we are neither able to understand, 1. Cor. 2.14. nor think, 2. Cor. 3.7. nor will, nor do those things that are pleasant to God, Phi­lip. 2.13. and therefore we must be born anew again, John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight, John 15.5. and this sanctification of ours is not per­fect while we are in this life, Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect, ever some darkness, some rebellion, some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us, so that we know but in a part, 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part, and our heart sanctified in part, from the which it cometh, that [Page 96] first we do not all the good that we are bound to do, and would do, as the Apostle saith, Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19. 20.21.22.23 24. Next, that all our righteousness, as the Prophet saith, is but as a menstruous cloth, Esai. 64.6. ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man with­in us: and so, that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and their imperfection to be pardoned. By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will, and to do in us, we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God, but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it, as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law: and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mer­cy of God through Jesus Christ, who is made to us of God, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption: by whose mer­cy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins: and so we conclud with David, Psal. 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him, and whose iniquities are covered. This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head.

Now to answer you. Whereas ye say, That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God: if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law, is the renewing grace of God, and that this obedience is sincere and hearty, not to one, but to all the Commandments: not only outward, but inward: sup­pose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires: then, I say, you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church, and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace, and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law, and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point. And so be­coms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith, as ye stile your­self. And would to God your eyes were opened so to see [Page 97] and believe, suppose ye lost that stile for ever. But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience (as Bellarmin calls it:) and if ye understand a perfect obe­dience (as your Church teaches) then first, tell me why did ye not speak as 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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, [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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.

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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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.

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 [Page 108] forsake this place, as not making for them, and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament: or else to confess that their Church hath erred, and through this error, hath been the cause of the damnation of many, in ministring the Sacra­ment but under one kind. And because you say, if our ex­positions vere removed from the Scripture, they would ferve for you: whom therefore will you credit in expo­ning of this place? If our Savior, hear then how he ex­pon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse: I am the bread of life, he that cometh unto me, shal not hunger; and he that believes in me, shal never thirst. So when we believe in Christ, we eat him: and when we come unto him (which is only by faith) we drink him. So Augustine also expones this place, Tractat. 25. in Johan. cap 6. Tract 26 & de doct. Christ. lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe, saith he, and thou hast eaten. Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Pa­dago. cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard su­pra Psal. 90 vers. 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively. And if ye will credit none of these, then I hope, ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors, who affirms, That this place is not meant of the Sacrament, but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith. As Biel, Cusanus, Cai [...]tanus, Hesselius, and Jans [...]nius cited by Bel­larm. lib 1 de Eucharist. cap. 5. And if ye will reply, that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus, two Papists, will answer you; That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers, to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament. So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation; for it speaks not of the Sacrament, but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins, and the purchasing to us of eternal life.

The next place ye quote, is the words of the institu­tion, as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Apostles rehearses [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] the nature of the Sacrament. And last of all, is utterly re­pugnant to the words of the institution. My argument then is this: That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture, which destroyes the articles of our faith, and the fundamental points of our salvation, which hath many absurdities fol­lowing upon it, which overthrowes the nature of the Sa­crament; and last of all, which is contrary to the whole institution, must be false, blasphemous and erroneous. This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words, This is my body, &c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it, is such. Therefore it must be erroneous, &c. My assumption I prove thus.

First, your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testi­mony of the Scripture. Your interpretation is, that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament, but the substance of it is changed. But Matthew. Mark, Luke, and the Apostles all four testifies, That Christ took bread, brake it, and gave it to his disciples: And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration, but not after, the Scripture saith plainly. 1. Cor. 10.16. that it is bread which we break, and bread which is eaten, and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament. The Apo­stle saith, The bread which we break. &c. And as oft as ye eat this bread, &c. Whosoever shal eat this bread, &c. And let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, &c. And our Savior saith, that after he had given the cup, and they had drunken of it, From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you, &c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament, contrary expresly to your interpretation.

Secondly, That your interpretation destroyes the Ar­ticles of our Faith, I prove it thus: If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood [Page 111] of Christ in the Sacrament, as ye expound the words: First, It will follow that either Christ ascerded not into heaven, because he remaineth in the earth in the Sacra­ment: and so one of the Articles of our Belief is falsified: Or else if ye say he ascended once but yet descends con­tinually to be present in the Sacrament, then another Ar­ticle of our Belief is falsified, which saith, That he sitteth at the right hand of God his Father. And as Peter saith, abides in heaven, whom the heavens must contain, while the time of the re­storing of all things come, Act. 3.21. [...], &c.

Secondly, It will follow that Christs bodie is made of the bread: for if the substance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Christ, then it must follow that the bread is become the bodie of Christ, and Christ his bodie is made of that bread, as the wine was made of the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. And so Bellarmin, lib 3. de Eucharist. fol. 399. and Pope John 22. lib. orat. in script. antidotar, animae, and the Master of Sentences, Lombard. lib. 4. distinct. 11. cap. 8 grants, that Christ it made of bread, and the substance of bread and wine it made Christs flesh and bo­die; and so here another article of our faith falsified, which saith, That Christ his bodie was made of the seed of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to us in all things, ex­cept sin.

Thirdlie, It will follow that Christ had two bodies to­gether, one under the form of a man, and another under the form of bread: one speaking, and another dumb: one giving to his disciples to eat, and another the self same thing which was given to be eaten: yea, it shal follow, if your exposition be true, in saying, That Christs body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacra­ment, not only that there are two Christs, one in heaven at the right hand of his Father visible, glorious and in one [Page 112] place: and another Christ in the earth invisible, circum­scribed by no place: but also that there are as many Chri s as there are Sacraments in the earth, yea, as many Christs as there are bits of bread in every Sacrament, and so the foundation of our salvation is overturned.

Fourthly. It will follow that the body and blood of Christ are separat, as the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is turned in them is separated.

Fifthly, It will follow that his body is separat from his soul, and so a dead bodie, because the bread and wine are not changed in his soul, but only in his body.

Sixthly, It will follow that the bread in the first Supper being changed in the body of Christ, that the substance of the bread hath suffered for us, died for us, and risen again for us: and hath a part of our redemption, which is blas­phemous to think.

Seventhly, It will follow that Christ eated his own body, and drank his own blood, which is absurd: for Chrysostom, hom. 83. in Mar. and your Canon Law, de consecr. dist 2. Canon. Nec Moses, testifies, that he ate the same thing which he gave to his Disciples. And also he saith himself, From hence forth will I not drink with you more of the fruit of this vine, &c. So he drank of that which they drank of. And last of all, it will follow, that the Mass-Priest is the crea­tor of his Creator: and so their Breviaries and Lombardus, and Bellarmin grants. In their Breviaries the Priest saith, Qui creavit me sine me, creatur mediante me: that is, He that created me without me, is created by my moyen. Lombar­dus saith, distinct. 12. lib. 4. cap. 5. The Priests are said to make the body and blood of Christ, because by their ministry the sub­stance of the bread is made his flesh. And Bellarmin saith, lib. 3. de Eucharist cap 24 Sacerdotes conficiunt corpus Christi ex pane, That the Priests makes Christ his body of bread. Now if there be no blasphemous absurdities, I know not [Page 113] what is blasphemy. Now choose ye whither ye will sub­scribe to all these absurdities, which you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy, is not able to eschew, if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forsake this interpretation of yours, as false, erroneous, and con­trary both to the plain Scriptures of God, and the articles of our Faith, and the grounds of our salvation.

As to the third: Your interpretation destroys the na­ture of all Sacraments, and makes the Supper of the Lord no Sacrament; for every Sacrament consists of an out­ward and visible sign, and of a spiritual thing signified by that sign, the which sign hath a resemblance with the thing signified. The sign is ever earthly, and the thing signified is heavenly, as shal appear by all the rest of the Sacraments, both of the Old and New Testament. In Paradise, Gen. 2.9. Rev. 2.7. there was a very tree for the sign, and Christ the thing signified by it. In circumcision there was a cut­ting of the skin, Gen. 17.9.20. Rom 4 11. Deut. 30.6. Col. 2.11. and the cutting off of sin. In the Passover there was a Lamb and Christ, Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 5.7.8. John 19.36. And in the Sabath there was a day of rest, and eternal rest, Heb. 4.1 3.4.5. &c. In the Sanctuary there was an holy Place, and heaven, Heb. 9 24. In the wilderness there was a Rock yeelding water, and Christ yeelding his blood, 1. Cor. 10 4. In the apparition there was a dove, and the holy Ghost, John 1.32. In the Manna there was bread, and Christ, 1. Cor. 10.3. In Baptism there was very water which washeth us, and Christs blood washing our sins, Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21. Therefore in the Sacrament of the Supper must be bread and wine feeding this natu­ral life, and resembling our communion one with another, and Christs flesh & blood feeding our spiritual life, 1. Cor. 10.16. 17. otherwise this Sacrament is against the nature of all other Sacraments, which is absurd to think, and should be [Page 114] no Sacrament at all, as Augustin saith, Epist. 23. If the Sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine destroys both the sign, and the resemblance which they should have with the things signified in the Supper; for there is no outward sign there which is an earthly substance, but only accidents of color, and quantity, if your doctrine be true; and there is nothing there to resemble either our spiritual nowrishment by the flesh and blood of Christ, or yet our spiritual fellow­ship one with another: unless you will say, that accidents feeds, and nowrishes: the which if you will say, then to say no more to it but this. If you and your common Cler­gy who is so bold and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantiation of yours against the truth of God, were fed with no better substance then accidents; then, I say, you would have fainted long since in the defence of it. Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament, and makes it unlike all other Sacraments, therefore it must be false and erroneous.

As to the fourth, that it is against the whole institution and use thereof, I prove it thus. First, I will ask you, what was it which Christ took in his hand? If you say his flesh, then the text will say the contrary, And Jesus took bread, in all the three Evangelists, and the Apostle Paul. So it was bread which he took, after he did take it, he blessed it: What did he bless, but the bread which he had ta­ken? so it is yet bread. After he blessed it, he brake it. What did he break? If you say, it was his flesh or body, then the Scripture will say the contrary: There was not a bone of him broken, Exod. 12. John 19. And the Apostle saith, It is bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10. So it is bread which is broken. Then yet it is bread. After he brake it, he gave it. What gave he but the thing which he brake? [Page 115] And what brake he but bread? 1. Cor. 10.17. and 11.26. 27.28. So it is bread which he gave. After he had given it, they received it, and did eat it. But what did they eat, but that which he gave? And therefore the Apostle saith four times, It is bread which is eaten, and whereof we are partakers, and that after the consecration: For it is bro­ken, given, and received, and eaten, after the consecra­tion. And when they did eat it, he said, This is my body. What did he call his body, but that which they did eat, and that was bread? So when then should this change be, see­ing it is bread all the time while he took it, blessed it, and gave it, and they did eat? For, I suppose, ye will not say, it is changed after it is broken, and given, and in eating.

Secondly, I will ask you, what are the words whereby this monstrous change is made, as ye suppose, of the sub­stance of the bread in Christs body? If this change be made by any word spoken in the institution of this Sacra­ment, then, I say, it must either be by this word, And he blessed it; or by these words, This is my body, &c. But not by the first: for after he blessed it, he called it bread. And the Apostle saith, it is bread which we break, therefore it remains bread after the blessing. Not by the other words: for if they be not spoken to the bread and wine, they cannot change their nature. But Mark saith plainly, they were spoken to the Disciples, And he said unto them, This is my blood, Mark 14.24. Therefore they changed not their nature. And Durand a Papist, saith, in his Rationals, That this change is made by the blessing. Therefore not by these words which were pronounced after the blessing. And these words cannot work a change: For they are not words importing an operation, as these are, Let light be, Let the earth bring forth fruit, Gen. 1. Come out, Lazarus John. 12. and such like: but only signifying the things themselves, as these are, Thou art my well-beloved Son. So [Page 116] if these words should have wrought any change, they would not have been, This is my body, &c. but, let this be my body: Therefore there is no such change at all here, as ye imagine.

Thirdly, it should follow that the cup should also be changed in his blood, and in the New Testament, because Christ calls the cup his blood and New Testament, as he calls the bread his body. But this you will not say. Where­fore then are you so absurd as to say the other?

Fourthly, I will ask you whither do ye receive in the Sacrament that body which is mortal, or that body which is glorified? For one of them you must receive, either Christs body as it was mortal, or his body as it is now glo­rified. If ye say a mortal body; then I say, Christ hath not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament, for it is glorified: therefore ye cannot receive it. If ye say an im­mortal and glorified body; then I say, ye must seek another warrant then this text of Matthew, Mark and Luke. For at that time his body was not glorified. For the Sacrament was instituted before his death, and he was not glorified until after his resurrection: And if ye receive that same body which the Apostles then received; then ye receive not a glorified body. What a body is this then which ye receive, neither mortal nor glorified?

Fifthly, the text saith, they who receives unworthily, re­ceives their own damnation. But if Christs flesh and blood were there present, as ye say, then all who received it should receive their salvation, because our Savior saith, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath life everlasting, John 6 54. Now I conclud, seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture, and your doctrine of Transub­stantiation which ye gather thereupon; first, is plainly gain-said by the express testimonies of the Scripture; next, over­throws all the main foundations of our salvation, and [Page 117] articles of our Faith: thirdly, destroys the nature of a Sa­crament, and maketh it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament, either of the Old or New Testament: and last of all, is contrary to the whole institution thereof, as I hope I have sufficiently proved: therefore of necessi­ty it must be false and erroneous

As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion: and the bread which we break, is it not, &c. I answer: This Sacrament of bread and wine, because it not only represents and seals up to us our communion with Christ, but also by it, as by a most effectual instrument, the holy Ghost increases and nowri­shes this communion, both with him, and among our selves: therefore it is called the communion of his bo­dy and blood But this most clearly proves, that there is no such change here, as ye suppose: for the Apostle saith plainly, The bread which we break; and this breaking, you say, is after the consecration: therefore after the conse­cration true bread remains in the Sacrament, and so there is no transubstantiation in the same. But because you say, the substance of the bread and wine is not there, I pray you, tell me whither are they gone? Whither are they turned to nothing, or are they changed in Christs body? If you say, they are turned to nothing: First, I say, this were a strange kind of reasoning: This is my body; there­fore the substance of the bread is turned to nothing. Next, the Apostle should not speak truly, to call it bread which is broken, and bread which is eaten, &c if it were turned to no­thing. Thirdly, then this should not be called Transub­stantiation, or changing of one substance into another: but an annihilation of one substance, that is, a turning of it to nothing, and a bringing in of another substance in the room of it. And fourthly, Thomas of Aquin, your great defender of this doctrine, is against this, lib. 4 dist. 8. But [Page 118] if you say, they are turned in Christs body, which the word Transubstantiation imports; then, I say, as oft as the Sa­crament hath been ministrated, as oft hath there been some quantitie of substance added to his body: and it shal still grow in greatness and quantitie, as long as it shal be ministred: but this is monstrous to think. And to end this, if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament, then let me ask you whose are the whiteness, and redness, and roundness that we see? What means this taste in our mouthes of bread and wine, if there be no sub­stance of them there? May we not say to you, as Christ said to Thomas, who doubted of his resurrection, Put thy fin­ger here, behold my hands; put thy hand in my side, and be not incredulous, but believe? So, may not we say to you, who doubteth whither the substance of bread and wine be here remaining yet, touch them, taste them, look on them, and feel them, and be not incredulous, but believe? For behold, there would not be such a color, such a taste and smel, and there were not substance of bread and wine here. And I pray you, tell me what is this that rots then, and growes in worms in the bread, and souers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their substance remaineth not, will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes and souers? What is this but to make him mortal, yea to crucifie him again? And if you will not say that, then ei­ther must you confess that their substance remaines and is not changed, or else Christs flesh and blood is transubstan­tiated in these substances which rots and souers, or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances: and so ye shal not have one, but mo changes in your Sa­crament. Yea, if their substance be gone, and nothing but their accidents remaining, then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them; as Fasciculus temp. Platina, Blond, testifieth, accidents [Page 119] and Christs body could neither poison them, nor be ca­pable of poison: therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament. So we see the texts ye brought with you, is against you, as the sword that Goliah brought to slay David, cutted off his own head. But yet you will say, If the bread be not his bo­dy, why then did he call it his body? this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine; & answer this, and the plea is won. Unto this then I answer, that in that same sense he said, This is my body: In the which he said afterward, which is broken for you, 1. Cor. 11.24. Luke 21. [...] which is given in the present time. But there can be no sense of these words, but this; the bread was broken, and signi­fied that his body should be broken with the sorrows of death: for his body was not broken before he suffered: and the Apostle saith, it is bread which is broken: so then as the breaking of the bread signified the breaking of his bo­dy, so the bread signified his body: and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken, so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so cal­led it For the resemblance and likeness thereof between the bread and his body, the bread it is called his body, &c. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture, to give the name of the things signified to the sign, as shal be seen af­terward.

M. Gilbert Brown.

Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotencie of Christ, that he cannot be in two places at once, and with their figurs, signs, similituds, symbols, and spiri­tual eating of a natural body, with many the like; which are the inventions of their own brains, not contained in the written Word. And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and not theirs?

M. John Welsch his Reply.

Ye prevent our answers here, and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ, that he cannot be in two places at once. Where­unto I answer, that we shal bring no reason, neither natu­ral nor supernatural, against the omnipotency of Christ, for we acknowledge it, and adores it. But we say to you, pretend not his omnipotency for your monstrous imagi­nations, which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture. For first, we say this argument of yours will not follow: Christ is able to make his body to be in two places, both at once, in heaven, and in the Sacrament: therefore he makes it to be so. For you must first prove he will do so: for your self, M. Gilbert, can do many things which you do not, because you will not; so from can to will, it follows not. And if you say, that Christ hath willed so, because he said, This is my body: I have answered to it before, refute you it, and all your Roman Clergy, if you can. For you might as well say, Christ willed the cup wherein the wine was, to be changed in his blood and New Testament, and himself to be changed in a vine-tree, and a door, and a rock to be changed in him: because so hath he and his Apostles spoken, John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and these speaches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change here. Next, I say, your own School-men and great defenders of Transubstantiation, Thomas of Aquin, and others, say, lib. 1 cap. 84. & lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is against the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its self; for that is rather to be called a weakness then a power. And the Scripture affirms, that God cannot lie, nor deny himself, nor be tempted, and that yea and nay it not in Christ, Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2. Cor. 1. but to Christs body, both to be a true body, [Page 121] like to us in all things (to wit essential) except sin, as the Scrip­ture saith, and to be in mo places at once, which makes him to have not a true body like ours. For Augustin saith, ad Dardanum (speaking of Christs glorified body) If it be a true body, it is then in a certain place: and take away from bodies their quantities, they are no more true bodies) implyes a contradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Christs body both to be visible and invisible at one time: to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and breadth, and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament, is a manifest contradiction, is yea and nay in Christ: therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine, the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine, which is yea and nay, and implyes a manifest contradiction. So this in very truth, is the invention of your own brain, which is alledged for your Transubstantiation, and wants the war­rant, yea is gain-said both by the written Word, and your own School-men. Next, ye would have us to hold away our figurs, symbols, and similituds: I answer: our own figurs we shal hold away: but these figurs, symbols, and signs, wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us, we must and will acknowledge So then, obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture, then you who forbids us to acknowledge them: and what a mon­strous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture, if you would admit no figures in them, but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken? The Scripture ascribes to God eyes. ears, foot, hands, and a face: and the Scripture calls Christ a door, a vine. Now if you will admit no figurs here, but will have all these pla­ces exponed literally, as you will have us to do in the Sa­crament, then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae, who because [Page 122] they saw the Scripture speak so of God, they taking it lite­rally and exponing it without figurs, as you would have us to expone the Sacrament, they thought that God was bodilie: yea, you must make another monstrous Transub­stantiation of Christ in a door, and vine-tree, for so he calls himself. And to come to the Sacraments themselves, how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacra­ments, both of the Old and New Testament, if you will remove figurs and signs from them, and expone them li­terally, as you would have us to do in this Sacrament. Circumcision is called the covenant, Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant: the Lamb in the Passover, is called the Passover of the Lord, Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover: the Rock in the wilderness, is called Christ, 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ: the Ark is called the Lord, Psal. 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord: the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest: and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration. Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figu­ratively taken, and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood? What reason can there be of this diversity? But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figura­tively: but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally. But first, what then will you say to this speach, This is my body which is broken for you; and this, The cup is the New Testament in my blood, and the cup is my blood; and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? and the cup which we bless, is it not the commu­nion of the blood of Christ? 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches, and to be understood figuratively: otherwise Christ should have been broken [Page 123] in the Sacrament, which is both contrary to the Scripture, and also absurd. For then he should have suffered twise; once in the Sacrament, and once upon the cross: and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacra­ment, but many: as of the cup in the blood of Christ, and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ: and so you should not only have one tran­substantiation, but many. And how, I pray you, can Sa­craments which are but figurs, signs and symbols, be un­derstood but figuratively? And how can duo diversa indi­vidua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione, and be spo­ken of another, without a figure, as it is here. This bread is my body, &c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy, understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie? What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament, which is but a fi­gure and sign, seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God, and especiallie in Sacraments, as also in this Sacrament? So nil ye will ye, signs and symbols, tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament. Last of all, ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten. Would you be so absurd and blas­phemous, as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten? For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed, digested, turned over in our substance, and casten out in the draught, and so be mortal and suffer again; Apage hanc blasphemiam.

Let me ask you, whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul, or the food of the bodie? If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie; then, I say, it must be na­turally eaten; but you are blaspemous in so thinking. But if you say, it is the food of the soul, as it is indeed, and as our Savior saith, John 6.35. then it cannot be eaten natu­rally: For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiri­tually, so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally, [Page 124] but spiritually by faith. And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith, all your contention would take an end. But this is the stone which ye stumble at, and there­fore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body, as though it could be eaten other­wise then spiritually by faith Will you neither under­stand the Scriptures, John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers, August tract. 26. in Joh. 6 & lib 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 16, & Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius, Bernardus supra citat. nor your own Church. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law, de consecrat. dist. 1. cap. 5. who all ac­knowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith? What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all, that ye cannot understand it? As Christ dwells in us, and we in him, so do we eat him, and drink him. But the Apostle saith, he dwells in us by faith, Ephes. 3. therefore we eat him, and drink him by faith. And seeing your Church grants, that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good, and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life, as our Savior saith, John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ? And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits, who can under­stand no eating, but a corporal eating of him? And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church, which acknowledges a spiritual ea­ting of Christ by faith, both by the Word and by the Sa­crament also, de consecr dist. 2. cap. Ut quid. I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the inven­tion of mans brain, and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God.

M. Gilbert Brown.

And further, I say, of these words, This is my body which shal be de­livered for you, 1. Cor. 11.24. which is a true proposition, and there­fore this must follow: But there was no body delivered for us, but the natural body of Christ: therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten. Then if it were his natural body, it was not natural bread. As Saint Ambrose expounds the same, Let us prove, saith he, this not to be that that nature formed, but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate, and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature: for nature it self is chan­ged by blessing. He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis.

Maister John Welsch his Reply.

First, I answer, the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered, but [...], which is broken, and in the present time, and so in Luke [...], which is given; so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture, both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies. Upon the which I reason thus, this proposition is true, This is my body which is broken for you: so the Apostle saith; but Christs body was not broken then really, for not a bone of him was broken at all, as the Scripture testifies, Exod 12. and the Scripture saith, John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once, so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here: so as Christs body was not broken then really, that is, suffered; but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread, so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten, but only signified. Secondly, I say, it is true, that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us: but yet it will not follow upon this, that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally: for his natural body was [Page 126] 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; [Page 127] 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 [Page 128] truly the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improper­ly. I omit the rest which is exceeding many, and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith, you will say with the rest of your Clergie, that the Pope cannot err. Therefore a Pope, Gelasius by name, saith, de duabus natura in Christo: Neither the substance of the bread, nor nature of the wine, ceaseth to be any more then they were before; but re­main in their own substance. And he calls them there, An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ. Now tell me, Master Gilbert, do not these speak as plain as we? Will you avow your transubstantia­tion, which they so flatly deny. And as our Savior saith, A Kingdom divided against it self, cannot stand; so the manifold divi­sions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation, is a very sure argument of the falling, both of you and your do­ctrine. Some of you expounds this word, hoc, this Bonaventure, Gerson contra Florentiū, lib. 4. of the bread. As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body: Innocent 3 de offic. miss. pag. 3 object. 14 & Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it, an indi­viduum vagum: Durandus ra­tional. 4 some saith, it signifieth nothing: Holcot in 4. sent. quaest. 1, and some saith, it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo, and terminus ad quem.

Secondly, in the exposition of the word est, is: some for, it is: some for, it is chan­ged. Thirdly, some Thomas. saith, the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing: some saith The gloss of Gratian, and the extravag, de cō ­secr. dist. 2 cap. Species &c fir­mit extr de summa Trinitate. it passes in the body of Christ. Fourthly, some saith C. non oportet, & ibi gloss. de conse­crat. dist. 2. &c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos. the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing: some saith it is [Page 129] changed in the blood with the wine: some saith it is Thomas 3974 art. 8. turned in Christs vital humors: some saith, it is turned in the wine, and after in the blood: some saith Durand. lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it. Fifthly, some saith, Thomas Epist. 59. & 3. quaest. 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament, comes of the quantitie: other some saith Durand. lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the sub­stance. Sixthly, some saith, Christ Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. con­secrated by the word, he blessed: some by the M. Gilbert. words, This is my body, and the blessing together: some Gloss. in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons. dist. 2. will have the conse­cration to be made in heaven: and some frankly Scotus in re­por. dist. 8. qu. 2. confesses, That they neither know the words, nor the number of them, whereby this consecration is made. And to omit six hundred the like, I will only touch these few: Gloss. in l. tribus. some saith, The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth: Cajetan. tom. 2. cap. 2. & 3. & 5. some saith, That it feeds: Gloss. ibidem. some saith, As soon as it is pressed with the teeth, the body of Christ is caught up to heaven. Durand. ra­tional. lib. 4. But other some faith, It passeth from the teeth to the heart, and then the bodily presence ceases: Bonavent. 4. dist. 13. art. 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack, &c. but not to the mind. And yet he saith, He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not, for the variety of opinions: and in so great variety, he saith, what to hold, is hard to judge. And suppose he holds it, That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse, or is casten out into the draught; because, saith he, the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it, and infidels and hereticks would jest at it, and laugh us to scorn. Yet sundry others holds, as Alexander de Hales, part, quaest. 45. & Thomas Aquin, parte 3. qu. 80. art. 3. & [Page 130] Antonius Archiepisc. part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly, but also Christs body may be vomited up or pur­ged out in the draught, and that brute beasts may eat Christs body, & it may go into the belly of dogs and swine. O filthy mouthes, & unclean spirits! what heretick, what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal; yea, so barbarous and brutish, as ye are? So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits, who thought that saying hard: but also like the barbarous Canibals, who eat the flesh of man. O blind leaders of the blind, shal myce, dogs and swine, eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ? Shal they then have eternal life? I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine, and their hearts will tremble at it. These absurdities, together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same, hath made some of your great pillars to say, as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon, That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel, that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ. And others, as Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati. That transubstantiation it but a tradition, which hath not the author of it in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same. And others, as Tonstal de Sacramentis, That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture, as they were before the Council of Lateran, then to bring in such a question.

I have been longsome in this, but yet it so behoved me, because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass, and their other idolatries and abominations. So then, to conclud this, seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ, nor his Apo­stles, nor ancient Fathers, nor your own Canon Law and Popes, as they have been cited: And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same, therefore it is to be rejected as heretical, damnable and [Page 131] blasphemous, by all Christians. And this for the fourth point of your doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sa­crifice, which we call the blessed Mass, that our Savior did at his latter Supper, and was ^(a) prefigured by the Law of Moses, and fore-spoken by the ^(b) Prophets. For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests, according to the order of Genes. 14.18. Psal. 109.4. Heb. 7.3.17. Melchisedec in this action, & according to the order of ^(d) Aaron upon the Cross, took ^(e) bread and wine, and having given ^(f) thanks to his Father of heaven, ^(g) blessed the same; by the which ^(h) blessing, and heavenly words, he made them his body and blood, as I said before, and Luke 22.29. gave, or offered himself then for them, that is, for his. And last of all, gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten, which we call to ^(k) communicat. And when he had done the same, he commanded his Apostles, and by them the lawful Pa­stors of the Church till the worlds end, to do the same, for the Luke 22.19. remembrance of him. And seeing that our Priests do the same, as our Savior did, how can M. John say, that our Religion, in this, was not instituted by Christ?

Master John Welsch his Reply.

I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass: which suppose ye call blessed, yet is it most abominable idolatry, as by the grace of God, shal be made manifest. And first concerning the word it self MASS, you are of such variety of opinions among [Page 132] your, selves concerning it, that As Doctor Bellarmin in his answer to Duplessis Mor­nay de Eucharist. lib. 11. cap. 1. & Genebrard. in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH, Deut. 16.10. that properly signifieth sufficiency, but Bellarmin re­futes this, lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 1. some of you saith, it is taken from the Hebrew; some Bulinger ibidem from [...], that signifies a secret sanctificatiō, from the which comes mystery. from the Greek, some As Bellarmin ibidem, and sundry others from mitto, missio, or dimissio. from the Latin: and Some because the sacrifice and prayers is sent to God in the same, as Hugo de S. Vi­ctor de sacram. lib. 2. part. 8. cap. ult. some saith, it is called the Mass for one cause, and Some because an angel, as they say, is sent unto the same; as Lombard. in 4. sent. dist. 13. & Thomas part. 3. quaest. 83. And some because the people is dismissed, and sent forth, as Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 1. some for another. I will only speak this of it, that it is usually taken by the ancient Writers, for the dismission, or skailing, as we call it, of the Church, after the publick service was done to God, as Bellarmin grants, in the first acception of this word Mass. And therefore in the end of your Mass, the Dea­con crys, Ite missa est; that is, Go your way, the Congregation is dis­missed. But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense, for the skailing of the Church, or dismis­sion of the people, after the ser­vice of preaching, prayer, and so forth: but for that abominable sacrifice of theirs, wherein, as they suppone, they offer up Christ his very body and blood in a sa­crifice for the quick and the dead, as M. Gilbert doth here. And for this cause they call this sacrifice, the Mass, that is; first, sent from the Father to us, that Christ his body and blood might be with us: next, sent from us to the Father, that he may interceed, and may be for us with the Father, as Du­randus lib. 4. ration. divin. testifieth. But how can he be sent from them to heaven, seeing he descends in the mouth, [Page 133] stomack and belly of the Priest, for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest, & to be sent up to heavē, are things con­trary. So by this stile of the Mass, as they take it, it is plain, that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Mass, which some of them grants also. Turrian. 1 tract. cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith, That he sits at the right hand of h [...]s Father, whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored, Acts 3.21. or else their Mass-Priests, dust and ashes, are the creators of their Creator, which is a blasphemy.

Thus much now for the name of the Mass, which all Christians should abhor, according to that of David, That he would not take the name of false Gods in his mouth, Psal. 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith, which is not found in the Scripture, neither in proper terms, nor yet in substance, and by necessary con­sequence out of the same, should be rejected by the Church of God, as a profane and a bastard word. But the Mass is such: For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Ar­ticle of our Faith: and yet it is neither found in proper termes, nor in substance, nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture: Therefore it should be rejected, as profane and idolatrous, by the Church of God.

This for the name: Now to the matter. This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us, concerning your sacrifice of the Mass: which, as ye account it most heavenly, so we account it most abominable, as that which injures the Son of God, which derogats from his death and passion, which is injurious to his everlasting Priest­hood, which is idolatrous, vain, needless, and fruitless; which hinders and overthrows the true service of God: all which shal be made plain of it, by Gods grace.

The matter of our controversie therefore is: Whither Jesus Christ, God and man, his body and blood be per­sonally [Page 134] and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass? as ye call it. And whither this your sacrifice be a propiciatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead? This your Church affirms and holds, and this we deny. Now let us see your reasons first, and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary.

As to yours. First, ye say it way prefigured by the Law of Moses: Next, prophesied of by the Prophets. And thirdly, done and instituted by Christ our Savior, and com­manded by him to be done to the end of the world.

As to the first, This sacrifice was prefigured by the sa­crifices of the Old Testament, for the which purpose ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20. Unto the which I answer, That the sacrifices of the Old Testament were figures and sha­dows of that great and bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus, ones offered up, upon the cross, never to be offered up again, as the Apostle saith, Heb. 9.25.26.27.28. and of our spiri­tual sacrifices, and service to God, whereof the Apostle speaks in these places here cited, Rom. 12.1. Heb. 13.15.16. The which also were fulfilled in that one and only sacri­fice of himself upon the cross, for the sins of the world; and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves, and of the calves of out lips continually. But that these were figures of your abominable sacrifice in the Mass, there is not a syl­lable in the whole Scripture to prove the same: For that which was prefigured in the Old Testament, was, and is fulfilled in the New Testament. But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass: therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Te­stament. For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament, it behoved either to be one with the spiri­tual sacrifice of all Christians, or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross: for only these two sorts of [Page 135] sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament, & recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament: but your sacrifice of the Mass, is one with neither of them: for it is not one with the first sort, for they are spiritual, & you will have it external: neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross, for there he died, & there he shed his blood, and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath, and in­dignation for our sins: and there he satisfied the justice of God, and merited an everlasting redemption to us. But in your sacrifice of the Mass, your selves grants, that nei­ther is he crucified, nor is his blood shed, nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins, nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same, nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass, Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa, cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. For two several actions which have two different forms, and are done in divers times and places, for divers ends, cannot be one only, and the self same sacrifice: for it is the form that gives a thing to be, and distinguishes it from all other things. But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross, and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms, are done in divers places and times, and for diverse ends, therefore they cannot be both one. Further, if they were both one, then it should follow, that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor, so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor. But Bellarmin saith, lib. 2. de missa, cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass, is but of a finit valor, and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor. Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice: Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass, seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacri­fices, is not prefigured in the Old Testament.

As for the second, that it was fore-told by the Pro­phets: It is as true as the former: for all the sacrifices which [Page 136] were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament, are fulfilled in the New Testament. But the New Testament, as hath been said, makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices, Christs on the cross, and our spiritual sacri­fices: and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass: There­fore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testa­ment. As for these Scriptures which ye quote, Malac. 1.10.11.12. Isai. 19.19.21. and 56.7. they speak of the spi­ritual worship of God, and of the spiritual sacrifices, which the Gentils being called, should offer up unto God, under the Gospel, whereof mention is made in these places, Heb. 13.15.16. 1. Pet. 2.5. Rom. 12.1. and 15.16. For either they speak properly and literally, or else figuratively. But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices, then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes, and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament. Or, if you will say, they speak figura­tively; then, I say, they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass, which you will have to be a sacrifice, not figuratively, but properly. So howsoever ye expone them, they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass. Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first (which ye will never be able to do) or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament, will never prove it, seeing there is no­thing either prefigured, or fore-told in the Old Testament, but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled. Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament. You say, that Christ the chief Priest (according to the order of Melchisedeck in this acti­on, and according to the order of Aaron) upon the cross instituted it, Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world. Be­fore I come to the institution, there are two things to be [Page 137] examined, which you have written here. The first, that you say, that Christ, according to the order of Aaron, did offer up himself upon the cross. Unto the which I answer: first, that you gain-say here, two great Papists, Alanus and Bellarmin, whereof the one saith, that Christ never sacrifi­ced Aaronicè, that is, according to the order of Aaron, Alanus de Eucharist. lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith, that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross, was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck, nor yet according to the order of Aaron, Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it, that it is not according to the order of Aaron, but also he affirmes, that this should be certain to all the faithful. So, if you be of the faithful, and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed, this should also have been certain to you, and so you should not have gain-said it. You had need to beware of this, M. Gilbert, to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith; for by this doing, ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another, and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head, that ye are not a de­fender of the Catholick faith, seeing you so openly contra­dict the maisters and defenders thereof. Mark this, Reader, what concord these men have among themselves, some saying one thing, some another. Next, I say, if you refer this also to his person, that as this action was according to Aaron, so himself was a Priest according to his order, in his sacrifice. Then I say, you both gain-say the plain Scrip­tures of God. Heb. 5.6.10. and 7.11. and also the learnedst of your Church, Bellar. lib. 1. de missa, cap. 6. For, suppose it be true, that this sacrifice of his upon the cross, did ac­complish all the sacrifices of Aaron, and put an end unto them, according as he said, It is finished: Yet he offered up this sacrifice, not as he was a Priest according to Aaron, [Page 138] (for he was not a Priest according to his order at all) but as he was a Priest, according to the order of Melchisedeck: and therefore the Scripture joyns both together, Heb. 5.6.7.10. to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross, as he was Priest, not according to Aaron, but according to Melchisedeck.

The second thing is, that you say, Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action, which you mean the Mass, did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine. It is true indeed, that Christ, according to the order of Melchisedeck, is an high-Priest, and not accor­ding to the order of Aaron: but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture, that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine, in an external sacrifice. For the Scripture saith only, he brought it forth. For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi, as in sundry places of Scrip­ture, Ezech. 22. Psal. 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast, Amena, which is, to bring forth: and the Greek [...]; and so Cyprian. Epist. ad Caecil. & Chrysost hom. 35. in cap. 14. Genes. & Joseph. lib. 1. cap. 19. & Ambros. upon the 7. cap. Epist. ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham, &c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation; but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors, saith he, which is not to sacrifice. And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with, after the slaughter of these Kings. And the Apostle, Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ, he doth not so much as give any inkling of this: For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ. First, that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest, so was Christ. Next, as Melchisedeck was without father and mother, beginning and ending, the Scripture not mentioning of it, so was Christ. Thirdly, [Page 139] as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron, and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood, so was Christs. But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine, wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass, as ye suppose. So you find out here, that which the Spirit of God found not out: and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle. But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written, and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already. And suppose it were granted to you (which ye are never able to prove) that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine, yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass, wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away, only the formes remaining. For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sa­crifice of Melchisedeck, then the substance of bread and wine should remain, as it did in the sacrifice of Melchise­deck, and the bread and wine should be offered up, and not Christs body and blood, as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice. So then, either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass, or else true bread and wine remains in the Sa­crament, and not Christ his body and blood which is offe­red up. Choose you then, whither you will deny your sa­crifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck, or else will you let go your real presence, your transubstan­tiation, and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass, for one you must do.

Thirdly, if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Sup­per, as was prefigured by Melchisedeck, which you af­firm here, then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that fi­gure perfectly; and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again, and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests, whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again.

Fourthly, I would ask you, whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Mel­chisedeck in his last Supper, one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross, or not? If it be one, then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross, and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same: so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death, and shedding of his blood, and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us, and so two absurdities will follow. The one, that Christ not only should twise have died, once in the Supper, and afterward upon the cross: but also dies, and is crucified continually, in your Mass, and yet the Scripture saith, he died but once. The other, that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous: for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind, since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption? For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption, which you cannot deny: and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that, of necessity it must follow, that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption: even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient re­demption for mankind. And therefore Alanus, a great defender of your Catholick faith, saith, according to the judgement of the Council of Trent, That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper, before he was crucified: and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered: and he saith, This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine, according to the judgement of the Council, Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true, that he was our Passover, before he died, and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Sup­per: then, certainly, Christ died in vain, which is more then blasphemous: and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be, which carries with it such a blasphemie. [Page 141] And if you will say, it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross: then, I say, First, you are contrary to your own Church in this, who saith, it is one with that sacrifice of the cross. Next, Christ his body and blood is not offe­red then in the Supper: for his body and blood was offe­red up upon the cross, and so your Mass is gone, or else make two Christs, one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine, which the Disciples saw not: and ano­ther who was offered up upon the cross, which was seen of all. So whither will ye go, and unto what side will ye turn you, M. Gilbert, for the uphold of your Mass? For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side. So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Sup­per, neither did he it according to the order of Melchise­deck. But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution. And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point, as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing: therefore, I pray thee, Christian Rea­der, deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdi­tion, but take good heed what ground is in the institution for this their sacrifice; for if they prove it not here, it will never be proved by the Scripture. You say therefore, that Christ took bread and wine; we grant that, yet here is no sa­crifice. What then? He gave thanks: yet here is no sacrifice. What next? He blessed it. Yet here is no sacrifice. And whereas ye say, that by this blessing, and his heavenly words, the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Christ: that I have sufficiently (as I hope) over­thrown already. But to return to the words of the institu­tion: after the blessing of the bread, which Luke expones by giving of thanks: the text saith, He gave. What gave he but that which he took, and had blessed? And what took he, and blessed he but the bread? And therefore the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we bless, &c. So [Page 142] then it was bread which he gave, and not his own body and blood corporally. And unto whom gave he it? The text saith, unto his disciples, both in Matthew, Mark and Luke, all with one consent. Now that which was given to his Disciples, was not properly offered up in a sacrifice: for a sacrifice is an offering to God. And the text saith here, He gave it to his Disciples. So there is not a syllable in the institution, that can make for your pretended sacrifice. You here corrupt the word of Jesus Christ wonderfully: For first, you expone by giving, offering up in a sacrifice. Next, whereas the Scripture in Matthew, Mark and Luke have but giving once, & refers this giving, not to God, but to the Disciples: And he gave it to the Disciples: you al­ledge here two givings: the one to God, which is your own invention, whereof the Scripture makes no mention: the other to the Disciples, which is the form of a Sacra­ment, and not of a sacrifice: for a Sacrament is given to us, a sacrifice to God. So all the grounds of your sacrifice of the Mass is two: the one is, your devised transubstantia­tion: so one error leans upon another: the other is, not the words of Christ, And he gave it to his Disciples, but your own words, and your own exposition only, And he gave, or offered up himself then for them. These are your own words, and not the words of the holy Ghost. So this sacri­fice of your Mass, hath not the words of Jesus Christ, as Matthew, Mark and Luke have set them down, to be the ground of it: but only your own words, and your own interpretation. For how dare ye be so impudent as to af­firm that Christ gave it twise: once in an offering for his Disciples, and another time in a Sacrament to his Disci­ples, seeing we will believe Matthew, Mark and Luke, the sworn pen-men of the holy Ghost, who say only he gave it to his Disciples as a Sacrament, and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a sacrifice. Do you think [Page 143] the Lord will never take an account of you for such a ma­nifest lie of the Son of God, of his Scripture, of his Apo­stles, and holy Writers who writ it, they all saying, He gave it to his Disciples; and you affirming beside that giving to them, that he gave it, that is, offered it up for them? O sinful man! Who will venter the salvation of his soul upon so smal a threed; yea, upon so impudent a lie, as ye make of the Son of God. O repent, or else you shal one day feel the fierceness of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your soul and carcass for evermore. Leave off therefore to be the cause of the damnation of souls, for you deceive them, and makes them believe that this monstrous abomi­nation of your Mass, hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it, while it hath not so much as a syllable in the whole in­stitution that gives so much as an inkling of it. Are you wiser then the wisest of your generation: Bellarmin, who for all the arguments that he brings, never so much as once gives an inkling of this your argument. For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving here out of the words of the institution: and too absurd an exposition to expone, He gave, that is, he offered it up. And therefore he hath no such reasoning for his sacrifice of the Mass. Yea, that which ye think is plain out of the institution, that Christ offered up his body and his blood in the Supper, he saith, That the action of offering cannot be easily distinguished and separated from the other actions which was done joyntly there together by the words of the institution, Bellar. lib. 1. de missa, cap. 12. fol. 669. And more plainly, he saith, That the Evangelists have not expresly said, that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain speaking. Now your sa­crifice of the Mass hath no express warrant out of the in­stitution of Christ, if you will believe him, whose contro­versies are allowed by the Pope to be printed. But it may [Page 144] be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further tryal, & therefore you re­garded not what you writ. You have stoln your self in such credit with the simple among you, who are deceived and blinded by your lies, that ye are not ashamed to be plain enough in speaking untruths & lies of the Word of God. But the Lord will recōpence this one day. But now to return to the rest of the words of the institution, as ye rehearse them. And last of all, ye say, He gave his body and blood to his Disci­ples to be eaten He gave it spiritually, and they did eat it spi­ritually: and he gave them Sacraments of his body and blood, the bread and wine corporally to them, and they did eat them corporally, suppose for a spiritual use and end. For that which he gave, they did eat: he gave the bread and wine, therefore it was bread and wine which they did eat and drink. And therefore the Apostle saith plainly, For whosoever shal eat of this bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten. And our Savior saith, Verily, verily, from henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you, Matth. 26.29. That which he gave his Apostles to drink corporally in the latter Supper, was the fruit of the vine, so the Evangelists saith. But Christs blood was not the fruit of the vine: therefore it was not his his blood which they corporally drank, but wine, which was the fruit of the vine-tree. I go forward. And when he had done this, ye say, He cōmanded his Disciples, that is, the lawful Pastors of the Church to do the same for the remembrance of him to the end of the world. That is true, that which he did here, he commanded to be done by his Disciples to the end of the world: but never a syllable here that he offered up his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine in the Supper, in a propiciatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead: Therefore he commanded not this sacrifice of your Mass to be done to the end of the world. And [Page 145] whereas ye restrict this commandment, Do this, only to the Pastors, ye have to understand that as there is something here which Christ did, which is proper to them, as to be the dispensers of these heavenly mysteries; so there is some actions here, which is common also with them to the peo­ple, as to receive, to eat, to drink these Sacraments of his body and blood in his remembrance. Seeing therefore this commandment, Do this, is to be referred to the whole actions of the Supper: & seeing there is some actions in the same, which the other Christians should do also: therefore this commandment, Do this, is not to be restricted to the office of the Pastors only, (which ye do) but common with them to the actions of the people. Now to your conclu­sion: Seeing, say ye, your Priests do the same in this sa­crifice, which our Savior did: how can I say that your Re­ligion in this, was not instituted by Christ. If you do the same that he did, indeed I will grant you it. But ye do not the same which our Savior did: Therefore your Religion in this is not instituted by Jesus Christ.

The which I prove. First, Christ took bread and wine in this Sacrament, and gave it to be eaten and drunken; and bread was eaten, and wine was drunken by his Disciples. But your Priest takes bread and wine, and conjures the substance Of it away by your transubstantiation, and only remains the forms of the bread and wine behind: there­fore you do not the thing which Christ did.

Secondly, Christ took bread and brake it: you take bread, and hangs it up, and keeps it in a box, to carry to the sick, and in processions. Thirdly, Christ took bread and gave it to his Apostles: your Priests like gluttons in the sacrifice of your Mass, eats it up every whit himself alone. Fourthly, Christ gave a Sacrament to strengthen mens faith: but your Priests gives a sacrifice to redeem mens souls. Fifthly, Christ gave it to be eaten, your Priests [Page 146] gives it to be worshipped. Sixthly, Christ gave bread: your Priests say they give God. Seventhly, Christ gave the cup to his Disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this: your Priest drinks all himself, and takes away the cup from the peo­ple, both in your sacrifice and Sacrament. Eightly, Christ instituted the Supper, and commanded the Church to ce­lebrat the same, as he had instituted it: but the Mass hath been clamped up by many sundry Popes: one made the Confiteor, another the Introit, another the Kyrieeleison, ano­ther the Gloria in excelsis and so forth of the rest, as shal be proved afterward. Ninthly, Christ intending to celebrat his Supper, changeth not his garment: but the Priest going to say his Mass, doth nought but clothe and unclothe, and every garment carrying a great mystery. The Priest saying Mass, must have his head and beard shaven, and upon his head a circle of hair, which they call a crown; imitating the Priests of the Gentils in this, Baruch chap. 6. v. 30. and not Christ, and his Apostles. Tenthly, Christ in the Supper used common bread: but the Popish Priest must expresly use other manner of bread, baken betwixt two irons, which is properly, Wafers. Eleventhly, Christ made his Supper upon a table: the Popish Priest must have a conse­crat Altar, with some pieces of relicks put in the hole of it; or else a marble stone, in the borders whereof are little pieces of cloth, which they call Corporales, to say his Mass on. Twefthly, Christ in the celebrating of the Supper, preached and taught his Apostles: the Popish Priest mum­bleth betwixt his teeth certain prayers: he turneth to and from the Altar, one while his back, another while his face to the people: now goeth he from one side of the Altar unto another: now he singeth with an high voice, now with a low voice: now he lifts up his arms, now he casteth them down. Briefly, he seemeth to be a man wholly mad, not knowing what countenance for to use. Thirteenthly, [Page 147] Christ in the Supper spake in a vulgar tongue, that all might understand: the Popish Priest in their Masses speaks in a strange tongue, which the most part of themselves un­derstands not. Fourteenthly, Christ first brake the bread. and then gave it to his Apostles: the profane Priest first speaketh certain words over the bread in his Mass, and then breaketh it (or the accidents of it, as they say) at their pleasure. Fifteenthly, Christ after he had broken the bread, saith, This is my body: the Popish Priest speaks the words, without breaking of the bread; and not content with the words of Christ, he addeth this word enim, unto them. Therefore you cannot, M. Gilbert, but speak against the light of your own conscience, when you say that your Priests doth the same in their Mass, that Christ did in the Supper: And here I appeal your conscience before the terrible and everliving God, and before Jesus Christ; that shal judge the quick and the dead, whither ye do not speak in this against the light of your own conscience, or not? And whether your Priests in your Mass, do the same which Christ did in the Supper, or not? Think you not that you must stand before the living God, and give a rec­koning of these things? Repent in time, and cease to de­ceive the souls of your Countrey-men any more. But to conclud this: What ado hath your Mass with the Supper of Christ? What likeness is there between the one and the other? In the Supper which Christ instituted in the Scrip­ture, we are remembred of his death and passion upon the cross, whereby he appeased the wrath of God for our sins, and of our duty towards him; whereby we acknowledge in our consciences that we are obliged to die to sin, seeing it behoved the eternal Son of God, by his death upon the cross, to redeem us from the same: upon the which arises an earnest thanksgiving in the hearts and mouthes of eve­ry true Christian, for so great a salvation, purchased so [Page 148] wonderfully, as by the death of the eternal Son of God. In your sacrifice of the Mass, is there any such thing? Is there any remembrance of his death & suffering there? Is his death shown to the people in a known language, that they may understand it? Is there any acknowledging of any duty there for his death? Is there any true thanksgi­ving there? No, none. But in stead of these, a heap of words in an unknown language, and a diversity of apish gestures, and Morish and Juglers tricks, to feed the eyes of the poor people, which neither the people, nor yet many of your selves do understand. In the Supper we are also admonished of our spiritual conjunction with our neigh­bor, and of our duty towards him, in that we are all parta­kers of one bread made of many grains, and of one wine made of many grapes; to signifie unto us that we are all renewed and redeemed by one blood, members of one body, living by one Spirit, drawing life, motion and fee­ling, all from one Head, being one with him, and so one with others, whereby follows our mutual duties one to­ward another. In your Mass there is no communion of the bread made of many grains, and of the wine made of many grapes, to signifie this conjunction and communion, either with Christ our Head, or among our selves, the Priest eating and drinking all himself. In the Supper, ac­cording to Christ his institution, by giving, taking, eating, and drinking of the bread and wine by all the Disciples, whereby our bodily life is nowrished and strengthened, is not only signified and represented our spiritual growth in that spiritual communion with him, whereon our spiritual life depends: but also in the same, all the faithful doth truly by faith eat and drink spiritually his flesh and blood, whereby they are made one with himself, flesh of his flesh, & bone of his bones, whereby they are strengthned in that spiritual life, and confirmed in the hope of that glory. But [Page 149] is there any such thing in your Papistical sacrifice? Is there any giving and taking, eating and drinking, of bread and wine by the faithful, either to represent our communion with Christ, & among our selves, or to strengthen us in that spiritual life through his conjunction? Do the poor people eat or drink, either bodily, or spiritually in your Mass? Is there any action there to stir up their conscience? Or any instruction to increase their knowledge? Are they ought but idle beholders of a pretended mystery, which is both dumb and deaf, and of a Priest that eats and drinks all him­self alone? So that in stead of these heavenly dishes, which our loving Father doth propine unto us, upon his table in the Supper, what is there in your abominable sacrifices, but a feeding with husks, an apish game, and Juglers tricks, to feed the fantasies of the poor people, that sees but un­derstands not; that hears, but they know not what. So that in truth there is as great likeness betwixt Christs Sup­per, and your Mass, as is between the table of the Lord, and the table of Devils, and light with darkness. Seeing therefore there is such a difference betwixt your sacrifice in the Mass, and Christ his Supper, as hath been seen: therefore your Priests doth not the same in the Mass, which our Savior did in the last Supper. And therefore how can ye say, that your Religion in this is instituted by Christ? And this is so evident, that some of your own Do­ctors and learned Writers, have been forced to confess the same. As Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius, and Lindanus, lib. 4. Panopl. confesses, that the sacrifice of the Mass, with many other points of their Religion, is an un­written tradition, which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And Gerson a Papist, and expo­ner of the Mass, saith, in Floretum, that the office of the Mass was ordained by Saint James and Basile the Bishop of Cesarea; but the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ. [Page 150] And he alledges the Canon Law, De cons. dist. 1. Canon Jacobus, for him. So first there is three hundred years betwixt Basile and James, which are the composers of the Mass. Secondly, he distinguishes betwixt the Supper and the Mass, and he saith, The Supper is instituted by Christ, and the office of the Mass by S. James and S. Basile. So if he speak true, the Mass and the Supper, is not both one; and the Mass is not instituted by Christ, as the Supper is. And so out of your own mouthes, your Mass is confessed not to be instituted by Christ in the Scripture. Shameless therefore and impudent, M. Gilbert, are ye in affirming that your Religion in this is instituted by Christ.

Master Gilbert Brown.

There are five chief things wherein the instruction of Jesus Christ consists, as I have shewed before. Of these five, the Mini­sters wants three of the chiefest in their communion. First, a lawful Priest or Minister. Secondly, thanksgiving. Thirdly, bles­sing. Fourthly, giving, or offering. Fifthly, communicating. First, a lawful Minister, as after I shal show. Secondly, the bles­sing of the bread & wine, which they have blotted out of their Scots Bibles, and put in thanksgiving for the same, as if both were one: not the less, that both the Greck and Latin is against them, and sig­nifies two diverse actions, both done and said in S. Mark 14.22.23. at his Supper, [...], benedicens, blessed, and [...], gratias agens, giving thanks. And thirdly, giving or offering of his blessed body and blood to his Father for his faithful, which properly is to sacrifice, as the holy Fathers writes upon the same. And as for their thanksgiving, it is but an invention of their own head, as may be seen in their Psalm books: and their communica­ting is but of bread and wine, but ours is of the body and blood of Christ. So we only have the true institution of Jesus Christ, and not they, and that by the tryal of the touch-stone.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As for the five chief things wherein ye say the institution [Page 151] of Christ consists; to wit, a lawful Minister. 2. Thanksgi­ving. 3. Blessing. 4 Giving, or offering. 5 Communica­ting. We grant that a lawful Minister is required, but not a sacrificing Priest here, because there is no external and outward sacrifice here, as ye suppone, and as hath been proved. And seeing your Priests are sacrificing Priests, of a sacrifice that hath not a syllable in the Word of God to bear witness unto it, and seeing their authority depends of the authority of the Pope, which in Antichristian, as shal be proved hereafter: and seeing the most part of your Priests are admitted without the due tryal and exami­nation of gifts and manners, and the most part cannot preach the Gospel, as experience teacheth; therefore in your communion, or rather abominable sacrifice of your Mass, (for how can it be called a Communion, where the Priest only eats and drinks up all?) there is no lawful Minister: and seeing our offices is lawful; to wit, the prea­ching of the Gospel, the administration of Sacraments, and Discipline: and seeing our entry to the offices is law­ful also, by due examination of life and doctrine: and see­ing the authority of our calling is from God, who enables whom he calls with gifts meet to discharge the calling, and from his Church, examining, trying, testifying, approving, ordaining, and consenting unto the same: Therefore in the administration of our Communion, there are lawful Ministers. As to the second, thanksgiving; we grant also it is comprised in the institution of Christ his Sacrament, and is required in the celebration of the same: But you say, our thanksgiving which we use, is but an invention of our 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, [Page 152] 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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 [Page 156] 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 [Page 157] 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. 1 [...]. 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 [Page 158] 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 upon the cross.

Fourthly, I will ask you, to what purpose serves the per­sonal sacrifice of Christ in your Mass? It must be for one of two; to wit, either to satisfie for our sins, (and there­fore ye call it a propiciatory sacrifice) or else to apply that [Page 159] satisfaction once made by his death upon the cross unto us, the which ye affirm also of it: But for neither of these is Jesus Christ to be offered up again: therefore for no cause is he to be sacrificed in your Mass. Not for the first, to sa­tisfie for our sins, because the Scripture saith plainly, that he hath satisfied for our sins, by his once oblation upon the cross, never to die again, and therefore our Savior saith upon the cross, It is finished. And our redemption and sa­tisfaction is ascribed only to his death once made, and his blood once shed, Heb. 1. & 6. & 10. John 19 28. And your selves will not deny this, but the death of Christ is a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for all the sins of the world, and therefore Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. grants this, That the vertue of his once offering up upon the cross, is infinit and everlasting, to sanctifie us, so that there needs not another sacrifice of the cross, or the repetition of the same. And the truth of this is manifest: for if Christ must be offered up in the Mass to satisfie for our sins, he must die again, and suffer again. For what is it to satisfie God, but to pay to God that which we ow? And what ow we unto him for our sins, but death: for death is the stipend of sin? So that to satisfie God for our sins, is to die for our sins: & therefore we say, Christ hath once satisfied for our sins, because he hath once payed our debt, which is death: that is, he hath once died for our sins. So then either Christ hath not fully satisfied for our sins, by his once death upon the cross (which is impiety to think) or else the Lord craves a debt already payed, over again: (which is blas­phemy) or else Christ needs not to be offered up in your Mass, to satisfie for our sins. And so your sacrifice of the Mass avails not for to satisfie for our sins.

Let us come to the next: If ye will say, He is offered up in the Mass for to apply the vertue of the death of Christ unto us, (which your Church also sayes.) First, I say, [Page 160] Christ is applyed to us, when he is offered, not to God in a sacrifice, but to us in the Word and Sacraments: therefore he should not be offered up to God in a sacrifice, but offe­red to us in his Word and Sacraments, that he may be ap­plied to us: for it is the Word and Sacraments which out­wardly applyes Christ and his death to us, and not a sacri­fice: for in a sacrifice, the thing which is sacrificed, is offe­red to God, and not applyed to us. Next, I say, if your sa­crifice serves but to apply the vertue of Christ his satisfa­ction unto us: then it is manifest, the satisfaction is already made: For first, the salve must be made, before it can be applyed. So your Church here errs, which saith, Your sa­crifice of the Mass is propiciatory to appease the wrath of God, and also applicatory to apply the same to us. I say, thirdly, if Christ should be sacrificed again, that the vertue of his death may be made effectual in us, then also should he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin, born a­gain, die again, and rise again; that the vertue of his in­carnation, birth, death, and resurrection, should be apply­ed unto us: for will you say [...] That he must be sacrificed a­gain to apply the vertue of his sacrifice upon the cross un­to us? and what reason then can ye pretend for you where­fore he should not be incarnat again, die again, and rise a­gain, that the vertue of these may be applyed to us? Do you think this absurd? What is the cause then that ye will not blush at the other? Fourthly, I say, if your sacrifice of the Mass be an application of Christ his sacrifice, then it is not the sacrifice it self: for the applying of the salve, is not the salve itself: and therefore since you say that it is the applying of Christ his sacrifice, wherefore should ye say that Christ is sacrificed in it: for these two cannot stand together? Fifthly, in Baptism, the sacrifice of Christ, and the vertue of his death is truly applyed unto us: and yet ye will confess that Christ is not sacrificed in Baptism. [Page 161] Wherefore then may not the vertue of his death and sa­crifice be applyed to us in the Sacrament of the Supper, and yet he not sacrificed again in it? And last of all, nei­ther you, neither any creature, should appoint or make mo means of the applying of Christ and his death to us, then is set down in his Word: But his Word only sets down the inward operation of Gods Spirit applying it to us, and faith upon our part apprehending it: and the Word, the Sacraments and Discipline proponing and con­firming the same unto us. But never a syllable in the whole Scripture, that the Lord hath appointed your sacrifice of the Mass to apply the death of Christ unto us. Seeing therefore your sacrifice of the Mass neither satisfies for our sins (for Christ by his death hath done that sufficient­ly) nor yet applyes the satisfaction once made by the death of Christ unto us (for that is done by the Spirit and faith inwardly, and by the Word, Sacraments, and disci­pline outwardly, and that sufficiently:) Therefore your sacrifice of the Mass is needless, and serves to no use in the earth.

Fifthly, the Scripture ever conjoins With the sacrifice of Christ, his death: so that he cannot be sacrificed but by dying, as the Scripture plainly testifies, Heb. 9.25.26. Not that he should offer up himself often, for then must he have often suffered from the foundation of the world. The same may be seen also in sundry other places, whereof I have quoted a few, Heb. 7.27. and 9.14. So the Scripture saith, if he must be often offered up, he must often suffer. And Bellarmin lib. 1. de missa, fol. 725. saith, That if there he not a true and a real slaughter of Christ in the Mass, then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice. But the Scripture saith plainly, that he hath but once died; and I suppose you will not say that he is to die again: Therefore seeing he cannot die again, he can­not be offered up again: For the Scripture acknow­ledgeth [Page 162] no sacrifice of Christ, but that which is joined with his death.

Sixthly, Bellarmin grants, that in all external sacrifices, the sacrifice must be changed, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 2. fol. 693. & 604. It is also required, saith he, in a true sacrifice, that that which is to be sacrificed be utterly destroyed. And in another place, cap. 27. lib. de Missa, fol. 726. cap. 2. fol. 604. 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, [Page 163] 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 Testame [...]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 [Page 164] 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 [Page 165] 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, 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. [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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 Arrianum [...] 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 Heb [...] 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. [Page 469] 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 [Page 170] 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.

Master Gilbert Brown.

I thought such like to have proved the ceremonies of this blessed sacrifice, by the same holy Word: but because it were something long some, I have continued the same till another place.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

AS for your Ceremonies, you did most wisely in reje­cting the probation of them till another place: and so to hold the Reader in the halfe (as we speak) be­cause ye are never able to do it: and it is good to delay to enterprise a thing that is impossible. But how can you be so impudent, as to write that you will prove the ceremonies [Page 190] of your Mass by the Scripture, seeing the Mass it self hath not the warrant out of the same, but contrary and repug­nant to the same, as hath been proved. And I can scarce­ly think. M. Gilbert, that you have spoken this in earnest, when you said, you would prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the same holy Word, which is the Scripture. For what then will you say to the Council of Trent, Sess. 22. cap. 5. who referrs not the institution of them to the Lord Jesus in his written Word, but to the Church by the unwritten traditions. 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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, is not visible, but invisible: so our altar also is not visible, but invisible.

The second abuse is in the confession of the Priest, that he saith in the entring of the Mass, I confess to God Almigh­ty, and to the blessed Virgin, and to all the Saints, that I have sinned. In the which are sundry absurdities. First, that this confession is made not only to God, but also to the dead, who neither sees the secrets of the hearts, nor yet are able to give remission. The secōd is, in the prayer that is set [Page 194] down in the latter end of it, saying, I pray thee, blessed Mary, & all the hee Saints, and shee Saints of God, to pray to God, that I may have mercy: wherein are two horrible abuses: one, that he makes no mention of Jesus Christ our only Mediator, 1. Tim. 2.5. & desires him not to make intercession for him: Next, that he prays unto the Saints departed, and makes them Intercessors and Mediators, who neither knows our necessities, and the secrets of our hearts, neither is able to hear or help us, which wants all warrant out of the Word of God, Rom. 10.14. 1. Tim. 2.5 1. John 2. 1. Jer. 17.5. Psal. 50.15. Jer. 29.12. Matth. 6.9. James 1.17. Gen. 20.1.2. 2. Kings 6.6. 2 Chron. 6.30. Isa. 63 17. Eccles. 9.6. And seeing prayer is a honor only due to God, & Jesus Christ is our only Me­diator and Intercessor; therefore this prayer to Saints de­parted is both idolatrous, and injurious to Christ his inter­cession and mediation. This confession was instituted by Pontian and Damasus Popes, anno 335. and 368.

The third abuse, is the absolution pronounced to the beholders of the Mass: Amen, Brethren and sisters, by the mercy of our Lord Jesus, by the help and sign of the cross, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, by the merits of the Apostles, and of all the hee Saints and shee Saints, God give you mercy. First, this agrees not with their privat Masses, where the Priest and the Clark only are present: For how can the Priest speak truly, Amen, brethren and sisters, since none is present but the Clark only? Next, that which is only pro­per to Jesus Christ, to his death, merits, and intercession, to make the Father merciful unto us, and to make him to forgive us our sins, is taken from him here, and communi­cat unto the Virgin Mary, and the merits of all the hee Saints and shee Saints: and which is most horrible, unto the sign of the cross, that by her intercession, their merits, and the help of the sign of the cross, God might have mer­cy. What horrible idolatry is this, to joyn such helpers to [Page 195] the Son of God, who is a perfect Savior? To joyn the merits of flesh and blood to his merits, as though his were not sufficient to obtain salvation? And as though men were not only able to merit eternal life to themselves, but also had such aboundance of merits, that they served to ob­tain mercy for others: and so not only to make them sa­viors of themselves, but of others also. And that which is yet more horrible idolatry and blasphemy (if worse can be) to joyn with him the help of the sign of the cross. Therefore in their Breviary they say, Keep us, Lord, with thy peace, &c. whom thou hast redeemed by the tree of thy holy cross. And in a Hymn, O cross, hail; O cross, only hope, increase righteousness to the godly, and forgive the guilty. And in their Breviary, they say, We adore thy cross, O Lord. Now what is it to mock God, if this be not? To substitut creatures, yea a very stock and a tree, in the room of the Son of God, and to ascribe redemption unto it, and to pray for righ­teousness and remission at the same, to adore it, and to call it their only esperance? What place is left then to the blood and death of Christ?

The fourth abuse is in this prayer of the Mass, We pray thee, Lord, for the merits of thy Saints, whose relicks are here, to forgive me all my sins. Where first, he makes no mention of Christ, or his merits. Next, he prays to God, that for the merits of the Saints he may be forgiven; so he puts them in the room of Christ. Thirdly, they have the relicks of the Saints in such account, that they have made a law, that it shal not be lawful to celebrat any Mass, but upon such altars where the relicks of some Saints are, De consecrat. dist. 1. cap. Placuit. But to what purpose is this? To make their altars commendable, and their sacrifices acceptable? But hath not the Priest (as he thinks) in his hands, Christ Jesus, the Holy of the Holiest? And is there relicks of Saints more precious and worthy, then his blood is? yea, [Page 196] and what relicks, I pray you, for the most part? Not of Saints, but of harlots and brigands: yea, they have so mul­tiplied their relicks, that they have made some of them to have mo heads then one, to have mo legs and arms then they were born with. As for example, Peter his whole body is buried in Rome in Vatican, Annal. Eccles. Tom. 1. & 3. and yet the half of him is in another part of Rome, Via Ostiensi, Onu. d. 7. urb. Eccles. cap. de Basilica; another part in Constantinople, Bellar. lib. 2. de Eccles. trium. cap. 3. & 4. and his head kept in the fourth place, Romae Onu. ibidem; and another part of his head in the fifth place, Romae Onu. ibidem, another part of his head in the sixth place, Pictavi [...] Calv. admon de reliq. and yet sundry of his teeth in other parts, Onu ibidem. So that if he had as many bodies, and bones, and teeth, and heads, and arms, and legs, as are said to be his, and are kept as his relicks, his body were monstrous. And the head of S. Barbara was shown in so many parts, that it behoved her to have seven bodies, or at the least seven heads, Luther postil. in Evang. fest. exalt. cruce. And that which is yet worse, they honor them, adores them, and prays unto them: the which is so mani­fest by the ordinary practise of their Church, that it nee­deth no probation.

Unto this we may joyn the fifth abuse, their images upon the hostes of their Mass, and the rest of their Idols and Images, which they call the Books of the Laicks, wherewith they fill their Temples and Chapels: which they honor, adore, and pray unto, saying unto a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, thou art my mother: not only without commandment or example in the Scrip­ture, but contrary the express commandment of God gi­ven out of Mount Sinay, in horror and fear▪ so that the Mountain shook, and Moses himself feared: Thou shalt make thee no graven Image to worship it. And contrary the [Page 197] whole Scripture, Exod. 20. Deut. 4.15. Isa. 40 15.16. Je­rem. 10.3. Acts 17.29 Rom. 1.23. 1. Cor. 10.14. 1. John 5.21. Rev. 9.20. & 21.8. And also the doctrine of the Fa­thers, Tertull. lib. de corona militis, Orig. contra Celsum, lib. 7. & 8. Lactant. de divin. instit. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cyprian. de van. idol. Clemen [...] lib. 5. ad Jac. frat. Chrysost. hom. 57. in Genes. 31. Concil. Elib. Can. 36. with sundry others.

The sixth abuse, is in the prayer that the Priest saith when he offers his hoste upon the altar: Receive, holy Father, this immaculat sacrifice which I offer unto thee, for my own sins, and for the sins of all the faithful, both living and dead, that it may profit to me and them, to salvation and everlasting life. And he prays the like when he offers the calice upon the altar: That it may ascend in the presence of his Majesty, for the salvation of him, and of all the world. Wherein the Priest commits horrible blasphemy, in ascribing remission of sins and redemption, to the sacrifice of bread and wine, for as yet the words of consecration are not pronounced: and so by their own confession, they are yet but bread and wine: and yet the Priest saith, he offers it to God for the sins of the quick and dead, and for the salvation of the world. Now what blasphemy is this to ascribe that to the sacrifice of bread and wine, which by their own confession is not changed yet in Christs body and blood, which is on­ly proper to the blood of Jesus Christ? John 1.29. Heb. 9.26. and 10.12. 1 John 1.7 and 2.2. Acts 4.12 Next, that he offers this sacrifice for the salvation of the dead, seeing the elect departed are in heaven, and so they need no sa­crifice for them: and the reprobat departed are in hell, so no sacrifice will avail them. And as for Purgatory which they dream of, the Scriptures knows not such a thing I pass by the mixing of the wine with water, contrary the express institution of Christ, and the necessity of the silver and golden vessels, or at the least tin vessels in your sa­crifice.

The seventh abuse, is their magical blessing of their in­cense, after the manner of sorcerers, without the warrant of the Word, and the vertue which the Priest prays for, that it may chase away the Devil, make whole every dis­ease: which hath no more vertue then their exorcismes and adjurations, which the Priest makes in Baptism, and in their other services, by their holy water, by their ligh­ted candles, their oyls, anointings, and other like ceremo­nies. And in this ceremony, they either Judaize: for the Jewes used this ceremony of incense under the Law, to figure the sweet savor of the sacrifice of the Son of God to his Father: and so makes the death of Christ of no effect to them: or else they follow the custome of the old Ro­mane idolaters. For we read more then 700. years before Christ, that they used incense in their sacrifices and other services, which they did to their Idoles, Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. Some say, that Leo the third joyned to the Mass this part, concerning the incense, about the year of God 800.

The eight abuse is, in that they make their Mass a me­morial of Christ his incarnation, circumcision, resurrection and ascension: and that they celebrat the same to the honor of others then to God; to wit, to the honor of the Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, which is horrible blasphemy, to give that which is Gods glory to his creatures. And therefore they have a Mass of our Lady, a Mass of S. An­tony, a Mass of S. Michel, &c. Now if the Mass be one with the Lord his Supper (as they say it is) then it is pro­perly a memorial of his death, and it is instituted only to the glory of God, and not to the honor of any creature: therefore our Savior saith, Do this in remembrance of me, and not of his Saints.

The ninth abuse (passing by their monstrous Transub­stantiation, whereof I have spoken in another place) is [Page 199] their round hoste, taken from the use of the old Romane idolaters 700. years before Christ, who had little round bread which was consecrated to the honor of their Gods, which they did eat after the sacrifice, Pollux in Onom. lib. 6. & Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. So it was not the Spi­rit of Christ which taught you this form, but the spirit of Numa Pompilius, the Magician, who breathed this do­ctrine in you: for there is no word of this round bread in Christs Testament.

The tenth abuse, is the lifting up of the sacrifice above their head, and the adoring and worshipping of the same, which is abominable idolatry, to worship a bit of bread, as the great God and Creator of all the world, contrary the express commandment of God, Thou shalt only worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Deut. 6.16. And how can they excuse themselves from idolatry, accor­ding to their own doctrine: for they hold this, that if the Priest have not an intention, (some saith actual, other some habitual) that is, a purpose to consecrat, that the bread and the wine are not changed in the body and blood of Christ: and if he had a purpose to consecrat but the one half of the bread, the other half is not changed, but remains com­mon bread? Summa angel. Euch. cap. 26. They therefore that adore it, if the Priest had not that purpose, what do they worship but the creature, and that according to their own doctrine? And who can be certain of the Priests intention? So who can worship in faith that God of theirs, seeing they cannot be certain of the inten­tion of the Priest, upon the which this change depends? and that which is done without faith is sin. Secondly, their own doctrine is, that the intention of the Priest suffices not, unless it be according to the institution of Christ, Bonaven­tura in compend. sacr. Theolog. lib. 6. Hugo de S. Victor, Ge­rardus Lorichius. Now sundry of their own learned Doctors [Page 200] saith, that their privat Masses, where there is no publick communion, is not according to the institution of Christ; therefore by their own doctrine, they are vile idolaters, both Priest and people, in worshipping a bit of bread that is made of wheat, as the great God: seeing by their own doctrine, there is no change there in their privat Masses of the bread and wine in the body and blood of Christ. Last of all, seeing there are sundry cases, and that very ordi­nary, wherein the Priest (by their own doctrine) doth not consecrat at all: as if the Priest have forgotten to put wine in the calice: if the bread be made of other thing then flowr: if the water surmount the wine: if the wine be sowr: if he left out one of the words of consecration, Thom. p. 3. q. 83. Joan. de Burgo Pupilla, cap. 3. Gerson contra Florent. extra de celebrat. Miss. Now what certainty can the stan­ders by have, that the Priest hath fallen in none of these cases? So with what assurance of faith can they worship their breaden God?

To prove this by some examples, that by their own do­ctrine they make the people to commit idolatry in wor­shipping of their breaden God. About the year 1536. there was four Augustin Friers hanged in Sevil in Spain, who had secretly by night murthered their Provincial. The day following, to avoid all suspicion of the murther, they all four said Mass, but they had no intention to conse­crat, as they themselves afterward confessed, and so there was no Transubstantiation there, by their own doctrine: and therefore, all these that heard their Mass that day, by their own doctrine, committed idolatry, because there was no consecration there. I will set down another example. There was a certain Priest who being deposed for his fil­thy life, wherein he had continued for the space of 30. years with a harlot: being demanded by one, if he had truly repented him of this his abominable life, and if he [Page 201] had put away this his concubine from him, with intent ne­ver to receive her again? He never had, said he, any such purpose. Being asked again, how then said he Mass every day, and made he no scruple to eat the bread of the Lord, and drink of his holy cup, his conscience accusing him of such an erroneous sin? At the last, he confessed, that to avoid the unworthy receiving of the body and blood of the Lord, he did not pronounce the sacramental words wherewith it is consecrat. And being urged again, how he durst commit so horrible a wickedness, as to give so great an occasion of so horrible idolatry to the people, who kneeling on their knees, casting themselves on the earth, lifting up their hands toward the altar, striking their breasts, did worship the unconsecrated bread and cup? Unto whom he answered, that it was not so great a fault as he said of it: and that he was not alone, but many mo did the same, which thought it not so abominable an of­fence, as he made of it. These two Histories I find writ­ten by a Spanish Author, one Cyprian Valera, the title whereof is, Of the Pope, and his authority; and of the Mass, and the holiness thereof. All these then that heard the Masses of these men, and adored the Sacrament which they lif­ted up, committed idolatry, by their own Canons and De­crees: For the last did not pronounce the words of con­secration, and the other four had not the intent to conse­crat; and therefore there was no transubstantiation there, by their own doctrine, and so they worshipped bread and wine, as their great Redeemer and Creator. But what a miserable Religion is this, that depends upon the intention of another? And therefore who can be certain, by their own doctrine, whither it be God they worship or not, in their Sacrament? And this made a certain Inquisitor, an enemy to the truth, fearing when he heard Mass, whither the Priest had intention to consecrat or not, to say, O Lord▪ [Page 202] if thou be there, I adore thee: and so by this subtilty, he thought to escape committing of idolatry. In the time of the Council of Constance, there was three Popes that the Council for their abominations did depose, and elected another: These three not being Popes, could not ordain Priests, nor give them authority to consecrat; so that by their own Canons, all they that heard Masses of such Priests as had their authority from them, committed idolatry. This same may be said of them that heard the Masses of all these Priests that were ordained by Pope Constantin the first, and the whore Pope John the 8. For neither of these had power to ordain Priests, by their own Canons. And as for Pope John, there is no controversie of it, because she was a woman, not capable of that authority, by their own Ca­nons. And as for Constantin the first, he was a laick man, who without receiving any orders, was by force named Pope. He not being a Priest himself, could not give this authority to others. And so by their own doctrine, all these that heard the Masses of such Priests, did commit hor­rible idolatry. And howsoever the Pope and his Clergy affirms it to be God, and not bread and wine, which they adore; yet ye shal see what estimation they have them­selves of that breaden God of theirs, by some examples Pope Gregory the seventh, used it for conjuration, and sought a response of it; and because it would give him none, he cast it in the fire, and burnt it, and so burnt his Creator. They use it to revenge their wrongs, hatred and malice by it: and therefore Pope Victor the third, in the year 1088. was poisoned in the calice by his Sub-deacon. Such like the Archbishop of York, poisoned in the calice. Such like Henry the seventh, poisoned by a Dominican Frier in the Sacrament. They use it for an Harvenger, sending it one or mo days journey before, with the basest sort of the people. The Dominican Friers of the town [Page 203] Auxerra in France in the year 1536. did burn it, being vomit out by a Frier that said Mass. And the Franciscans de alia Villa, burnt the Cow which had eaten up the Sa­crament out of the Priests hand, and so in burning her, did burn their Creator with her. Molon, one of the Spanish Inquisition, 35 years since, being to go into procession upon the day of Corpus Christi, and the hoste that was to be put in the box, being so great that it could not be placed in the same, he being impatient to await while another hoste had been consecrat, demanded a pair of shears, and clip­ped his God and Creator, and so went on forward to their procession. Of the which we gather two things. First, that their Popes and Ecclesiastical rable is without all God and Religion, that makes so light of their God as to clip it and burn it, and use it as the instruments of their malice and revenge. Secondly, that this consecrat bread of theirs which they sell to the people to be worshipped and ado­red, is most abominable Idolatry, whereof one day they shal give a reckoning to God. And thus much for the tenth abuse of their idolatrous Mass.

The eleventh abuse is, that in your cōmunions: First, con­trary the institution of Christ, ye give not the bread to the hands of the people to take, but puts it in theirs mouthes, as though their mouthes were holier then their hands. Next, ye spoil the poor people of a sweet pledge of their salvation, the Sacrament of the wine, giving them only bread: contrary first▪ the express command of Jesus Christ, Drink ye all of this, Matth. 26.27. Mark 14.23. next, con­trary the doctrine of the Fathers, August. in lib. seu prosp. your own Canon Law, de consecrat. dist. 2. can. Dumfran­gitur hostia, Cyprian serm. 5 de lapsis: and Pope Gelasius, de consecrat. dist. 2. can. Comperimus. The second is, that in your Mass, suppose ye speak of a communion and commu­nicants, yet there is none at all; for your Priest eats and [Page 104] drinks out all. And therefore have ye added to the words of Christ, eat all, drink all; contrary the express institution of the Supper, Take ye, eat ye, and drink ye all of this. And contrary also to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the primitive Church, Hieron. in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 18. and of some Councils, Concil. 2. Antioc. cap. 2. Conc. 4. de Tolet. cap. 17. and some of your own Popes also, Alex 5. Epist 1. de myst. corp. & sang. Calixtus de con­secrat. dist. 2. Can. Peracta.

The twelfth abuse, is in the prayer contained in the Ca­non of the Mass, in these words, Look mercifully upon these things (to wit, Jesus Christ his body and his blood, which the Priest thinks he offers up to God: and so Biel a expo­ner of the Mass, interprets the same) and accept of them, as thou accepted of the sacrifice of Abel, of Abraham, and of Melchisedeck. And in another place, the Priest prays unto God, to receive that sacrifice (to wit, of Christ) and to san­ctifie it with the blessing wherewith he sanctified the oblation of Abel. Now if any thing can be said to be blasphemy, cer­tainly this must be blasphemy, to a Mass-Priest, a sinful creature, to interceed between God the Father, and Christ his Son; to pray the Father that he may sanctify his Son and accept of him, as though he were not fully sanctified in himself, and were not the fountain of all holiness to others; and as though the Father were not well pleased in him already. And because the Mass-Priest vaunts that in his sacrifice of the Mass he offers up the eternal Son of God in a sacrifice to his Father, for the sins of the quick and the dead: I will ask him this: Doth not he blas­pheme horribly, who vaunts that in something that he doth, he is more acceptable to God, then Jesus Christ is? This cannot be denyed. But I assume that the Priest vaunts that in his Mass he is more acceptable to God, then Jesus Christ is: Therefore the Priest is a horrible blas­phemer. [Page 205] And I prove the assumption thus: The Priest vaunts that in his Mass he offers up Jesus Christ to God his Father: the Priest also in the Mass prays the Father, that he would sanctifie and accept of his Son which he offers up: Therefore the Priest vaunts that he is more acceptable to God in the Mass, then Jesus Christ is: for God regards more the person that offers up, then the thing that is offe­red up. This is Ireneus language, lib. 4. contra haeres. Va­lent. cap. 34. and for this purpose he brings forth the exam­ples of Abel and Cain, and their sacrifices. For he saith, They two offered up to the Lord, but they were not both accepted of him: for Abel his sacrifice pleased God, because his person pleased him, and that because of his faith: but the sacrifice of Cain pleased not God, because his person pleased him not, and that because of his incredulity. Seeing therefore that the Mass-Priest vaunts that he offers up Jesus Christ in his Mass to the Father: and seeing the Priest must be more accep­table then your sacrifice: Therefore it must follow, that the Priest in the Mass vaunts, that he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is, and so is a horrible blasphemer in his Mass.

The thirteenth abuse is, that he compares the sacrifice of the Son of God, with the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedeck, which by infinit degrees surpasseth them all.

The fourteenth, what horrible blasphemy commits the Priest, when he prays that that oblation which he thinks to be Jesus Christ, may be carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel, as though Christ were not as powerful now to ascend to heaven, as he was after his resurrection, and therefore hath now need of the help of an Angel to carry him to heaven? What blasphemy is this? But let me ask you, M. Gilbert, wherefore pray ye that he may be car­ried to heaven, seeing ye eat him, and makes him to [Page 206] descend in your belly (as ye think) and to ascend and des­cend are things contrary? And if ye will say, that first it mounts to heaven, and then descends again: then I say, first, the accidents of the bread and wine are left there alone; for they are not carried to heaven, but remains in your hand: and Christs body and blood are not under them, seeing he is carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel, and so your real presence is gone. Secondly, seeing ye eat his body and drink his blood, it must follow that ye must make a new transubstantiation, to cause Christ come down again from heaven, and to make the bread and wine to be transchanged again in his body and blood, that ye may eat him and drink him. And so these are many voya­ges which ye cause Christ to make: First, to descend from heaven by the means of your Transubstantiation, then to make him to ascend to heavē by the means of your prayer: and then last of all, to make him again descend from heaven, that ye may eat him and drink him. These are the blasphemies which follows on your blasphemous Mass.

The fifteenth abuse, is in their prayer for the dead, wherein they pray for a place of refreshment, light and peace for them who have died in faith, sleeps in peace, and rests in the Lord; and yet in the Masses that are said for them, they will not give the Pax to be kissed, which is a sign of peace: let them advise how they will reconcile this. But first, I say, their prayer for the dead, is without all warrant of the Word: next, I would know who these are for whom the Priest prays? not for them that are in hell; for they have not died in faith, nor sleeps in peace, nor rests in the Lord: and prayers for them are needless; for out of hell is no re­demption: not for them that are in heaven; for what greater light, or peace, or joy can they have, then that which they have already? Not for them that are in Purga­tory; for beside that it is but the devise of man, accor­ding [Page 207] to their own doctrine, they that are in Purgatory sleeps not in peace, but are tormented in fire (if their do­ctrine of the fire of Purgatory be true:) and so this prayer cannot be for them neither.

The sixteenth, is your horrible cruelty against the Son of God, in breaking the body of Christ in three pieces in your Mass, as ye think; which is greater cruelty then the men of war did to him upon the cross: for they brake not a bone of him, and yet ye Mass-Priests makes no scruple to part his body in three pieces.

The seventeenth, is your dipping a part of the hoste into the cup, which is without all warrant or example of the Scripture, and is against the doctrine of one of your Popes, Pope Julius de consecrat. dist. 2. Can. Cum omne crimen.

The eighteenth, is in the prayer wherein the Priest prays, that the receiving of Christ his body be not to his condemnation, seeing he means not here by the body of Christ, the bread which is a seal of his body, but properly the body of Christ: which whosoever receives, receives not to death, but to life, seeing he is life and salvation it self.

The nineteenth, is the blowing and mumbling of the Priests on the bread and wine, their turning of their back to the people when they pronounce the words of conse­cration: their so oft signing with the sign of the cross in their Mass, 25. times: their keeping and inclosing of Christs body (as they suppone) in a box: their burning of candles before it, The ordinance of Honorius the 3. confirmed by Pope Innocent the 4. de celebrat. Miss. Canon. Sane. & de custod. Euchar. cap. 1. their carrying of it in procession upon their solemn days, which they call the Feast of God, in their Temples, Villages, streets: their carrying of it to the sick and diseased, with these blasphemous words spoken by the Priest to the patient, Behold, my friend, God your Creator, [Page 208] which I have brought unto you: Ordinance of Pope Urban, anno 1564. What blasphemie is this? And what a God is this that cannot come by himself, but must be brought by ano­ther? And what comfort can this God bring to the pa­tient, that cannot bring himself to the patient but as he must be born by the Priest? What a mockery of God, of his Word, of themselves, and of the poor people, is this? Do their Priests the thing that Christ did in the Sacrament? Did he any of these things, or commanded he them to be done? Crossed he the bread and wine? Did he blow and mumble the words upon it? Commanded he the bread to be kept in a box, to be carried in processions, to be car­ried to the sick, to burn candles before it? What spirit hath revealed to you these things, seeing the Spirit of Christ hath not revealed them in the Scriptures? You must seek therefore for a new Gospel, to prove these ce­remonies: for the Gospel of Christ makes no mention of them: yea, this keeping of the sacrifice, it is forbidden by your own Canon Law, de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. 3. Gradibus. So ye both fight against the Scripture, and your own Ca­non Law.

The twentieth abuse, is their manifold stiles and titles that they give to their Mass, which cannot be all agree­able to the same: some taken from the persons in whose name and honor they are celebrat: as the Masses of the Tri­nity, of the Name of Jesus, of his cross, crown, and five wounds; of our Lady, of the Angels, of the Saints: some taken from the persons and matters whereof they are said. For there are sundry sorts of Masses, for sundry sorts of persons, and matters, as one for the Pope, another for the Emperor, the third for the King, the fourth for a man. 5. for a woman. 6. for the bridegroom. 7. for the bride. 8. for prisoners. 9. for them that saills▪ 10. for them that goes a voyage. 11. for the dead. 12. for him of whose soul there is doubt. 13. for the pest. [Page 209] 14. for the rage. 15. for the tempest. 16. for the fire. 17. for all sorts of diseases, both of man and beast. And last of all, some of their styles are taken from the diversity of times and seasons wherein they are said: one sort of Mass for Sum­mur, another for Winter: one for the time of Lent, ano­ther for the time of flesh: one for Christmas, another for Pasch, another for Whitsunday, and other some for other Feast days. Now these Masses are so diverse, that the Mass that it said at one of these solemn times, cannot serve for another: the Mass for Lent, cannot serve for the time of flesh: the Mass for Pasch, cannot serve for Christmas, and so forth of the rest. In the which there are many horrible abuses. First, if the Mass be one with the Supper (as they say) then as there is but one Supper of the Lord, which is instituted only for the remembrance of CHRIST, which is but one in general for all, and whereof all the faithful are partakers, of whatsoever rank they be, be they great, be they smal, be they rich, by they poor, and which serves for all times. For as our Savior did institut but one Baptism to serve for all persons, and for all times, so he did institut but one Supper to serve for all persons, and all times. If therefore the Mass were one with the Supper, it should be but one for all persons, and for all seasons. But this diversity of Masses doth testifie, that it is not the insti­tution of Jesus Christ, but the institution of Antichrist, and that it is not one with the Lord his Supper, as they falsly alledge: Yea, it doth testifie that they have forsaken the truth of God, and are given over of God to believe lies, and to be deceived by strong delusions, that they might be damned.

Secondly, what needs several Masses of the Trinity, of the holy Spirit, of the Name of Jesus? For seeing the three persons of the Trinity are one, and they all concurr in the work of our faith, the Father giving his Son by his holy [Page 210] Spirit in the Word and Sacraments: therefore this diver­sity as though the persons of the Trinity were separat, is needless.

Thirdly, this would be marked: that suppose they have stiled their Masses from sundry persons, yet they have not ascribed a singular Mass to Jesus Christ, that it might be named simply the Mass of Jesus Christ: and this, no question, is not without the providence of God, that seeing the Mass is not the institution of Christ, but of Antichrist; not the ordinance of God, but of Satan; he would not that such a blasphemous and idolatrous invention should have the same stile, to be called the Mass of Christ simply, with­out any further addition, as the Supper is called the Lords Supper.

Fourthly, they have a several Mass to the Name of Je­sus, unto the which Boniface the sixth hath given pardon of three thousand years to them that say this Mass de­voutly, Missale Romanum; as though his Name were a thing separat from himself: and as though there were some special vertue in the syllables & letters of that Name, after the manner of Magiciens and Sorcerers.

Fifthly, their Masses to his cross and crown, is manifest idolatry, in ascribing that which was proper to Jesus Christ, to the tree whereon he hang, and to the crown of thorns which he bure; as though either they had redeemed us, and not himself who was crucified on the tree: or else that they were one with himself: which are both blas­phemy.

Sixthly, their Masses to the honor of the Virgin Mary, to Angels, and Saints, is manifest idolatry: For the Sup­per was not instituted in the honor of any creature, but only to the honor of him who did redeem us.

Seventhly, wherefore serves any Mass for the Pope▪ For if he be such a one, as himself and his Church have [Page 211] written of him; to wit, That his will is heavenly: that he may make something of nothing: that 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 [Page 213] 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 [Page 214] 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 of them are taken from the fashion of the Pagans. For Numa Pompilius when he used to worship, he covered himself with a kerchief or vail: and he ordained that these idolatrous Priests should have their Albe, and a painted colored coat above it, Ovid. in Fastis, Alex. ab Alex. As the Jewish Priest had a lawer, where­at they must wash before they sacrificed, Exod 30.20. so have yours: as they lifted up a part of the hoste, Exod 29.27. so you lift up the whole hoste: as they sounded the trumpets at their sacrifices, Num. 10.10. so you ring your bells. And what shal I speak of the rest of your vain and superstitious ceremonies, in washing often, in crossing and blessing often, in censing often, in soft speech and whispe­ring, in kissing of the Amice, kissing of the fannel, kissing of the stole, kissing of the altar, kissing of the book, kissing of the Priests hand, and kissing of the Pax, in smiting and knocking of the breast, in gesturing by rule and measure, in bowing and becking, in spacing forward & backward, [Page 215] and turning round about, and traversing of the ground: his gesture so ridiculous, so changeable, so affectat in saying of his Mass, that a man would think a player were coming forth upon the stage to play, when the Priest adresseth himself to the Mass: beside de musick of your Organs where it may be had, and your three-fold salutation of the Priest, Dominus vobiscum, which can have no use in the privat Masses, where the Priest is himself alone together with the Clark? So that in truth it is more then Jewish: For in ceremonies they are above their ceremonies, in or­ders more exquisite, in cautels more diligent: so that it seems rather to be a stage-play, then the worship of God. But I see it is fulfilled in them which was fore-told, that God would send them strong delusions, that they might believe lies, that all these might be damned which loved not the truth. Let the Christian Reader judge now, whither the Mass be an heavenly action, or whither it be not a sink and closet of all abomination, or idolatry, or not.

As truth confirms it self, so falshood destroys it self: A Kingdom divided against it self (as our Savior saith) cannot stand. Therefore their divisions and contradictions among themselves concerning this their sacrifice of the Mass, is an evident token that that Kingdom cannot stand. Some of you saith, Christ descends dayly from the bosom of the Father to the altar, and ascends from thence to heaven again, Turrian. 1. tract. cap. 11. fol. 59. Other some say the contrary, That he neither descends from heaven in the Mass, nor ascends from thence to heaven, Scarga art. 11. fol. 335. 2. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. saith, That the sacrifice of the Mass doth not satisfie for our sins, or merit properly the forgiveness of them. And yet in lib. 2. de Missa, fol. 731. he saith, That Christ offered in the last Supper a sa­crifice for the sins of the Apostles, and the sacrifice of the Mass (saith he) is one with that. And their Priests say in the Mass, [Page 216] That he offers it up for the redemption of souls, In Canone Miss. And the Council of Trent calls it, A true propitiatory sacri­fice for the sins of the quick and the dead, Sess. 6. Can. 2. & 3. And Gabriel Biel, an exponer of the Mass, saith, That the Mass is one in substance with the sacrifice of the cross, and that it proceeds the self-same effects, to wit, the appeasing of God his wrath, Lect. 85. in explic. Canon. & in 4. s [...]nt. dist. 12 qu. 2. If it then appease God his wrath, and be offered for the redemption of souls, then it must both merit properly, and satisfie properly. 3. Some of you affirms, That the sacri­fice of the cross, is more excellent then the sacrifice of the Mass, Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, fol. 626. and the vertue of the Mass depends upon it, Vega de Missa, thes. 141. And yet some of you saith, It is but one sacrifice with that of the cross, the same sacrifice, and the same Priest in both, Vega thes. 137. How then can the one be more excellent then the other? 4. Bellar­min lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4 saith, That the value of the sacri­fice of the Mass is finit, and therefore it is oft repeated. But Caietan a Cardinal saith, That the vertue, quantity, and effect of it, is infinit, as the suffering of Christ, Tract. 7. de celebrat. Missae, cap. 2. quaest. 1. 5. Some of them saith, That Christ is offered up in the Mass by the words of the Church, when it is said, Tua de tuis offerimus tibi, Possevinus lib. contra Chy­traeum & Volanum. Some when the words of the consecra­tion are pronounced: But Bellarmin agrees with neither: he saith, The sacrifice is offered up, not so much by the words, as by the putting of the sacrifice upon the altar▪ Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 11. 6. Bellarmin saith in a part, That if there be not a real and true slaughter of Christ in the Mass, then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice, Lib. 1. de Missa, cap 17 For, saith he, to a true and real sacrifice, is required a true and real slaughter of the thing that is sacrificed: for the essence, saith he, of the sacrifice stands in the slaughter. Upon the which fol­lows, that either Christ is dayly truly crucified in the Mass [Page 217] by their Priests, or else their Mass is not a true and real sa­crifice. And yet in another part, he saith, That the sacri­fice of the Mass requires not a true slaughter of the sacrifice, Ibidem cap. 25. 7. Gaspa Castlius saith, That there are two di­verse sacrifices in the Eucharist or Mass; the one of the bread and wine, the other of the body and blood of Christ, Lib. 1. de sacr. cap. 20. And yet Bellarmin, and sundry others denyes it, and saith, There is but one, Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. 8. Pope Innocent saith, That the sacrifice of the Mass is offe­red up for original, venial, and mortal sins, Tract. de Missa. And yet the Master of Sentences, and Gerson, saith, That the Mass purgeth but venial sins, Lib. 4. sent. dist. 12. cap. Posthaec, in Floret. lib. 4. And Thomas of Aquin agrees with neither of them▪ for he saith, The sacrifice of the cross was for our original sin, but the sacrifice of the altar, is for our ordinary sins, Thomas de Aquaviva. 9. M. Gilbert Brown saith, That their Priests doth the same in the Mass, which Christ did in the Supper. But Bellarmin frankly grants, That Christ did not offer up the bread by the same words that their Priests do now in the Mass, Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. Therefore they do not the same thing that Christ did. 10. M. Gilbert Brown saith, That Christ did offer his body and blood to the Fa­ther after the consecration: But Bellarmin saith, ibidem, That neither Christ nor his Apostles in the beginning did offer up any oblation after the consecration. I leave the rest of their con­tradictions, so that seeing they have no concord among themselves, neither in the matter, nor in the form, nor in the effect, nor in the substance, nor in the circumstances of their pretended sacrifice: but that the Lord (as is said in Hosea) hath divided their hearts; therefore their Mass must perish. And seeing the Lord hath sent such a confusion among them, that they understand not the language one of another; some saying one thing, some another; there­fore it is Babel, the tower of confusion which they are [Page 218] building, and not the house of the Lord.

To conclud this, they will have their sacrifice not a creature, but a Creator of all creatures: and therefore they worship it with the worship of latria, which by their own doctrine is only proper to God, Turrian. 1. tract. cap. 17. & Antonius de Padua, ex Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 8. Therefore they sing after the consecration, It is not bread, but God and man my Savior: And yet they say, That this Creator both begins to be where he was not before, after the con­secration: and ceases to be where he was before: and that he is not every where as God is, Scarga art. 5. fol. 335. Turrian. tract. 1. cap. 21. And they say, That the Priest makes Christ his body of the bread in the Sacrament, and Christ the King is made of bread. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat. inscrip. Antidotarius animae, & in Breviario & missa­libus, Qui creavit me sine me, creatur mediante me: he that crea­ted me without me (that is the Priest) is created by my moyen; that is, he makes that God that made him. Now how can he be the true God, and a true Creator, which hath a be­ginning, and ceases to be, which is not every where, as God is, which is made of bread and wine by a Mass-Priest, and that by their own doctrine? How therefore shal their Church be cleared from abominable idolatrie, that wor­ships that which they call God, Creator and Savior: and yet such a God, as by their own doctrine, hath a beginning and ending, and is not every where, and is made of bread and wine by dust and ashes. O! wo be to their souls that worship God which made not heaven and earth, and cau­seth others to do the same! And how shal their Mass-Priests be cleared from sacrilegious blasphemy, which vaunts that in their Mass they dayly creat their Creator, and that of bread and wine; and so makes themselves Gods, and more then Gods: For God created but crea­tures, but they (as they suppone) creat the Creator. [Page 219] And as they worship a false Creator in their Mass, so do they worship a false Christ and Savior in the same. For the Scripture saith, That the true Christ is made of the seed of David, & of the seed of the woman, Rom. 1.3. Gal. 4.4. and not of any other substance. But the Christ which they offer up in their Mass, by their own doctrine, is made of bread and wine, and that by the Priest. So Bellarmin con­fesseth, ibidem, and Pope John 22. ibidem. For the one saith, That it is no absurd thing to the Priest to make Christ his body of bread. And the other saith, That Christ the King is made of bread. Therefore they worship not JESUS, the son of Mary, who was made of the woman, and of the seed of David, but a false Jesus, made of bread, and baken in the oven, and formed by the Priest: Therefore of all Idola­ters they must be the most blasphemous and abominable. And thus much for the Mass.

Master Gilbert Brown.

FIfthly, our doctrine is, that the lawful Ministers and Priests of the Church of Christ, have power given them by Christ to forgive and to retain sins, because Christ saith to his Apostles, Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins ye shal forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shal retain, they are retained, John 20.23. And in another place, That ye may know, saith Christ, that the Son of man hath power in earth to forgive sins, &c. Matth. 6.9. and 16.19. and 18.18. with sundry other places conform to the same. And this is denyed by the Protestants.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As for the fifth point of your doctrine, that the lawful [Page 220] Ministers of Christ have power given them by Christ to forgive sins, and to retain them. If you mean that they have this power as Gods Witnesses, Ministers and Embassa­dors, yea, and Judges too: (For the Apostle saith, We judge them that are within) to testifie and to declare, to judge and give out judgement according to Gods Word; not only by the preaching of the Gospel, and administra­tion of the Sacraments joyned therewith: but also by the censures and discipline, in excommunicating the obstinat impenitent, and absolving the penitent. If, I say, your do­ctrine be this, then you injury us, in saying we deny it: and you needed not to have quoted these places, to con­firm the thing which we both teach, and also practise. But what is the cause ye would not quote the place where we deny this doctrine? But if you mean that the lawful Mini­sters of Christ have an absolut power, and full authority; not as Ministers and Witnesses only, but as Judges and Lords over our Faith, to forgive or retain by their own authority, and that the very pronouncing of the words of ab­solution, is the cause of remission of sins: and that it so scatte­reth the sins, and makes them to evanish, as the blast of wind ex­tinguishes the fire, and scatters the cloud, as Bellarmin saith, Controv. Tom. 2. If you mean so, this we utterly deny un-you, and all men; because it is only proper unto God. The which the Jews, suppose they were blinded, did acknow­ledge; and so not so blind as ye are. For it is only God that forgives in Jesus Christ, Matth 9. It is only his death that hath merited it, and only faith that apprehends it, and only his Spirit that seals it up, and the Word and Ministe­ry that declares, testifies, and confirms it. For the Apostle saith, He hath committed to us the word and ministery of recon­ciliation, and we are in his stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God, 2. Cor. 5.18.19.20. So we are but Ministers of this, Augustin is plain in this, Homil. 23. It is the Spirit, [Page 221] saith he, that forgives, and not you; meaning of the Ministers, and the Spirit, is God: it is God therefore who forgives, and not we. There is one argument: God only forgives sins, therefore not man. And again, What is man but a sick man to be healed himself? Wouldst thou be a Physician to me, with me seek the Physician thy self. Here another argument: He cannot be a Physician to others, who needs a Physician himself. Further, he saith, He that can forgive by man, can also forgive without man: for he may as well forgive by him, as by another. But to what purpose do ye quote the 9. of Matthew, That the Son of man hath power to forgive sins: For will you say, that the Ministers of the Church have that ab­solut authority that he had? The which if ye do, then are ye blasphemous. As for the word Priest, wherewith ye style the Ministers of the Church, I know that you and your Church takes more pleasure in this style, then in all the styles which the holy Ghost hath given to the Ministers of the Church in the New Testament: For among the manifold styles which are given to his Ministers, yet hath he never given this style of a sacrificing Priest, as proper to them, throughout the whole New Testament. But as your office of Priesthood is not written in Christ his latter Testament, so neither is your style of sacrificing Priests, contained in the same. But new offices must have new styles.

Master Gilbert Brown.

SIxthly, our doctrine is, to make the Priests of the Church to anoint the sick with oyl, in the Name of our Lord, and to pray over him, because it is the doctrine of the Apostles, as we have [Page 222] in S. James in these words, Is any sick among you, let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord; and the prayer of faith shal save the sick, and our Lord shal lift him up: and if he be in sins, they shal be remitted him ^*. And because we find here an external form, which is the anointing with oyl, of an internal grace, which is remission of sins; therefore we say it is a Sacrament. Now take from these places the vain subterfuges of our new men, that will have him a Mediciner for the body in this, and not for the soul, the matter will be plain of it self.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As to your doctrine of anointing of the sick with oyl, and that not by every man, but by a Priest; not in all sick­nesses, but in the extremity of death: not with every oyl, but with oyl consecrated by the Bishop: (which Bellarmin makes essential to this Sacrament, cap. 7. de extr. unctione) and that not all the parts and members of the body, but the five organs of the senses, and the reins and feet: and that by this form of words, Let God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast sinned, by the sight, hearing, smelling, &c. by this holy unction, and his most godly mercy. The which you will have to have two effects. The one, the health of the body, if it be expedient for the soul: the other, remission of the re­licks of sins that remains: and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments. And for this purpose ye only bring one testimony of Scripture. So that all the show of warrant you can pick out of the Scripture, is this only place of James. For I suppose with Bellarmin, and sundry others, you have seen that that place of Mark 6.13. which is also alledged by the Council of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine, would carry no show to make any thing for you, and therefore it may be you have omitted it. But this place serves nothing for your purpose.

For first, I say, this was a ceremonie annexed to the miraculous gift of healing, as is plain, both by the text using the word [...], and the Lord will lift him up, which is properly spoken of the health of the bodie: and also by that place of Mark 6.13. where it is written, that the A­postles anointed many sick with oyl, and they healed them. The which gift was not only given to the Apostles, but al­so to the very Churches, as is plain of the 1. Corinth. 12. Unto another is given the gift of healing, &c. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Church of God, wherefore will you superstitiously use the ceremonie? So either avow, M. Gilbert, that your Priests have this miracu­lous gift of healing, which I suppose ye will not, or else leave off the ceremonie.

Secondly, by this argument ye may as wel make all the rest of the ceremonies (which our Savior and his Apo­stles, Peter and Paul, and the believers in the primitive Church used toward the sick, blind, lame and dead) Sacra­ments. As the laying on of hands, Mark 16.18. which had both a command and a promise joyned with it, anointing of the eyes of the blind with clay, John 9.6. washing in the pool of Siloam, &c. John 5. Mat. 9.29. Acts 3.6. & 20.10. For why should not their examples be as well followed, as the example of the Elders of the primitive Church? And see­ing you use not these ceremonies, because ye want the mi­raculous gift, which was joyned with them, why do ye use this ceremonie superstitiously, seeing ye want this gift also?

Thirdly, I say, this place can make nothing for your doctrine: for this place saith, Call the Elders of the Church, and let them, &c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest. This text saith in the plural number, Call for the Elders: your do­ctrine saith, one Priest is sufficient. This place speaks of oyl, not mentioning a syllable of consecration, blessing of [Page 224] it by the Bishop, and that nine-fold salutation that ye give unto it, Hail, O holy oyl, with the bowing of the knee, and other ceremonies. There is not a syllable in this, nor in any other Scripture, that speaks of these things, and yet your doctrine will have all these ceremonies. This place saith, And the prayer of faith shal save the sick: and you at­tribut it to the ointment. This place puts no difference of sickness: but your doctrine is, that none be anointed, but he who is lying in the bed, and at the point of death. This place only specifieth the anointing of the sick, some of you reckons, as the Council of Florentine, seven parts: some the five senses, as necessary. And therefore this mo­ved Thomas of Aquin, lib. 4. sent. 4. dist. 23. quaest. to say, That the form of this Sacrament is not extant in the Scripture. Now if it be not extant in the Scripture, what to do have we with it, seeing the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation, and to make the man of God perfect in every good work?

Fourthly, Beda, Ecumenius, and Theophylactus in their Commentaries upon these places, and Thomas Waldensis, lib. 2. de sacr. & Alphonsus de Castro, de haeresibus. two arch­papists affirms, that in the 6. of Mark, & 5. of James, the self-same unction and anointing is meaned. But Bellarmin de extr. unct. & Jansenius, in Marc. 6. two other Papists, af­firms and proves by firm reasons, that that anointing in Mark, is no Sacrament; therefore neither is this anointing in James a Sacrament, seeing (as said is) in both the places the self-same unction is meaned.

Fifthly, I say, all the Sacraments the Lord hath institu­ted, are publick and not privat: but this Sacrament of yours is privatly ministred: therefore not a true Sacra­ment.

Sixthly, all the Sacraments of the New Testament should be ministred by them who have the preaching of [Page 225] the Gospel concredited unto them; and not by privat Chri­stians. But Innocentius the first, a Pope, saith, in his Epist. 1. cap. 8 Private men may minister this in their own and others necessities: as also Thomas Waldensis a Papist. And yet the Council of Trent accurses them that so say: Therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Seventhly, Pope Innocent in that same Epistle cited be­fore, calls it but genus Sacramenti, a kind of Sacrament; therefore it is not properly a Sacrament. But you are more bold to call it a Sacrament.

Eightly, all the Sacraments of Christ have their war­rant from the written word: But Petrus a Soto, in his book against Brentius, calls this a tradition which hath not the war­rant in the written word: therefore it is not a lawful Sacra­ment of Christ.

And as to your argument: That it hath an external form of anointing with oyl, of an internal grace which is remis­sion of sins. I answer: this form or ceremony was extra­ordinary, as I proved before, annexed to a miraculous gift of healing. The which seeing it is now ceased, the cere­monie also should cease. And this promise is not made to the anointing (if ye will believe the Apostle) but to the prayer of faith. The prayer of faith, saith the Apostle, shal save the sick. And whereas ye say that we make him a Me­diciner only for the bodie in this, and not for the soul: we answer: That this ceremonie, as sundrie others, was only annexed to the extraordinary gift of healing of the bodie, and was not seals of grace. And yet with the health of the bodie, the healing of the soul was oftentimes joyned, as our Savior saith to the paralytick man: Thy sins are forgi­ven thee, take up thy bed and walk, Matth 9 28. Now whi­ther these be our vain subterfuges, or clear grounds out of the Scripture, let the Reader judge. And whereas ye call us new men: let them be new and most recent▪ whose [Page 226] doctrine is most new. But as hath, and shal be proved by Gods grace, our doctrine is not new, but Jesus Christs in his Old and New Testament, and yours devised since. Therefore this title of noveltie most justly belongs unto you. This for the sixth point of your doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

SEventhly, our doctrine is, that when our Priests (which are the only lawful Ministers now adayes) are called to that function, receives the imposition of hands, with the grace or gift of the holy Ghost, because it is the doctrine of S. Paul in these words: Neglect not the gift or grace that is within thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with the imposition of priesthood. And therefore must be a Sacrament, because it hath an external form, which is the im­position of hands, of an external grace, which is the gift given by the same. And for this cause (a) John Calvin himself admits it to be a Sacrament: albeit in their Confession they call it a bastard Sacrament of the Popes, and detests the same, although (b) Me­lancthon hath the contrary. a Institut. lib. 4. cap. 14. sect. 20. item lib. 4. cap. 19. sect. 28. b In locis com. edit. 1543. de num. sacrament.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As for the seventh point of your doctrine concerning the imposition of hands in the ordination of the lawful Mini­sters of the Church of Christ, because it is a ceremony which hath the foundation of it in the word of God, and was practised in the primitive Church, as in the ordina­tion of Timothie here, and others: and is profitable both to put the Pastors in mind of his calling, that he is sepa­rated [Page 227] of God for the discharge of the same, and also the people that they embrace him as one sent of God to them; therefore we both acknowledge it, and practise it. But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inseparably joyned with it, or that it is a Sacrament of the New Testament properly (as you affirm) that we deny. As to the first▪ the gift of the holy Ghost is not inseparably joyned with it; First, because that is injurious to the Lords free grace, which is not bound to any instrument, let be to a ceremo­ny. And also he speaks against experience: for how ma­ny, I pray you, do receive imposition of hands, who re­ceive not a new grace and gift of the holy Ghost among you? Miserable experience these many ages, both doth testifie it; and also one hath testified the same, saying, Our Priests do lay the word of blessing upon many, but in few follo­weth the effect of that blessing, Ex veteri Testam. quaest. 109. inter opera Augustini. And certainly if any gift of the holy Ghost is joyned with this ceremony, it should be an abi­lity to preach the Word: For that is the principal part of the office of the Minister of the Gospel. But how many thousands are they among you in your Church who have received this imposition of hands, and yet as unable to preach the Gospel as asses are? And last of all▪ what nee­ded that tryal and examination so straitly commanded in the Scripture, which ought to be had of them that are to be ordained, if the holy Ghost were ever inseparably given with the ceremony? For wherefore is this tryal and exa­mination? And wherefore is Timothy so straitly charged to lay his hands suddenly on no man, but because it is only the holy Ghost who enables? The which also should be well known unto his Church, ere they presume to testifie the calling of God to them. For if it were true that ye say, that the gift of the holy Ghost were joyned with the im­position of hands inseparably, then the Apostle should [Page 228] rather have commanded Timothy, 2 Tim. 5.22. to lay his hands upon many, in respect of the need that the Church stood in of all men, rather then to have discharged him. And as for the place of Paul which ye cite here, Despise not the gift, &c. this serves nothing for your doctrine: For if first, the gift given to Timothy, which the Apostle speaks of, was extraordinary, and so ordinarily doth not ever fol­low the ceremony. 2. It is not ascribed here to the ceremo­ny of imposition of hands, but unto prophesie, which is gi­ven thee by prophesie, whereby it was revealed to the Church of the ability of this man. And so if there be any prophe­sies that go of you in your Clergy, that the holy Ghost is given to you, then ye may claim unto the same: but I think ye will not say that such like prophesies go of you: therefore ye cannot claim to this testimony. 3. Timothy is exhorted to keep that worthy thing concredited unto him through the holy Ghost, 2 Tim. 1.14. It was the holy Ghost therefore who was the giver and preserver of it. And as for the ceremony, it was a sign of the presence of Gods Spirit in them who was lawfully ordained. Now as to the second, that ye will have it a Sacrament, because it hath an external form, and also a promise of grace. That will not follow: For then you should have innumerable Sacraments: For prayer, alms-deeds, and the ordination of Magistrats, and many others, have external forms, and have promises of grace joyned with them, and yet you will not say that they are properly Sacraments For in all the Sacraments of the New Testament which properly are Sacraments, there must be first, not only an external action, but an earthly and visible element, as water in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Supper. And there­fore Augustin saith, in Joan. tract 90. Let the word be joy­ned with the element, and then it is a Sacrament. Secondly, they must have their express warrant and institution from [Page 229] Jesus Christ in the Scripture, as Baptism hath, Matth. 28. and the Lords Supper, Matth. 26. Thirdly, they must not only have a promise of grace, but a promise of remission of sins and sanctification: For they must be seals of that Covenant which is common to all Christians, as Baptism and the Lords Supper is. But this ceremony of imposition of hands wants all these three: For neither is there any earthly element, neither seals it up the Covenant which is common to all, but proper to the Ministery only; nei­ther hath it the express institution of Christ in all the four Evangelists And whereas in the 20. of John, he there or­dains his Apostles, we read, he breathed on them, and said, Receive the holy Ghost. But not a word that he laid his hands on them, or commanded them to use it to others. The which without all question he would have done, if he had ordained it to be a Sacrament. And Petrus a Soto, a Papist, saith, That the making of the imposition of hands to be a Sacra­ment, is a tradition. Therefore it is not a Sacrament pro­perly of the New Testament. Secondly, if the ordination of any by imposition of hands were a Sacrament, the ordi­nation of a Bishop by the same especially should be a Sa­crament: For the place which ye quote here is of Timo­thy, who was a Bishop, as your Church affirms. And Bel­larmin saith, de Sacramento ordinis, lib. 1. cap. 5. If this be not a Sacrament, then it cannot be proved by the Scripture, that ordination by imposition of hands is a Sacrament. And he saith, If this be not granted, they will lose all the testimonies of the Ancients, to prove imposition of hands to be a Sacrament, for they speak of the ordination of Bishops. But the ancient Schollers and Doctors of your own Church, in 4. dist. 24. and Dominicus a Soto, a learned Papist, lib. 10. de justitia & jure. qu. 1. art. 2. affirms, That this is not a Sacrament pro­perly; and so neither the ordination of the rest of the Mini­stery can be a Sacrament, seeing a Bishop is above the rest [Page 230] in your order. Last of all, the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 2. & 3. is not against it; and sundry of the rest of your Clergy, Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacr. ord. cap. 9. makes all the se­ven Orders of your Church, as Priests, which you distin­guish in two sorts; to wit, in Bishops and inferior Priests, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, Exorcists, Lectors, Door-kee­pers, and your Acoluthyts, every one of them by themselves, Sacraments. And your Master of Sentences, lib 4 dist. 24. cap. Si autem, calls all the Orders in the plural number Sa­craments. So if ye durst let the people know the secret of this your doctrine, ye make not only seven Sacraments, but fourteen in very deed. But this were dangerous to you to sowe abroad: For you fear it would cast your doctrine in some suspicion with them, and be an occasion to them to examine it by the Scripture; the which if they would once begin to do, ye know your hope were lost. As for Calvin and Melancthon, they call it a Sacrament, taking the word in an ample sense; for these ceremonies that have the foundation in the Word, which have a promise of a blessing joyned with them, and not in that sense that Bap­tism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments, as Cal­vin in that first place which ye quote, plainly acknowled­geth: For these are his words, Let the Christian Church, saith he, be content of these (meaning of Baptism and the Supper) and let them not admit nor acknowledge, desire, or look for any other third Sacrament till the end of the world. And as for imposition of hands which the Church useth in their ordinations▪ he saith, I will not be against it that it be called a Sa­crament, so being I reckon it not among the ordinary Sacraments. And Melancthon in that same place reckons up prayer, alms, marriage, the Magistrat, in the number of these unto the which he gives this name of a Sacrament: whereby he makes it plain that he takes this word Sacrament, amply and largely, as hath been said before, and not in that sense [Page 231] that Baptism and the Supper is called Sacraments. So you play your self, M. Gilbert, in the ambiguity of this word Sacrament, and deceives the Reader with the same. And whereas ye call your Priests the only lawful Ministers now adays: I will answer to this more fully afterward, only this now: First, seeing the fountain and ground upon the which all the lawful callings in your Church depends, and is derived, as your selves confess, is the supremacy of your Pope, whom I have proved to be the Antichrist in my other Treatise: and seeing the office of your Priesthood in sacrificing the Son of God, as ye suppose, is most abomi­nable, idolatrous and Antichristian, as I have proved also there: therefore you are not only not lawful Ministers of Christ, but the Ministers of Antichrist. And as for the style of Priest, I answered it before: it is not so much as once ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospel, to signifie their proper calling, in the whole New Testament.

Master Gilbert Brown.

EIghtly, our doctrine is, that Matrimony is a bond undissolu­ble, because our Savior saith, That which God hath joyned to­gether, let no man separat, Matth 19.6. And such like he saith, That whosoever demits his wife and marries another▪ commits adultery upon her, Mark 10.11.12. And in S. Luke 16.18. we have the same. And S. Matthew 5.35. & 19.9. is of the same opinion (albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornication) this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Jesus Christ: for it is written in S. Paul, That a woman that is under a husband, her husband living, is bound to the law; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore her husband living, she shal be called an [Page 232] adulteress, if she be with another man, and so forth. And in another place, he saith, Rom 7.2.3 1. Cor. 7.39. and 7.10.11. To them that be joyned in matrimony, I give not command, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: and if she depart, to remain un­married, or to be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. Now this is our Religion of matrimony, and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland, that will licence a man to put away his wife, and marry another. And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced, in their negative faith.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As for your 8. and 9 points of doctrine concerning Marriage: the first, that it is undissoluble for no cause: the other, that it is a Sacrament. As to the first, I would scarcely have understood this point of your doctrine. if your Council of Trent, and others of your Clergy who write of it had not been more plain then ye. And I think, that there are few that knows not this point of your do­ctrine otherwise, who can take it up by this your writing. I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine. But wherefore should I wonder: for darkness may not bide to see the light? Your doctrine then is this. First, you make many causes of separation and divorce­ment, besides adultery, Concil. Trid sess. 24. Can. 8. Bel­larm. lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. (express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, He that shal demit his wife, except for fornica­tion, &c.) he makes her to commit adultery. As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery, or Nunry. 2. For heresie. 3. And for peril of offending of God. Next, your doctrine is, That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife, from bed and boord (as we speak) yet the bond of marriage contracted and perfected betwixt the faithful, can no ways be broken, as long as they both live together, no not for adultery. So that the party innocent divorced, may not lawfully [Page 233] marry another, during the life of the guilty party: And if they marry▪ they call it adultery; and they will have the ground of this to be, because it is a Sacrament, Bellar. lib. 1. c. 12. So one error follows and leans upon another. For if marriage be not a Sacrament, then the bond may be loosed, by their own doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as shal be proved hereafter: therefore the bond is soluble. Our do­ctrine is, that the bond of marriage contracted and per­fected between two Christians, is broken by the adultery of either of the parties; so that the innocent divorced may lawfully marry another. As for our doctrine, it is plain in the Scripture, in the 19. and 5. of Matthew: where there the Lord in plain termes excepts the cause of fornication, saying, Whosoever demits his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. So then by the con­trary, he that demits his wife for fornication (which is adultery there) and marries another, commits not adul­tery. And seeing the Apostle commands, 1. Cor 7.2. That every man have his own wife, and every wife her own husband, and that for the avoiding of fornication: and it is better to marry then to burn. Therefore the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly according to Gods Word, it is law­ful to the party innocent at least to use the remedy of mar­riage for the avoiding of fornication. Otherwise if he might not use it, divorcement were not a benefit, but ra­ther a punishment, and the innocent should be punished without a fault.

Now, as to the Scriptures which ye quote, Matth. 19.6. and 5.31 they have that exception of fornication, expresly mentioned. And as for the places of Mark 10.11.12. and Luke 16.18. and Romans 7.2.3. and 1. Cor. 7 39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication, that our Savior expresly sets down in the former two pla­ces, otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture, [Page 234] which is blasphemie to think, and our Savior is the best exponer of himself. And as for the 1. Corinth. 7.10.11. the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery, but of a separation for a season, for other causes or variances, in the which case the parties separated, are to remain un­married, or to be reconciled together. And because ye will not credit us, nor the Son of God so expresly spea­king in his Scripture, yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors, Councils, Canons, and Popes, whom if ye be a right Catholick, ye think that they cannot err. Cajetanus a Cardinal, in comment. Matth. 19. Am­brosius Catarinus, lib. 5. annot. in comment. Cajetani, Pa­pists, hold this doctrine with us against the Religion of your Church, That adultery breaks the bond of marriage, and that the innocent divorced may marry another. Pope Zacha­ry, Decret. causa 32. quaest. 7. cap. Concubuisti. And the Concil Triburiense, ibidem cap. Si quis, and another Canon saith, That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage, so that the party innocent may marrie another, Ibid. cap. quae­dam. And Pope Gregory the third, suppose in a Canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage, Ibid. cap. Hi vero. so that the party innocent may marry another, contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior, yet he per­mits a man to marrie another, if his former wife being taken with some disease, be not able to render due benevolence unto her husband, Ibid. cap. Quid proposuisti. So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause which our Savior sets down of adultery, yet he sets down causes himself, which wants the warrant of the Word. And Pope Celestin the third, set forth a decree, that when of married persons one falleth into heresie, the party Catholick is free to marry again, cap. laudabilē de convers. infidelium, confessed by Alphonsus a Papist, lib. 1 c. 4. advers. haeres. So then either your Doctors, Canons, Councils, & three Popes err, or else the bond of [Page 235] marriage may be broken, and the innocent partie divorced may marrie another. Your Religion of Matrimonie there­fore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christs, but al­so to your own Canons, Councils, Doctors, and Popes. Let them therefore condemn your cruel ju [...]gement against the innocent divorced. And therefore Bellarmin con­fesses, Bellarm. de mat. lib. 1. cap. 15. That in this point they have many against them, not only us whom he calls hereticks: but also Latins, Greeks, and Catholicks.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Ninthly, with S. Paul, Eph. 5.23. we make it a Sacrament, as sundrie of the learned Protestants do, as Zuinglius, lib. de vera & falsa rel. cap. de matrimonio. Melancthon, in locis aedi­tis 1552. & 1558. and chiefly young Merchiston, in his 22. Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation, whose words are these. Thirdly, bodily marriage is by S. Paul, called a symbol and a Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church. And yet our new Confession detests the same, and will have it but a bastard. Such concord is betwixt Christ, his Apostles, and our new prea­chers of the Gospel, and also among themselves.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

The ninth point of your doctrine is: you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the New Testament, and that proper­ly, and that according to the institution of God, unto the which the promise of the grace of justification is annexed: so Bellar­min, lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 2. and the Council of Trent saith. But mark, Christian Reader, their ground of this their do­ctrine. They say, the bond of marriage among infidels may be broken: but say they, the bond of marriage among the faithful cannot be broken. And they make the cause of this difference to be this, because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament. So they reason. Marriage [Page 236] among Christians is a Sacrament; therefore say they, it cannot be broken. But what is their principal ground now, whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament? Because (say they) the marriage of Christians is a bond in­dissoluble; therefore it is a Sacrament which hath the grace of Justification joyned with it. So mutually one er­ror upholds another. Upon the which, I reason: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it can­not be a Sacrament: this your Church grants▪ because they make that the ground of this: but the bond of mar­riage may be broken for adultery, as hath been proved before, both by the Scriptures, and also by your own Ca­nons, Councils, Doctors, and Popes: therefore marri­age is not a Sacrament.

Secondlie, in the Sacraments of the New Testament, there are earthly elements: as the water in Baptism, the bread and wine in the Supper, and an express form of words prescribed in the New Testament: as in Baptism, I baptize thee, &c. and in the Supper, This is my body, &c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same, and have the promises of remission of sins, and justification annexed to them. But none of these things are to be had in marriage. First, no earthly ele­ment: next, no form prescribed in the Word of God: thirdly, no express institution of it as of a Sacrament: fourthly, no promise of the remission of sins, and salva­tion annexed unto it. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament of the New Testament properly.

Thirdly, if marriage were a Sacrament, and such a Sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justifica­tion with it, that is, remission of sins, then wherefore should your Church forbid all your Clergie from the same? And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament, which is instituted of God, to give remission of sins to you, [Page 237] and to make you acceptable to God? as your doctrine saith, Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive your self of that thing which may place you in Gods favor, and purchase to you remission of sins? (as ye say marriage may do) it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine, or else prefers whore­dom and adultery, which is condemned of God, to mar­riage which is Gods ordinance, and honorable among all men.

Fourthly, I say, if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise, and the marriage of all the Patriarchs, and Pro­phets, and Priests, and people in the Old Testament, was not a Sacrament, neither is the marriage of Christians in the New Testament a Sacrament. For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ, as well as the marriage of Christians in the New Testament doth: the which you will not deny. And Pope Leo saith, Epist. 92. That marriage was instituted from the beginnning, that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ, and his Church: but the first you grant your selves was not a Sa­crament, therefore neither is the second a Sacrament.

Fifthly, that which is filthiness and pollution, cannot be a Sacrament to give forgiveness of sins: but Pope Sy­ricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness, Dist. 82. cap. Proposuisti, &c. Plurim. 8. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament, if he speak true.

Sixthly, if marriage be such a Sacrament, as ye say, to give remission of sins, then it should be more excellent then virginity, because virginity hath not this promise: but this ye will not grant, therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Last of all, Durandus a great Doctor of your Church, saith, Ut Capreolus refert in 4. dist. 26. quaest. unica, artic. 3. That marriage is not properly a Sacrament.

As for that place in the fifth of the Ephesians which ye [Page 238] quote, where the Apostle saith, This is a great mystery, speaking of the mutual du [...]ies of man and wife. I answer: first, he calls not marriage this great mystery, but that band of our conjunction with Christ, as he expones himself: This is (saith he) a great mystery: and then he subjoyns, I speak of Christ and his Church. Secondly, suppose the old Interpreter doth translate this word mystery, a Sacrament; yet you know (if you know the Greek language) that [...], is called a secret. Thirdly, will you have all these to be Sacraments properly, which are called myste­ries in the New Testament, and which the old Interpre­ter and your Rhemists, translats Sacraments? then shal you not only make marriage a Sacrament, but also the chief articles of our faith, 1. Tim. 3.16 and the Gospel, Col. 1. Eph. 3 & 1. 2. Thess 27 and the seven stars in the Revelation, chap. 1.20 and the whore o Babel, and the iniquity of the Anti­christ. Rev. 17 5 all Sacraments. For they are called [...] in the Greek, and some of them are translated Sacraments by the old Interpreter, and your Rhemists, as marriage is. I wonder that ye quote Melancthon, as though he were of your opinion, seeing Bellarmin acknowledges plainly, lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 1. & 5. (that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properly, as Baptism and the Lords Supper is:) but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respect. But you regard not what ye write, so being it may carry any show against us The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Merchiston. They call it a Sacrament, but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments, taking the word improperlie, and more amply, as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon. So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ, neither among our selves But in very deed, you are they who are at dis­cord both with Christ, and among your selves. For be­side this that Bellarmin and Innocentius, calls the marriage of [Page 239] the Gentils Sacraments, because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperly as Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Merchiston calls marriage a Sacrament improperly. So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a Sacra­ment, so is Bellarmin lib. 1. de sacram. matrim. c. 3 and Pope Innocent cap. gaud. de divort. at variance with your Church, for calling the marriage of infidels a Sacrament. For as we deny marriage to be a Sacrament at all properly, so doth your Church deny the marriage of infidels to be a Sacra­ment properly. But to let this pass, I say, because I will not deceive the Reader, as ye do, with appearances of contradictions through the ambiguity of the words, Al­phonsus de Castro, lib. contra haeres. verbo nuptiae. haeres 3. Pe­trus a Soto lectio 2. de matrimonio. two of your Doctors, and sundry others say, That marriage is not a proper Sacrament of the New Testament: And yet the Council of Florence and Trent, and sundry others of your Church, say the contrary. 2. Durandus a great Doctor of your Church, saith, in 4. dist. 26. quaest. 3. That marriage is not a Sacrament properly. 3. Some of your Church held, that carnal copulation in mar­riage is a part of the Sacrament: some the contrary, that it is neither a Sacrament, nor a part of the Sacrament: so Bellar­min testifies, lib. 1. de sacram. matrim. c. 5. pag. 88. 4. Du­randus and your Canonists hold, That the Sacrament of mar­riage doth not confer grace unto them that receive it. And yet our common doctrine is contrary this, as Bellarmin grants, ibidem. Last of all, Canus a learned Papist, affirms, That every marriage lawfully contracted among Christians, is not a Sacrament; but only that which is made by the Minister in a cer­tain form of words: the which Bellarmin, and sundry others deny. And you are of great diversity concerning the mat­ter of that Sacrament among your selves. These are not now shows of disorders and contradictions, but they are so true and manifest, that Bellarmin your chief campion, hath [Page 240] confessed them, de sacram. matrim. lib. 1. Judge thou now, Christian Reader, whither is it we or they that is at va­riance among our selves. And this for the ninth point of your doctrine.

M. Gilbert Brown.

ELeventhly, our doctrine is, that a man in the estat of grace, doing good works, merits or deserves a reward, which is the doctrine of the Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles, as may be perceived in these places, and many the like. ^a Fear not Abra­ham, saith God, I am thy protector, and thy exceeding great reward. In another place, Therefore be ye of comfort, and let not your hands be dissolved, there shal be a reward for your work. And in the Book Ecclesiasticus, All mercy shal make place to every one, according to the merit of his works. With many more in the Old Testament, then I am able to let down here. But some of them I have noted. And our Savior saith, ^b Rejoyce and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven. And again, They that have done good things, shal come forth to the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement. And whosoever shal give drink to one of these little ones one cup of cold water only, in the name of a disci­ple, truly I say unto you, he shal not lose his reward. And ^c S Paul saith, Every one shal receive his own reward, according to his labor. And ^d S John saith, Look to your selves, that ye lose not the things which ye have wrought, but that ye may receive a full reward. And in his Revelation, Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. With many more the like in the Word of God. What can our new men say against this doctrine of Christ, his Apostles and Prophets, seeing that there is no reward without merit, because merces and meritum, have rela­tion together? For there is no reward promised in the Word of God, but for doing and working. And albeit God hath promised [Page 241] to reward all our good deeds, yet this promise is not without a cause; that is, to them that will labor and work, and to do according to his will. For he hath promised no reward to them that will not work, but to such as deserves the same by their doings, as I have noted before in the book called Ecclesiasticus, the 16. chapter.

Maister John Welsch his Reply.

As for your doctrine of merits of works, wherein you say, That a man in the estat of grace doth merit eternal life and glory, and that as well in respect of the work it self, as of the co­venant and promise made unto it. So Bellarmin lib. 5. de justi­fic. cap. 17. yea, that the works are in vertue equal, and of as great valor as the reward of eternal life is, so that there is an equal proportion between the works and eternal life. And there are some of your Church, and those of the learned among you, who have gone further, and affirm, That the good works of the righteous merits life eternal, in respect of the worthiness and excellency of the work it self, suppose the Lord had never made a promise or covenant, as Cajetanus a Cardi­nal, and Dominicus à Soto, as Bellarmin reports of them, lib. 5. de justif. cap. 19. And M. Reynold saith, pag. 105. That good works and evil are laid in different ballance: that good works are the cause of heaven, as evil works are the cause of hell. And Andreas Vega saith, in 5 quaest. de justi­fic. That the reward of glory shal not be greater then our good works have deserved. What blasphemy is this your do­ctrine? And surely if in any one point of your doctrine you show your selves to be men, who not only knows not the holiness of God, the unspeakableness of that other life, the perfection and infinit vertue of Christs merits, the [Page 242] perfection of his Law, and mans infirmity and weakness; especially you manifest it in this point: For if ye knew any of these things, ye would never profess such damnable do­ctrine: For that our works may merit eternal life (as ye say) and that not only in respect of the covenant, but in respect of the work it self, there are five things required. 1. That the work be perfect according to that measure of perfection which the Law of God requires, and the whole Law must be fulfilled, and that perfectly and continually. 2. The works must not be debt; that is, such works as we are bound before to do: For the paying of that duty which we ow already, cannot merit properly a reward: For will you say, that for the paying of that which you ow already, you deserve a reward? 3. There must be a pro­portion and equality between the work wrought, and the reward it self: For if the work be less, and the reward greater, then that which is more then the work, is not of merit, but of liberality. 4. The persons to whom the work is done; must be obliged and bound by right to ren­der and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work, so that he is not just if he do it not. And last of all, the work must be our own, and not anothers, and the power our own whereby it is done, and not anothers, ere we can be said properly to merit by the same. But all these conditions will fail in our works; therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life. For as to the first, the Prophet saith, That all our righteousness is as a menstrous cloth. And James saith, We all offend in many things; and none there is that have contained in doing all things writ­ten in the Law in that perfection which it craves of us, as hath been proved before: therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life. And as to the second, all that we can do, or is able to do, we are bound to do it al­ready, by the vertue of our creation and redemption, and [Page 243] his other blessings already bestowed; yea, they oblige us to more then we are ever able to pay, according to that saying of our Savior, Luke 17.10. Even so ye, when ye have done all that is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable ser­vants, because we have done that which was our duty to do. Since therefore it is duty, it cannot be meritorious of eter­nal life. And as to the third, there is no proportion be­tween eternal life and our works, the reward by infinit degrees surpassing the work: and therefore the Apostle saith, The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shal be revealed, Rom. 8 18. Everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the Son of God. Bernard saith, What are all our merits to so great a glory, serm. 1. de an­num. And Athanasius saith, in vita Antonij, Not suppose we would renounce the whole world, yet are we not able to do any thing worthy of these heavenly habitations. As to the fourth, the Lord is debtor to no creature: For as the Apo­stle saith, Who hath given him first, and he shal be recompensed? Rom. 11.35. The Lord is all-sufficient in himself, and so needs none of your labors, and so our works cannot oblige him. And therefore Augustin saith, serm. 16. de verbis Apostoli: God is made a debter unto us, not by receiving any thing from our hands, but because it pleased him to promise. And to the last, the Apostle saith, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? 1. Cor. 4.7. Seeing therefore all our works are imperfect, and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law, and seeing all that we can do, is but our duty, and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works, and that the Lord is debtor to no man, and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only; therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life. Hear further what the Fathers say in this point. Augustin saith, in ma­nuali, c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death [Page 244] is my merit, my refuge, salvation, life and resurrection: my merit is the compassion of the Lord, I shal not be void of a me­rit, so long as the Lord of mercies shal not want. Origen who lived two hundred years before him, saith, in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 4. lib. 4. I scarcely believe that there can be any work which may of due demand the reward of God, forsomuch as even the same that we can do, think, or speak, we do it by his gift or bounty. Then how can he ow us any thing, whose grace did preveen us. And he saith afterward, That the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only. Ambrose saith, de bono mor. cap. 1. Everlasting life is forgiveness of sins, so then it is not merit. Jerome saith, adversus Pelag. That before God, no man is just; therefore no man can merit. And again he saith, The only perfection of man is, if they know themselves to be imperfect: and our justice consisteth not of our own merit, but of Gods mercy. I omit the rest for [...]ortness.

Now to your testimonies, and reason to prove your me­rit of works, which you shamefuly abuse, bringing forth Scripture to cloke your damnable doctrine: unto the which I answer shortly. That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of every one, be they good, be they evil, and according to their works shal they be tryed, and every man shal be judged and recompensed accor­dingly, as the Scripture plainly testifieth. But that this reward of eternal life promised, is of debt, and not of grace, and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same, that the Scripture never affirms. For the Lord freely and of his meer grace crowneth his own works in us: and that not for the excellency of the work it self, but of mercy freely for his Christs sake, as both I have proved, and the Fathers have testified. So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose. For the controversie betwixt us, is not whither there is a reward promised, and whither it shal be rendred accordingly to the same, for that we grant: [Page 245] but whither this reward is of merit or of grace. The A­postle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans, The wages of sin is death: but everlasting life is the free gift of God. And in the 8 of the Romans, it is called, an inheritance. Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ, and they heirs of it through him, then it is not their merit. As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus, it is Apocrypha, and the text hath not that word merit, as the old Interpreter whom ye follow trans­lates it, but according to his work. As for the 118. Psalm, and the 16 of Matthew, ye are over seen in the quoting of them, for they have no such thing. As for your reason, that a reward hath ever a relation to a merit, that is false. For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans, speaks of a reward that is imputed freely, not to him who worketh, but to him that believeth in him, who justifieth the ungodly, vers 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised and fulfilled in his Saints, is taken in the Scriptures. And whereas you say, that there is no reward promised but to doing and working: that is false also, for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer, vers. 5. And as for the pro­mises of reward made to good works, it is true, it is made to them, but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that reward, but only that they are effects to te­stifie of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ, in whom on­ly the promises are made to us and our works, and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints. For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works; first, because all men by nature are hypocrits, and boasts of a vain pretence of faith, unto whom James saith, Show me thy faith by thy works, James 2.18. to take away therefore this vail of hypocrisie from hypocrits, the pro­mises are made to works. 2. The promise is made to works to stir us up to the doing of them: for we would be faint in doing good, if we knew not that the Lord [Page 246] would reward them. It is true he hath promised no re­ward to them who work not, because they in whom Christ dwels, they are not only justified, but also sancti­fied, and bring forth the fruit of their sanctification. And this for the ninth point of your doctrine, which is so damnable, that both it derogats from the merit of Christ, and makes men to take away their confidence from Gods only mercy and free grace: and swells them up with a vain confidence of themselves, and binds as it were, their hearts and mouthes, that they cannot with all their heart render the whole praise of their salvation to Gods only free grace.

M. Gilbert Brown.

TWelftly, we have other works that are called works of Su­pererogation, which are works of greater perfection, and are not set down to us as the commands of God (without the which we cannot be saved) but as divine counsels adjoyned thereto, they augment our glory and reward in heaven: which is also the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Christ said to the young man, If thou wilt be perfect, go sell the things thou hast, and give unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven▪ and come follow me. Matth. 19.21. Mark 10.21. So we find, that wilful poverty is a work of supererogation. Such like, S. Paul, 1. Cor. 7.34.38. saith, And the woman unmarried, and the virgin thinks on the things that pertains to our Lord, that she may be both holy in body and spirit. And afterwards: Therefore both he that joyns his virgin in matrimony doth well, and he that joyns not doth better. Therefore virginity is a work of supererogation: for albeit matrimony be good, yet the other is better: and this was a counsel that S. Paul gave, and no command. Such like Paul wrought a work of supererogation, when [Page 247] he preached the Evangel gratis, where he might have taken justly for his labors, 1. Cor. 7.40. and 9.14.15.23.17.18.19. Christ our Savior speaks of the same works in the parable of the Samaritan, Luke 10.35. where he promised to the hostler to recompense him what ever he did supererogat upon the wounded man more then the two pennies. And David the Prophet did supererogat, when he did rise in the night to give God praise, and seven times in the day, and so forth, Psal. 118.62.164.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As though your former doctrine had not injuried the merits of the Son of God, and his free grace enough, with the which (if the Apostle be true) your merits of works cannot stand. For the Apostle saith, (speaking of our sal­vation) If it be of grace, then it is no more by works, otherwise grace were no more grace: and if it were of works, then were it no more of grace, otherwise works were no more works, Rom. 11.6. You yet add this damnable and blasphemous doctrine to all the rest. And certainly suppose ye will not let it fall to the ground, that your doctrine is the doctrine of the dragon, and that your Church is that mystical Babylon, that mother of whoredoms, full of names of blasphemie: yet this your blas­phemous doctrine sufficiently declares what you are. For I appeal your conscience, if ye have any unblotted out yet with the smoke of the bottomless pit, and the conscience of all men who ever felt the power of sin in them, and the free grace of God renewing them, whither this doctrine of yours be blasphemous or not: That not only you may ful­fil the Law, and do all the duty which God hath commanded you, and thereby merit eternal life: but also you may do more then God hath commanded, which ye call works of greater perfection then the Law of God requires of us; by the doing of the which, you say you merit a greater degree of glory in the kingdom of heaven: and as Bellarmin saith, in his preface before de mona­chis, lib. 2. That your religious Monks lives a straiter, and more [Page 248] high kind of life, then either the Law of God or man hath pre­scribed. And that a man may love God with a greater and more perfect love, then is commanded him in the Law, lib. 2. cap. 13. & 6. yea, that a man may love God with a greater love, then he is bound to love him: and that these works are not only meritori­ous of eternal life, and of a singular glory in heaven, but also are profitable to satisfie for our sins: and that men may communicat of the abundance of these their merits unto others. And there­fore, they have in their service books, according to the or­der of sarum, this form of prayer often, That by the merits of the Saints they may obtain grace: and by the blood of Thomas (Archbishop of Canterbury) they may ascend to heaven. All which whither they be not words of blasphemy, and the doctrine of the dragon, I appeal your conscience before God in the great day, and the consciences of all men, as though it were not blasphemy enough to say, that men may merit eternal life, and a greater degree of glory in that life to themselves by their works: but also to commu­nicat unto others of the abundance of their works, and so not only to be saviors of themselves, but of others also. And here, Reader, I am compelled to speak this to thee, suppose thou believe not that they have written, and will maintain so horrible blasphemies, I wonder not: for I speak the truth to thee in my conscience, I lie not, I could not have been induced my self to have believed that ever they durst have professed such damnable and devilish doctrine, if I had not read it my self in their own books; yea, I durst not have been so confident as to have set it down here up­on the report of any, except I had read it my self. But if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit toge­ther. The Lord deliver his own from such damnable do­ctrine, which of necessity must bring damnation upon the believers and professors of it.

To answer you then; first, if we be not able to perform [Page 249] all the duties which God requires of us in his law, then we are not able to do works of supererogation, which is more then our duty, commanded in the law, as ye say. But the first I have proved before: therefore the second is true.

Secondly, if the Law of God be perfect, and prescrives more then we are able to do, then there is no works of su­pererogation: this you will not deny. But David saith, The Law of God is perfect, Psal. 19. and our inability to per­form it, I have proved before: therefore there is no works of supererogation.

Thirdly, what an absurd and blasphemous thing is this to say, that God hath no commanded to us the works of greatest perfection, (for M. Gilbert calls these, works of greater perfection) and so such works wherein he is most glorified: but hath left them in our own choise, to do, or not to do, as though the Lord had not commanded us to glorifie him in the greatest perfection, nor yet we were bound to do the same?

Fourthly, if there be any such works of supererogation which are of greater perfection then the Law commands▪ then it should follow, that the vow of continency, wil­ful poverty, and monastical obedience to their superiors, should be works of greater perfection, and so please God more, then the love of God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the strength, with all the mind, with all the thought, Matth. 2.2.37. Mark 12.29.30 For the former are your works of supererogation, and the last is comman­ded in the Law: but this is absurd: therefore there is no such works.

Fifthly, this was only proper to the Son of God to fulfil the Law of God perfectly, and to do more then the Law required: to wit, to die for us who were his enemies: this doctrine therefore of yours spoils him of this his glory.

Last of all, if none can merit eternal life through their works at all, then none can augment their glorie and re­ward in heaven by their works of supererogation. But the first I have proved before: therefore the other must fol­low. And mark this, Reader, how far God hath blinded their minds: for they deride, and they mock at that im­putation of the righteousness and merits of Christ, and they pronounce them accursed that so think: but yet they teach that the works of supererogation which men do, may be communicat to others. Be [...]larm. lib. 2. de justific. cap. 2. & Consil. Trid. can. 10. & Bellarm. lib. 2. pag. 129. As for the first place which ye quote, Matth. 19. If thou wilt be perfect, &c. I answered to it before, in my answer to the second point of your doctrine: to the which I refer the Reader. And so your wilful poverty hath no ground here. For if this man did not perfectly fulfill the Law, then was he not able to do more then the Law required of him: But the first is true, as I proved before in the second point of your doctrine, and as the circumstances of the text testi­fies it; for he went away sad, and he put his trust in his riches: and so it was not only difficile, but impossible for him to enter in the Kingdom of God, as our Savior saith; which had not been true of him, if he had fulfilled the Law. And this was a special command to this man, to dis­cover his hypocrisie. And all Christians are bound also out of the love of their heart to Christ, to be content to forsake all that they have, before we renounce him, or his Word, when he so requireth of us. And if wilful poverty be such a work of perfection, as ye think, wherefore then would the Prophet have prayed, Prov 30.8. Give me neither poverty nor riches, but feed me with food convenient. And if this be the work of greatest perfection, what is the cause that your Abbots, Popes, Bishops and Cardinals (For who should be perfect, if not these?) will not sell all [Page 251] their revenues which they have, wherein they surmount the Princes of the world, and so augment their glory in heaven, and be perfect? But shal others believe and obey this doctrine of yours, when the greatest Patrons of it be­lieves and obeys it not? O hypocrits! who will believe you?

As for the next work of supererogation, Virginity: It is true that the virgin and unmarried, who hath the gift of continency, thinks upon the things that appertains to God: And it is true, that if any have the gift of continency, it is better to be unmarried, then to marry, especially in the times of persecution. But yet it follows not that it is a work of supererogation: For to them who have the gift, it is a commandment: For he that hath the gift, is com­manded to use it; and in losing it, he sins. And every man is bound to glorifie God to the uttermost of his po­wer, and God is most glorified by the single life of these, especially in the time of pe [...]ecution, who have the gift: And so it is not a counsel simply, but also a command, but to them only who have the gift, and that so long only as they have the gift. And the Apostle saith in that same place which ye quote here, that he thinks he hath the Spirit of GOD also, and so this judgement of his was the judgement of the Spirit of GOD, which binds and obliges all them who have the gift. But unto these who have not the gift, the Scripture hath a plain com­mand, 1. Cor. 7.3.9. For the avoyding of fornication, let every man have his own wife, &c. And if they cannot ab­stain, let them marry, &c. And whereas ye say that Virgi­nity is better then Matrimony; that is not true simply, but only to them who have the gift. And since you say it is better, wherefore make ye Matrimony a Sacrament to give remission of sins? For shal not a Sacrament which gives remission of sins, be better then an indifferent action, [Page 252] which men may do, or leave undone, such as ye say Virgi­nity is? As for the Apostles example, 1 Cor. 9. in prea­ching the Gospel freely without wages to them. I answer: Suppose it was lawful to him, and all the Ministers of the Gospel, to have taken wages, as himself testifies, and proves in that same chapter, from the 4. verse to the 15. yet it was not expedient to him for the course of the Go­spel among them. And men are not only commanded to abstain from that which is unlawful, but also from the things which are lawful, if they be not expedient: and so he did no more here then he should have done. And therefore he saith, It were better for me to die, then that any should take my glory from me, 1. Cor. 9.15. which cannot be said of these works which we are not bound to do. And he saith, vers 8. That I abuse not my authority in the Gospel: but this would have been an abuse of his liberty with his peo­ple: therefore he was bound to do it. And yet we read that he spoiled other Churches, as he saith himself, and took wages from them. And also the Church of Philippi did communicat unto him twise, 2. Cor. 11.8. Phil. 4.

As for the 10. of Luke, it appears ye are scarce of proofs in quoting this place for your works of supererogation: For will you say that the Samaritan was not bound by Gods law to ware more upon his neighbor in his extremity then two penny worth? Hath not the Law said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self? And are we not 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 [Page 253] 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.

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 [Page 254] 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 [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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 Acts 2. and Thomas of Aquin, 3. part. quaest. 52. art. 1. & 3. two great Papists: and yet Bonaventure in 3. distinct. 22. quaest. 4. and Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo, cap. 16. affirms the contrary, That his soul was in the place of pain, and yet suf­fered no pain. Next, Thomas of Aquin affirms, 3. part. qu. 52. That Christ descended only into that place of hell, called Limbus Patrum: but Bellarmin saith, It is more probable that he went to all the parts of hell. And this is the consent which you Papists have among your selves, not only in this point, but almost in all the points of your doctrine. Now as to the places of Scripture which ye quote, they serve nothing to this purpose. For the 2. of the Acts, it speaks of that bondage of the grave which kept him under until he rose again: and therefore the Greek word is [...], which signifieth death, and not hell, as ye translate it here: and Peter saith, whom God raised up. The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ which had fallen and was raised up: but it was the body only and not the soul which fell down, and was raised up: therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death, whereby his body was kept in bondage, and not of any local descension of Christs soul. As for the places of the Psalms which ye quote here, Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension (as ye say) whereof he makes no mention: but to prove his resurrection, as he saith in the [Page 257] 31. verse most plainly: He knowing this before, speaking of David, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not remain in grave, neither his flesh should see corruption. So, if ye will believe the Spirit of God in the Apostle in­terpreting these places, they speak of the resurrection of Christ, and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell; for he was in Paradise, as he saith himself: and it is the bo­dy that was raised, and not the soul. And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH, which not only signifieth the soul, but also the life, as Gen. 37.21. Let us smite his soul; that is, take away his life. And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life, as Levit. 21.1.11. And this word Hell, is SCHEOL in Hebrew, which most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave. So then the meaning is this, The Lord will not leave his Nephesch; that is, the body wherein his life was in Scheol; that is, in the grave: which speech is usual in the Scripture. Now as to the other Psalm 29.3. it is spoken properly of David, where he thanketh God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies, which by a borrowed speech fre­quented in the Scripture, is called the delivery of his soul from the grave. As for the 4. of the Ephesians, these lower parts of the earth, is not Hell, as ye expone it, but the earth it self, which in respect of the world, is the lowest part: and so it is taken in the Psalm 139 15. where David saith, Thou hast fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth; where here it is not taken for Hell, as you take it in that place of the Ephesians; otherwise ye must say that David was born in Hell, which I suppose ye will not say. So hereby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation. So now to conclud this, neither in these points, M. Gilbert, nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us, is your doctrine agreeable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles, as hath been (I hope) proved [Page 258] sufficiently. You must therefore provide you for bet­ter weapons and armor, and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine, and uphold of yours, then ye have done: otherwise your shots will be but as shots of pa­per, and your bulwarks but of intempered morter, which suddenly will rush down at the light of the truth of God. The Lord open your eyes to see the truth, and suffer you not to continue any longer, to cause the blind go out of the way, as you have done. Amen.

Master John Welsch.

ANd our Religion which we profess, and all the particular heads of it, was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which I offer me also to prove either by word or writ, against whosoever will plead the contrary. The which if I fail in, I will be content to lose my life therefore, by his grace.

Master Gilbert Brown.

There is much promised here, but nothing done, and it is a thing impossible to him to do. For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants differ from us, is in denying, abhorring, or dete­sting, as may be seen in their Confession of Faith, which they compel all men to swear and subscribe. As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist, upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Church, the civil Magistrat, &c. except such things were expresly contained in the Word of God.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As for my promise and performance, I answere [...] [...] that before: and whither that be a thing unpossible [...] [Page 259] or not, let this my answer be a tryal thereof. You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible: but what have ye for you? You say, because the difference chiefly that we differ from you, is in denying and abhor­ring. What a raison is this? Can we not prove our Re­ligion out of the Scripture, because we deny yours which is contrary to the same? Is it impossible to prove the truth, because falshood is denyed and abhorred? What new Logick or Divinity is this? I would never have be­lieved that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner, if your self had not bewrayed the same. And certainly your Church is not beholden to you: For if your reason hold forth, it will follow that it is impossible to you, or any man else, to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture: For in your Confession of Faith, and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux, anno 1585. there they deny and abhor the Protestants and their doctrine, and compel all men who desire the fellowship of the Roman Church, and their absolution, to abjure, renounce, and subscribe the same. But I suppose your Church will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours. And whereas you say, that the chief difference wherein we differ from you, is in denying and abhorring, &c. of your Religion. I ask you, Doth not our Religion differ as far from yours, as yours doth from us? This you cannot deny. For are not two contraries equally different one from another? Doth not light differ as far from darkness, white from black, Christ from Antichrist, as darkness from light, black from white, and Antichrist from Christ? And are not yours and our Religions contrary one to another? But your self will not deny, and Bellarmin confesseth, in his Preface before the Controversies, and in his Preface de [...] Pontifice, that you differ from us in the main and [...]tantial points of Religion; therefore of necessity we [Page 260] must also differ from you in the main & substantial points of our Religion. And so the chief difference wherein we differ from you, is not in denying and abhorring, but in the main and fundamental grounds of our Religion. Otherwise it shal follow that the chief difference that ye differ from us, is in denying and abhorring of our Reli­gion, which I think your Church will not digest. Whereas you say, that this may be seen by our Confession of Faith: Our Confession hath not only the detesting and denying of your abominable errors in general and particular; but also the confession of our Faith in general, referring the particular heads thereof to that confession which is rati­fied and established by Act of Parliament. And so here, M. Gilberts untruth and calumny of our Confession may be seen. As for this form of exacting of an oath and sub­scription to Religion, if you find fault with it, you not only gain-say the Scriptures of God, impaires Princes lawful authority, and the Church of their Jurisdiction and lawful power; the example of Moses, Deut. 29.10 and of Josua 24.25. Jehoiada the High-Priest, 2. Kings 11.17. Josia, 2. of the Kings 23.3. Asa, 2. Chron. 15.12. And of the people returning from the captivity of Babel with Nehe­mias, chap. 10. But also blots your own Church; who (as may be seen in that Confession of Faith and form of abju­ration set out by the Monks of Burdeaux, whereof we spake before) doth the same. As for this exception which ye put in here, I answered to it before.

Master Gilbert Brown.

For if this be a true ground of theirs, that nothing ought to be done or believed, but such things as are expresly contained in the Word of God: but their general Confession, or their negative faith, is not expresly contained in the Word of God; therefore it ought not to be done, nor believed.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As for this ground which ye alledge to be ours, it ap­peareth certainly, M. Gilbert, that as ye said of me, either ye know not our grounds, or else ye wilfully invert them for your own advantage. For our ground is, that nothing ought to be done or believed in Religion, but that which may be warranted by the testimony of the Scripture, ei­ther in words and sense together, or else by a necessary collection out of the same. The which with Nazianzene, we say, Are of the same truth and authority with the first. And according to this sense, we say, That all the heads of our Religion, as well negative as affirmative, are expresly contained in the Scripture, and so ought both to be belie­ved and practised. These are but silly shifts, M. Gilbert, which ye bring to discredit the truth of our Religion. You knew full well the blindness and simpleness of the people in this Countrey; and therefore you regarded not how silly and simple your reasons were.

Master Gilbert Brown.

That their faith is contained in the Word of God, so far as it dif­fers from ours, he will never be able to prove, neither by word nor writ. And if he will cause our Kings Majesty to suspend his acts against us, that we may be as free to speak our mind as he, he shal have a proof hereof. If not, let him prove the same by writ, and he shal have an answer by Gods grace. As for his life, we desire not the same, but rather his conversion to the truth.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As for our ability to prove the truth of our doctrine, I answered it before: Judge thou, Christian Reader, of the same, by this my answer. As for the suspending of his Ma­jesties acts against you, that is not in our hands: and for [Page 262] all the good ye could do, you have but too much liberty. And if you speak no better for your Religion then you have done else in this your answer, your Church will be but little beholden to you for it. And certainly, if you will bind and oblige your self to face your own cause, and defend your Religion by word, I hope that licence of a safe passage and conduct would be granted to you by his Majesty, to let you speak for your self, what ye have for you for the defence of it, for that space, without any dan­ger to your person, and that surer, and with greater safety then John Hus had, who notwithstanding of his safe-con­duct, yet was burnt. And whereas you promise an an­swer, do what you can, M. Gilbert, for now it is time to plead for your Baal. And let your answer be more firm then this, or else ye will lose more then ye will win by it. That you desire not my life, I am beholden to you (if you speak truth) considering the bloody generation of your Roman Church, who these many years by past, hath spilt the blood of the Saints of God, in such abundance, that if any can tell the starrs of heaven, he may number them whom your Church hath slain for the testimony of the Word of God. And as for that which ye call conver­sion, it is aversion from the truth, and the losing of salva­tion: the which I hope shal be dearer to me then a thou­sand lives, suppose they were all included in one.

Master John Welsch.

Secondly, I offer me to prove that there be very few points of controversie betwixt the Roman Church and us, wherein we dis­sent, but I shal get testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years against them, and proving the heads of Religion which we profess. Let any man therefore set me down any weigh­ty point of controversie, one, or mo, and he shal have the proof of this.

Master Gilbert Brown.

WHom M. John calls Fathers here, I know not, except Simon Magus, Novatus, Aerius, Jovinianus, Pelagius, Vigilantius, and such. For indeed there is none of these, and many the like, but they were against us, and with them, in some heads. But I am sure, S Ireneus, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Basile, S. Chrysostome, with the rest of the holy Fathers, is no way with them, and against us, as M. John will not be able to prove for all his offer. As for example, it is a chief ground in their Religion, that only faith justifieth. This, I say, can neither be proved by the Scriptures, nor ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years. For why the contrary is expresly contained in the Word of God. Do ye see (saith S. James) that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, James 2.24. with many other places that agrees with the same, Matth. 7.21. and 19.17. and 34.35. John 14.15.21. 1. John 2.3.4. Rom. 2.13. 1. Cor. 13.2. and 1.19. Gal. 5.6. Tit. 1.16. And S. Augustin saith himself, de fide & operibus, cap. 14. That this Justification by faith only, was an 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 [Page 264] 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 [Page 265] 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 [Page 266] 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 [Page 267] 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 not himself of his own righteousness, but knows himself to be misterful of true righteousness, sola autem fide in Christum justifica­tum, and to be justified only by faith in Christ. Ambrose in cap. 3. ad Rom. & cap. 4. & 9. saith, They are justified by faith only through the gift of God. And in the 4. chapter he hath thrise, by faith only, sola fides. And in the 9. chapter also, Sola fides posita est ad salutem: that is, only faith is appointed for salvation. Chrysostome in homil. de fide & lege naturae. saith, The thief believed only and was justified. And in homil. 3. ad Tit. If thou gives credit to thy faith, wherefore brings thou in other things, as though faith only were not sufficient to justifie? Augustin, it is a known saying of his, lib. 1. contra duas Epistolas Pelag. cap. 21. Works go not before justification, but follow him who is already justified. And in another place, How vertuous soever ye report the ancient righteous to have been, yet their vertue saved them not, but the faith of the Mediator, August. de fide & operib. cap. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 10. in Joan. cap. 18. saith, Man by faith only sticks in Christ, inhaeret Christo. Theophylactus in comment, ad Galat. cap. 3. saith, Only faith hath in it's self the vertue of justifying. Bernard serm. 22. in Cantic. in the 1200. age, saith, Man being justified by faith only, shal have peace towards thee. What more plain now could the Fathers speak of Justification by faith only? which you will not deny. The Reader may learn how much credit is to be given to you who so bold­ly affirmed that neither Scriptures nor Fathers said with us against you. I hope they will try you before they trust you in time to come. For dare you say, M. Gilbert, that I have fained here ought of these Fathers, and have not brought in their own words speaking? Deny it if ye dare. Be not so impudent and shameless, M. Gilbert, in your [Page 268] untruths and lies again: for by this ye will both discredit your self and your Religion.

As for the 2. of James which ye quote here, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. I answer: This word to be justified, is taken in the Scripture two manner of ways. First, to be accounted righteous before the tribunal of God: and in this sense, only a lively faith apprehending the death and righteousness of Christ justifies us: and of this is the controversie. Next, it is taken for a declaration of ones righteousness, as in the 3. of the Romans, vers. 4. That thou may he justified in thy words (that is, declared to be just) when thou judges. And in this sense it is taken in this place. So that this is the meaning of it. Ye see then, by works man is justified, that is, declared by his works to be just, and not by faith only, that is, by the profession of his faith in Christ. So then James speaks not of our Justification before God which is by faith only, but of the declaration of our righteousness before men, which he calls Justifica­tion: and that for these reasons. 1. Otherwise James should be contrary to Paul, who saith, That a man is justified by faith without works, which is blasphemous to think: there­fore James speaks of our Justification before men, where­by our Justification before God is declared and made mani­fest. 2. The scope of the whole chapter, and whole Epi­stle, testifies the same. For his purpose is to cast down the arrogancy and presumption of such, who bragged of their Faith, as though the bare profession, that they belie­ved in Christ, were sufficient to save them, suppose they did not bring forth the fruits thereof. Therefore the Apo­stle takes this in hand to prove that they are not justified by a dead faith, but only by that faith which brings forth the effects thereof. And therefore he saith in the 14. verse, What availeth it, my brethren, when a man saith he hath faith, when he hath no works? can that faith save him? And in the [Page 269] 18. verse, Show me thy faith out of thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. And because it may be ye say, this is my commentary, therefore hear how one of your own great and chief pillers, Thomas of Aquin in Jacob. 2. expones the same, from whose judgement, I hope, ye will not appeal. Here he speaks, saith he, of works that follows faith, not according to that sense wherein Justification is said to be the infusion of righteousness, but according to that sense that Justification is called exercitatio justitiae, the practise or de­claration, and confirmation of righteousness. So if ye will believe him, Justification here is taken not for our justifica­tion before God, but for the declaration of our righteous­ness. And so the ordinary Gloss in Jacob. 2. exponing that place, writes, Abraham was justified without works by faith only: but nevertheless the offering up of his son, was a testi­fication of his faith and righteousness. What can be more clearly spoken by any? Would you have more then this? So then this place of James speaks not of our Justification before God, and therefore serves not to prove this your doctrine. As to the 2 of the Romans, v. 13. It is true, it is not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of it which are justified, if rhere were any who had fulfilled it. But the Apostle con­cluds in the 3. chapter, all under sin, both Jew and Gentil: and therefore gathers that by the works of the Law no flesh is justi­fied. And so we will leave this to you to do, & that also in the 19. of Matthew, spoken to the young man, Do the com­mands, &c. And as for the rest of the testimonies, I won­der to what purpose ye have quoted them, except for to make a show of Scripture and testimonies. For they speak only of the necessity of good works, which as they cannot be separat from true faith, so no man can attain to salvation without them: because where ever Christ dwels by true Faith, not only he justifies them, but also sanctifies them, and makes them fruitful in good works. The which [Page 270] we grant, and therefore do urge the same continually, kno­wing for a truth, that without holiness no man shal see God, Heb. 12.14. and that the ax is laid to the root of the tree, and that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shal be hewen down, and cast in an unquencheable fire, Matth. 3.10. They speak not therefore of the efficient or formal, or instrumental cause of our Justification, but of our sanctification with the fruits thereof, and therefore serves not to prove the con­troversie that is in hand. As for Augustin his testimony, as you corrupt the Scriptures, so do ye his testimony also: for this was the opinion which was risen up in the Apostles days, as he testifies there: for these are his words: That some thought that faith only was 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.

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, ^* 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 [Page 271] 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, [Page 272] 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; [Page 273] Judges must be sought for: If Christians they cannot be gi­ven on both sides; for truth is hindred by affection. A Judge without must be sought for. If a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian mystery. If a Jew, he is an enemy to Christianity. No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth. A Judge from heaven must be sought for. But why knock we at heaven, when here we have his Testament in the Gospel? Opta­tus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum. And he renders a reason of this in that same Book: Christ, saith he, hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children, who fea­ring left his children should fall out after his decease, doth set down his will in writing under witness: and if there arise de­bate among the brethren, they go to the Testament. He whose word must end our controversie, is Christ. Let his will be sought in his Testament, saith he. Augustin in Psal. 21. expos. 2. urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists: We are brethren, saith he to them, why do we strive? Our fa­ther died not untestate: he made a Testament, and so died. Men do strive about the goods of the dead while their Testa­ment be brought forth. When that is brought forth, they yeeld to have it opened and read: The Judge doth hearken, the Coun­sellers be silent, the Cryer biddeth peace: All the people is at­tentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard. He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail. Christ sitteth in heaven, and is his Testament gain-said? Open it, let us read. We are brethren, why do we strive? Let our minds be pacified: Our Father hath not left us without a Testament. He that made the Testament is living for ever, he doth hear our words. He doth know his own word: let us read, why do we strive? Ireneus saith, lib. 4. contra haeres. cap. 63. That the lawful exposition of the Scripture which hath no peril with it, is according to the Scripture themselves. What can be more plain, M. Gilbert? And I ask you further. Would you have vs to ascribe more to the interpretation of the Fathers, [Page 274] then the learned of your Church do? As Cajetan a Car­dinal, in Praefat. in Comment. in lib. Mosis, and Doctor Andradius: the first saith, That God hath not tyed the ex­position of the Scripture unto the exposition or sense of the Fa­thers: (If God hath not bound it, as he saith, why then should we bind it?) Wherefore there he desires the Rea­der, Not to mislike it, if sometimes in the expounding of them, he fall into a sense agreeable to the text, though it go against the stream of the Fathers. If he speak truth, then that sense that is agreeable to the text, suppose it be against the stream of their expositions, is to be received and preferred before them. And Andradius that learned man, saith, That the Fathers spake not Oracles, when they exponed the Scriptures, but might therein be deceived, Defens. fid. Tri­dent. lib. 2. And he saith more, That the oversights of the translation which they followed, must needs cause them some­times to miss the meaning of the holy Ghost. And yet you would have the sense of the Scriptures to be decided by them, who sometimes have missed the meaning of the holy Ghost. And he concluds in the end, That the holy Ghost is the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures. Thus the fairest flowers of your garden, and chiefest pil­lers of your Faith have written: So that if they speak true (whom I know not if ye will presume to contradict) the exposition of the Scripture is not tyed unto the exposition of the Fathers: and it is lawful to go with the text, against the stream of their expositions.

And whereas you say, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will soon be ended: I am glad of it, if you think as you speak. My word was, M. Gilbert, as your self hath written it, that there be very few points of contro­versie between us, wherein I will not get some testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years, proving with us against them (meaning your Church.) And I [Page 275] desired any man to set me down any weighty point of con­troversie, one or mo, and he should have the proof of it. These were my words. Now ye say, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will soon be ended. Whither I have been as good as my word in this or not let the Rea­der judge. And I appeal your conscience, M. Gilbert, be­fore the Lord in the great day, whither it be true or not. For not only in that example of Justification, which ye cast in, but almost in all the heads which are debated among us, I have brought in sundry testimonies of sundry Fathers with us against you. Yea, I have been better then my word in that: For I have brought in testimonies of sun­dry that lived after the six hundred years: and not of these only, but also testimonies of sundry of your own Do­ctors, Jesuits, Cardinals, Bishops, Canons, Councils and Popes, proving with us in some points against your selves. I look therefore, M. Gilbert, that ye shal be as good as your word, and that the matter shal end here between you and me. For both you have said, that the matter would soon end, if I were as good as my word; and also ye have promised and subscribed with your hand, to reform your Religion in all things wherein it is not conform to their te­stimonies. The which if you do, then must you renounce the supremacy of your Pope, the sacrifice of your Mass, your Transubstantiation, your Justification by works, your Merits of works, your perfect fulfilling of the Law of God, your erroneous opinions that the Church cannot err, that the Scripture should not be Judge, with sundry others. For in all these I have brought the testimonies of sun­dry Fathers: and in some of them the testimonies of your own Doctors, Councils, Canons and Popes, with us against you. Either therefore take shame and falshood for ever more upon you, or else keep your word and your writ which ye have subscribed here, and reform these [Page 276] points of your Religion. As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have taken away a great part from the Scripture. I know you mean the Apocrypha, which bears not the mark and stamp of Gods Spirit, as being neither written by Prophets, nor yet the most part of them in the prophetical language the Hebrew tongue, wherein all the Old Testament was written, except some things of Da­niel and Ezra, which were written in the Chaldaick lan­guage, which was known then to the Jews; nor yet recei­ved as Canonical by the Church of the Jews, which your ^(a) Church will not deny. Nor yet acknowledged Cano­nical by the testimonies of sundry ^(b) Fathers, ^(c) Coun­cils, and of your ^(d) selves, also Papists of great name: some rejecting all, some more, some fewer: containing also many things repugnant to the truth of God set down in the Canonical Scripture. Last of all, wanting that ma­jesty of Gods Spirit, which so evidently shines in the Cano­nical Scripture. And therefore most justly say we, that ye underly the curse of God pronounced in his Scripture, Rev. 22.18. for the adding unto the holy truth of God. And look to it, M. Gilbert, what you will say to your Cardinal Cajetan, who hath denyed sundry Books and parts of the Canonical Scripture in the New Testament.

Master John Welsch.

Now, if the first thing I offer me to prove be sound of verity; that is, that our Religion is that self-same, and no other, then that that Jesus Christ preached, and his Apostles, and theirs is not so: but devised by the man of sin, and that Antichrist, that whore of Babylon, then the plea is won. But if I prove the second also, then I hope they will never open their mouth to speak evil of the truth of God, as though it were but a new Religion.

M. Gilbert Brown.

When M. John proves the thing that he is not able to prove, we shal do the thing that we are not able to perform: but it is a wonder of him to put in so many (ifs) and doth nothing to the matter. For it is a true saying in Philosophy, that a conditional Proposition proves nothing. It appears he hath been in haste, that he might not have leasure to ^(a) prove any head for example of his promise. For we understand that M. John is a man who may err, as many man hath done before by his judgement: and therefore he must have no ^(b) credence of us, except he bring his warrant, and ye shal be ^(c) sure that he is never able to perform his sayings.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

This my Reply, I hope, satisfies for answer to this section.

Master John Welsch.

THirdly, I answer: The Spirit of God fore-tels that when the Antichrist shal come, the defection shal be universal, and all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication.

M. Gilbert Brown.

Where this is written, M John tells not. For I am sure, as it is set down here, there is no such thing in our Bibles, no not in their own corrupted Bibles, except they have augmented them of new. That there shal be an universal defection, it is altogether repug­nant to the Word of God, as I have shewed before, in proving the Church always to continue. For the same place where I believe he alledges to, hath these words; And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints and to overcome them: And power was given him upon every tribe and people and tongue, and nation, and all that inhabit the earth adored it, whose names be not written in the book of life of the Lamb, Rev. 13 7.8. Here any man may see that the Saints of God that shal be persecute by the Antichrist, & such that is written in the book of life, shal not make defection, then it shal not be an universal defectiō. And also M. John afterward in finding some of his Religion that said against the Antichrist the Pope, the time bygone, is contrary to himself here, that the defection shal not be universal. And where he saith, that all Nations shal be drunk [...]n with the wine of her forni­cation, the text is otherwise; Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: that is, that the people of all Nations that have obeyed her, shal be punished with the wrath of God, and not that all the world should make defection.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

You fight against your own shadow, M. Gilbert: and [Page 279] whereas ye can find nothing justly to quarrel in my words being rightly taken, and taken as the Scripture takes them: you devise a meaning of your own brain, and would fa­ther it upon me, that ye may the more easily have some­what to speak against. For I neither spake it, nor meant it, that the elect should make defection in the time of the Antichrist. I am so far from it, that suppose I believe as­suredly that this prophesie is fulfilled in your own Church, yet I know assuredly that the Lord reserved his own elect to himself, who was kept free from your Idolatry, as he promised, Rev. 14. and Histories record of some, whereof I did set down some of their names. But this is the do­ctrine of one of your own Church, Dominicus a Soto in lib. 4. sent. dist. 46. quaest. 1. art. 1. who believed it assuredly, That the faith of Jesus Christ, and Religion, should be utterly extinguished through the persecution of the Antichrist, if Bellarmin speak true of him, lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. And so turn the point of your sword, M. Gilbert, upon your own brother, who so taught, and not upon me, who is far from it. And if ye will say, wherefore then called I it universal? I answer: Because the Scripture calls it a defection, without any addition or restraint: and your Rhemists grant, That this defection shal be a revolting of Kings, People, and Provinces, and the publick intercourse of the faithful with the Church of Rome shal cease: And that the dayly sacrifice shal be abolished most universally throughout all Nations and Churches of the world, by Antichrist himself, Annot. upon 2. Thess. 2. And Bellarmin saith, lib. 3. cap. 16. That he shal be Monarch of the whole world. Therefore this Kingdom by your own confession shal be universal: and seeing his Kingdom is an apostasie or defection; for as many as shal obey him, shal make defection from the faith: therefore by the doctrine of your own Church, it must be an universal defection. And the Scripture saith [Page 280] expresly, That he shal make all, both smal and great, &c. to re­ceive a mark on their right hand, and on their fore-heads: and that no man may buy or sell, &c. and that all Nations have drun­ken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, Rev. 13.16. and 14.8 and 18.3. Now whither I might call that uni­versal, which the Scripture calls all, and your Rhemists and Bellarmin makes so general and universal, that it shal possess all the Kingdoms of the earth, let the Christian Reader judge. And let me ask you, M. Gilbert, Do you not be­lieve that the Church is Catholick, or Universal? And do you not think with one of your own number, to wit, Co­sterus a Jesuit, in Enchirid. that the Church is called Uni­versal because the faith of the Church is scattered in all Na­tions? and yet for all this, all particular Nations, and all particular men receives not this faith, and yet notwith­standing it is Universal, and is called Universal still. And doth not the Scripture prophesie, that in Abraham all the Nations shal be blessed, Gal. 3.8. and yet for all this, there were and is, millions of the Gentils that are not blessed in him? Why then, in like manner, may not the defection in the time of the Antichrist be called universal, although the elect be exeemed from it? But wherefore insist I to refute this vain quarrelling of words, which serves to no purpose? So then, this that I said is both in your Translation, and ours in substance, and is not contrary to that which I said afterward.

As for that place of Scripture which ye cite here, Rev. 3.7 8. it is not spoken here of the Antichrist, but of the persecution of the Roman Emperors. As for that calum­ny of yours, in calling our Bibles corrupted and augmen­ted: this is your sin, M. Gilbert, whereof one day ye shal make an account to the Majesty of God, for the slandering and bearing false witness of the truth of God. And to speak the truth, this is true of you: For both you have [Page 281] added to the Scriptures of God: first, the Apocrypha; next, your traditions, which your Church hath decreed to be re­ceived with equal reverence and godliness with the Scripture, Concil. Trident. sess. 4. thirdly, the Decretal Epistles of your Popes, which some of you have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scripture, Gratianus dist. 19. & Alphonsus de genero. in thesauro Christ. Relig. cap. 3. num. 5. And also you have corrupted the Scriptures of God by your corrupt translation, especially that of the Colledge of Rhemes. The which to be true, if time would serve, I might soon be able to prove, which hath been sufficiently proved by that learned and worthy man of God Doctor Fulk; unto the which, you, nor all your Clergy, have not answered as yet, for ought I know, nor never is able to do.

And as for the last point, wherein ye say, that the text is otherways then I set down, let the Christian Reader judge whether my words be one in substance with this text, or not: For suppose this be set down in the preterit-time, and I spake it in the future time, yet it is a prophesie of a thing to come: and your Church grants it is not ful­filled yet, therefore they are both one in substance. And as for your exposition, where you expone this of the pu­nishment of the people that have obeyed her, and not of their sin in communicating with her Idolatry, that is mani­festly against the text. For this is set down here as the cause of her punishment, which is pronounced before in these words, Babylon is fallen, &c. Now the reason, because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornica­tion; whereby in the Scripture is signified Idolatry; and it is called, the wine of the wrath, &c. because her fornica­tion provoked God to wrath. And Aretas exponeth this fornication, a defection from every good. And in the 18. chapter it is more evident, where after the denunciation of her fall, this reason is subjoyned, Because all Nations have [Page 282] drunken of the wine of the wrath, &c. and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her: and the marchands of the earth are waxed rich through the aboundance of her plea­sures. The which as they cannot be understood of the pu­nishment, but of the defection; so this drinking cannot be understood of their punishment, but of their communica­tion with her Idolatrie: And yet however it be, this proves that universal defection, of the which I spake.

Master John Welsch.

And the Church of God shal be latent, and flee to the wilder­ness, and there lurk, and be fed of God all that time secretly.

Master Gilbert Brown.

It is a wonder to hear the Word of God abused, not only with false expositions repugnant to the words self, but also alledging the word falsly. For the text of S. John hath but this (for he notes no place, because he knowes it may not abide a tryal) And the wo­man fled unto the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that there they might feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes. Here there is no word that she shal be latent, nor lurk, nor be secret. And if M John will mean that the fleeing to the wilder­ness, is nothing but to be invisible, and to ly secret, then it must follow that the whore of Babylons self must be invisible and secret. For the same S John saith, And the Angel took me away in spirit into the desert, and I saw a woman sitting upon a skarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. This word (desert) signifies more properly to be secret or invisible, then the word (wilderness.) It is true appearantly, that if this woman signifie the Church of Christ, that in the time of the Antichrist she shal be redacted to a smal number, as it were in a wilderness, and shal not possess every Nation, as she had wont to do: but that she may be made invisible, and not to be seen, there is no true Catho­lick that expones it so. And such like, this time shal be but short, that is, for 1260. dayes, as the text saith, which is but three years [Page 283] and an half. And if M. Johns Church had been but so long invisi­ble, we should have dispensed with the same. But it hath been in­visible these thousand years, as it is now professed in Scotland, and much more, as young Merchiston hath in his book upon the Reve­lation, chap. 12. vers. 14.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

All that you can find fault with here, is this, that I said, the Church in the time of the Antichrist, should be latent, and lurk, and be fed secretly; the which hath stirred you up in such a choler, that you have cryed out with admira­tion, that I have abused the Scripture, &c. Now tell me, M. Gilbert, whither is it because these same words are not found in the Scripture, or because the doctrine it self can­not be warranted by the same? If the former, then I say you are but a quarreller about words. And all the do­ctrine which ye have set down in this your answer, is not set down in so many termes in the Scripture, and yet ye will have it to be the doctrine of Gods Spirit (suppose it be not so.) So it sufficeth that this which I said be warran­ted by the Scripture, suppose the same termes be not found. If the other, then I say, beside other places of Scripture, this same place which ye quote here confirmes the same. For know ye not that the wilderness is a place of refuge and secrecie, from the tyranny of their pursuers? And they that flie to the same, they flie to lurk there, and to be kept close and secret from the rage of their persecu­ters, for the safety of their lives. So while it is prophe­sied, That this woman (whereby is signified the Church) which suppose ye conditionally expone so: yet Sanderus 40. demonstrat. one of your own number, expones it to be the Church without all doubt shal flie in the wilderness from the face of the dragon, and that for her safety, and there be fed. &c. Is it not then manifest that she shal be secret and lurk then, [Page 284] and not be so open and visible as she was before? And if this be an abuse of the Scripture, then not only your self hath abused it, but also sundry of your own Church, as the Rhemists, Bellarmin and Sanderus. For your self saith, That in the time of the Antichrist, she shal be redacted in a smal number, as it were in a wilderness, and shal not possess every Nation, as she had wont to do. For what is this else but to lurk and be latent, and to be fed secretly, in comparison of that estat wherein she was before? And therefore the only thing that I inferred on this in the end, was, that no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible, in such a flowrishing estat as it is now. And the Rhemists annot. in 2. Thess. say, That in the time of the An­tichrist, this great defection or revolt shal be of Kingdoms, Peo­ple, and Provinces, from the open external obedience and com­munion with the Church of Rome. So that their communion with her shal be in heart, and the practise thereof in secret, and he shal abolish the publick exercise of all Religions, true or false, save that which is done to himself: So that the Mass, they say, shal be had but in secret then. And Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. & 18. and Sanderus demonst. 35. & 37. is of the same mind, That his cruel persecution shal stay all publick exercise of Religion, and he shal make open warfare with the whole Church, and shal endeavor to destroy the universal estat of the whole Christian Commonwealth, and shal shut up the door of Sacraments, and shal suffer no man any more to en­ter in the Church of Christ, and shal be Monarch of the whole world. Now if this be true, whether shal the Church of Christ by your own doctrine be fed secretly, or not be la­tent and lurk, in the time of the Antichrist? let all men judge. But what a contradictorious spirit is this of yours, who to gain-say the thing that I writ, cares not to involve your self in a contradiction, not only to the truth, but also to your own Catholicks. Either therefore wonder at your [Page 285] own Catholicks, who have spoken as much and more in this point then I did, and at your self also, who grants as much in substance as I meant, that ye and they have abu­sed the Scripture, or else leave off to wonder at me, and wonder at the vail which is hung over your own eyes, which hinders you not only to understand the truth, but also to understand what your self and your own brethren teach. Now as for your reason, it is not said that Baby­lon was in the desert, but that John was taken in the spirit; that is, ravished in the spirit (as in the 1. and 4. chapter) in­to the desert; that is, into a solitar and heavenly contemp­lation of that vision which was afterward shown him. For as this carrying of him in the sprit, signifies his spiritual ra­vishing, so this desert signifies the solitariness of his con­templation. And as that lifting up of Ezekiel by the locks of the hair of his head between the heaven and the earth, and that carying of him to the door of the innermost port towards the North, to see the abominations of Jerusalem, was only in vi­sion, and not bodily. So I take this carrying of John in spirit to the wilderness, to see the whore of Babylon, to have been in vision only, and not bodily. And whereas ye say that this word desert, signifies more properlie to be hid and invisible then the word wilderness; I pray you, tell me, M. Gilbert, what is between desert and wilderness, save that the first is driven from the Latin, and the second is English? Must you be set to the Grammar-school again? What fancie is this wherewith ye are possessed, that you put a difference between wilderness and desert? Is there any difference, if you understood the Greek language, be­tween [...] and [...]; that is, between desert and desert, wilderness and wilderness? And if ye have ever read the New Testament in Greek, there is but the self-same word [...], in both these places, which signifieth desert or wil­derness. But where have you been when ye did imagine [Page 286] this difference? Appearantly ye have been dreaming in some wilderness, or else wandring in the wilderness of your own blind imaginations. As for the exposition of your true Catholicks, we count not much of them. Al­ways these whom ye call your true Catholicks Bellarmin, the Rhemists, and Sanderus, have been plain in this matter, and have spoken more in this point then we do. And as for the time of this her secrecie and lurking 1260 days, which you expound literally to be but three years and an half. I answer, This exposition of yours is against: first, the cu­stom of prophesies, which are expounded figuratively, and not literally, as these 70. weeks in Daniel concerning Christ, where there a day is put for a year. Next, it is against the whole circumstances of the text: For will you expound this woman figuratively for the Church, as San­derus doth: and the wilderness unto the which she fled, fi­guratively for the smal number whereunto she shal be re­dacted, as you do; and the sun wherewith she was clad, and the moon which was under her feet, and the twelve stars that was upon her head, and the red Dragon which pursued her with ten heads, &c. all figuratively? and yet will ye ex­pound the time of her being in the wilderness literally? What violence is this which ye will offer unto the holy truth of God, to expound all the rest figuratively; and on­ly the time literally? So then a day here is set for a year, as also it is taken in the same sense in the 2. chapter of the Reve [...]ation, in the Epistle to Smyrna, where it is said, They shal have tribulation for the space of ten dayes; that is, for the space of ten years. As for the invisibility of our Church, because that question comes afterward, therefore I omit it now. Only this, as your Hierarchie and abomination of your Church grew, so did the purity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ in his Church decay. And as your Popes came not to their hight at an instant, and brought not in [Page 287] their abominations at an instant, but piece and piece, and by long process of time: So the purity of the truth of God decayed not at an instant, but piece and piece and by a long process of time. For the degrees of your exalting, was the degrees of the depressing of the truth of God in his Church. As for our dispensation, suppose your Church useth not to give them without money laid down, yet we will neither buy them, nor have them for nought. So keep your dispensations at home (M. Gilbert) while we send for them.

M. John Welsch.

And the Ministers thereof shal preach in sackcloth, that is, under persecution, all that time, and at the last they shal be put to death for the testimonie of Jesus, and for speaking against their false Worship and Religion.

Master Gilbert Brown.

It appears to me that M. John hath found some new Revela­tion, other then that of S. John: for he notes no place to us: and these words of his are no way in S. John, and therefore as an inven­tion of his own head, we will reject the same. Indeed we have in S. John, That God shal give to us two witnesses, and they shal prophesie 1260. dayes clad with sackcloth, Rev. 11.3. But this can no wayes agree with this purpose of his. For why there shal be but two of these: and there is more then two hundred Ministers in Scotland. And these two shal prophesie, but our Ministers are no Prophets, (albeit they foretell things oftentimes that is not true) & all the pro­phesies, if they prophesie at any time, is of evil, and not of good. These two shal prophesie but three years and an half: but our Mi­nisters have prophesied these 38. years, if preaching be prophesying. And these two shal be clad in sackcloth; but our Ministers, chiefly of Borrowstowns, is clad in fine black cloth, or silk. And so forth of many more differences, as is contained in the 11. chapter of the Revelation.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

It appears to you that I have found some new Revela­tion, other then that of S. John. So did it appear to the Jews, that the Apostle Paul taught all men every where against the Law of Moses, Acts 21.28. and yet it was the truth, as he himself testifies, he spake nothing beside that which Moses and the Prophets fore-told was to come, Acts 26.22. So every appearance is not truth. It is but the scales that are upon your eyes, that makes this so to appear to you. For the Scripture of God, and this Revelation of S. John, is sufficient to us to make it manifest, that your head is the Antichrist, and your doctrine is that Apostasie that was prophesied to come, so that we need no new revelations, as ye do: For because the revelations already made by God to his Church, and written in his holy Scripture, doth not warrant your abominable and false doctrine, and your Popes supremacy, which is the foundation of all: there­fore you and your Church flies to unwritten traditions, and fained revelations to prove the same. As for example, because your Church hath not so much as a syllable in the whole Book of God, to prove that Peters seat was transla­ted from Antiochia to Rome, which is the whole founda­tion of all Popery: Therefore your Pope Marcellinus in his Canon Law, causa 24. quaest. 1. cap. Rogamus. grounds the certainty of this upon a fained revelation, that Peter by the commandment of God did translate it. But to leave you with your new revelations, what have ye for you for this your appearance? You say, first, because I note no place: and next, because these words of mine are no wayes in S. John: therefore ye conclud it to be an invention of my own. As to the first: Is this a good reason, I note not the place, therefore I have found out some new revela­tion? You must be sent to the Logick schools again, to [Page 289] learn the right manner of reasoning. I noted no place; Ergo, I could not: that will not follow. As to the second, my words are no wayes found in S. John: Ergo, I have found a new revelation. But what if the sense be found? What if the self-same doctrine be found in S. John, suppose not in the same words? Then it will not follow that I have found out a new revelation, or that this is the inven­tion of my own brain. This place which ye quote here, Rev. 11.3. sufficiently confirms all that I said. For your self will not deny, and Bellarmin lib. 3. cap. 6 the Rhemists an­not. in Apoc. cap. 11. and Sanderus in his Demonstrations, grant, that these two Witnesses are they who shal preach in the time of the Antichrist, suppose they expound them of Elias and Enoch, and that they shal be persecuted, and put to death by him. What a blindness is this, M. Gilbert, that hath overfyled your eyes, that for the writing of that same doctrine which the Scripture warrants, your Divines grant, and your self will not deny, you have said, that it appeared to you that I have found out some new revela­tion? But judge thou (Christian Reader) what thou may presume upon M. Gilberts appearances. But you say, this agrees not with my purpose, and that because of the differences between these two Witnesses, and the Mini­sters of Scotland. First, I do not mean by these two Wit­nesses the Ministers of Scotland only, but the Ministers of all the Reformed Churches in Europe, who have depar­ted out of your Babel, and have shaken off the yoke of the tyrannous bondage of your Head, the Man of sin: and not only these who now live, but these also who now rest from their labors, and sleep in the Lord, of whom a great many were persecuted, and put to death by your ty­ranny, for speaking against your abominations. Now as to these differences which ye mark, the fountain from the which this springs, is your mistaking of the prophesies of [Page 290] God, and exponing them literally; which according to the use of prophesies, and especially these which are set down in this Revelation, and all the circumstances of this text, ought to be exponed figuratively. These same two Witnesses are called two Olives, two Candlesticks; and it is said of them, that fire comes out of their mouthes, and destroys their enemies, Rev. 11.4.5.6. &c. If you will not be so ab­surd and ridiculous, as to expone these things literally, but figuratively; otherwise ye will make them monsters, trees, and candlesticks: why then do ye expone this place con­cerning their number, work, time, apparel, &c. literal­ly, and not figuratively, as the rest of their works and properties must be exponed? the which if you had done, then would you have seen no difference between the Mi­nisters of the Gospel that resisted your Pope, and these two Witnesses here: but the one to be the prophesie of the other, and the other to be the accomplishing of the pro­phesie. As for their number then, they are said to be but two, that is, few; and yet such a sufficient number, as may prove and qualifie any thing by the Law. For by the Law, Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, shal every word be established. So the Ministers of the Gospel, in the time of your Antichrist and darkness, was but few at the begin­ning: and yet so many, as served for to establish the truth of God by their testimony, in the consciences of so many whom God had appointed to save. As for their work of prophesying, the Scripture calls preaching, prophesying, 1. Cor. 12. and 13. and 14. And the Rhemists annot. in 11. Rev. grant, that these Witnesses shal preach against the Antichrist. And whereas you say, that we fore-tell oft­times things that is not true: this is your calumnie and lie, M. Gilbert, and so ought to have no credit. And the pro­phesies of the Ministers of this land against your Antichri­stian Kingdom, ye have found by experience, that they [Page 291] have been too true. And their prophesies are truer then the prophesies of one of your Popes Hildebrand, who openly in the pulpit on the second holy day in Easter week, in the presence of diverse Bishops, and Cardinals, and of the people and Senat of Rome, prophesied, That the King whose name was Henry, should die before the feast of Peter next ensuing: or at the least that he should be so dejected from his Kingdom, that he should not be able any more to gather above the number of six Knights. And this he preached with this con­firmation, Never accept me for Pope any more, if this prophesie be not fulfilled, but pluck me from the altar. But he was a false Prophet in the same, for neither was fulfilled. And whereas ye say, if they prophesie at any time, it is of evil, and not of good: so said Achab of the Prophet of the Lord, 1. Kings 22.8. and therefore he hated him: so you speak with the same spirit against us, that Achab spake with against the Lords Prophet. And what good can be spoken of your Babel, since the Lord hath fore-told the ruine of it, & in part hath been accomplished? And some of your own number, as Hildegar­dis, Briget, Catherine de Sens, have fore-told of the destru­ction of your Church, & the reformation of the Church of Christ. As for the time, it was spoken of before; and I sup­pose ye have thought it too long, and yet be in patience, M. Gilbert, for it must continue, and your Babel must down. As for the clothing of sackcloth, it was the apparel of such as was in dolor and in mourning; whereby is signified the sorrow and dolor that should arise to the true Ministers of Christ through the persecution of the Antichrist & his mem­bers, & their idolatrie and abominations. The which hath been so clearly fulfilled in the Preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his dayes, and before also, even to this day, that he must be blinded of the Lord who sees it not. And whereas ye cast up the clothing of the Ministry in this land, ye have forgotten your self, and your Clergy, and [Page 292] your Head the Pope, with his triple Crown, with all the rable of his Prelats, Abbots, Bishops, Cardinals, &c. as full of riotous pride and pomp, as ever were the Persian Kings. See Bernard. de confid. ad Eugen. lib. 4. Platin. de vita Pontif. in Paulo 2.

The pomp and glory of whose Court, doth surmount all the pomp and glory of all the Princes in Europe, as some that have seen it reports. How then can ye justly quarrel our attire? Can you say that we pass the bounds of that modesty and comeliness which the Apostle requires in the over-seers of the Church of Christ, seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Pre­lats▪ according as it was prophesied of you, Rev. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modestie? But you are like the Lamians, of whom it is reported, that they had but one eye, and when they went forth, they took it with them to look upon others, and when they came in their own houses, they laid it beside them: You look to your neighbors, but ye over-see your self. So for all the differences which ye have yet assigned, it remains sure, that by these two Witnesses here, are sig­nified the Ministers of the Gospel.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But note here, I pray you, how well these new Evangelists agree [Page 293] in the exposition of this Revelation of S. John (for all their grounds & proofs is upon prophesies and dark speakings.) Young Merchiston in his book upon the Revelation, chap. 11. vers 3. expones these Witnesses to be the Old and New Testament, as he proves in the 21. Proposition, and M. John will have them the Ministers. Mer­chiston saith, that to be clad in sackcloth, is to preach the Word of God with the obscurity of mens traditions, and colored glosses: M. John saith here, that the sackcloth signifies persecution for the preaching of the Word. The notes on their Geneva Bibles printed at London, expones the sackcloth to signifie poor and simple apparel. And Bale upon the same place writes, that this sackcloth signifies sober conversation. God knows if this and the like be wholsome doctrine to preach to the poor people, some one way, and some another, according to the invention of their own brains, without any proofs.

Maister John Welsch his Reply.

As for these diverse expositions which ye mark in us, that have so stirred up your affections, that ye cry out, God knows whether this be wholsome doctrine to teach the poor people, or not. I answer; That these diverse expositions of ours, are all agreeable to the analogie of faith, as your self will not deny: and therefore cannot be called unwholsome doctrine. Otherwise, not only the Fa­thers, but also your own Doctors, and Bishops, and Popes, have delivered unwholsome doctrine, by your reason; for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture di­versly: which is so manifest, that I need not prove it, and your self also hath delivered unwholsome doctrine here: for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving, for two contrary things, and yet Bellarmin saith, that some Catholicks take them both for one. And what shal I say of your diverse exposi­tions, which were tolerable, so being they were according to the proportion of faith; your contradictions one to another, and that not only in exponing the Scripture, but [Page 294] in the main points of your Religion; some holding one thing, and some another, as partly hath, and partly shal be marked, are manifold? And if diverse expositions of a place of Scripture be unwholsome doctrine, as ye say, then surely this point of your Catholick doctrine, which tea­ches, that the Scripture hath a five-fold sense, and that it may be five diverse ways exponed, must be unwholsome doctrine, and then ye lose more then you can win by this. Beware, M. Gilbert, that by this dealing ye bring not your self in suspicion that ye are forsaking your Catholick Faith: For this is a point of it, as Bellarmin reports, lib. 3. de interpret. verb. cap. 3. As for your calumnies: first, in calling us new Evangelists, I answered to that before: next, in saying that all our proofs and grounds are upon prophesies and dark sayings. First, you injure the holy Ghost in calling his prophesies dark: for the cause of this is not in them, but in our blindness. Secondly, ye speak too plain an un­truth: for it is more then manifest, that not only prophe­sies, but also the plain and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture, is the grounds and proofs of our Religion, as is manifest by the points of doctrine which we have han­dled here.

Master Gilbert Brown.

And it follows in M. John. And at the last, saith he, they shal be put to death, &c. Here is two things to be noted. First, that the Church shal not be invisible in the time of Antichrist: for if the Pa­stors of the Church be invisible, how shal they be taken, and put to death? If the Antichrist and his members shal slay them, how can they do the same, except they know and may see them? To be in­visible, is not to be known or seen: but they will see and know them, or else they cannot discern them from their own, whereby they may put them to death, and save their own. The second thing to be noted, that our Ministers in Scotland, except they be put to death by the Pope, they bear not the testimony of Christ. [Page 295] For these are M. Johns own words. And S. John saith, That the beast shal slay the two Witnesses, Rev. 11.7.8. Now by M. John, the beast is the Pope, and the Witnesses is the Ministers: therefore the Pope must slay the Ministers: and after that, their bodies must ly three dayes and an half, not in Scotland, but in Jerusalem, for there was the Lord of these two Witnesses slain, Rev 11.19.11.12. And after, they must revive and ascend up to heaven in a cloud in the sight of their enemies, and so forth. Which things I trust shal come to pass to none of them in our dayes, nor long after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday, in his 14. Prop.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As for the first thing which you infer here, concerning the invisibility of the Church, because you have the same argument afterward, I refer the answer of it to that place. As for the second thing which ye infer, that except the Ministers of Scotland be put to death by the Pope, they bear not the testimony of Christ. I answer: As it is true that it is prophesied of the Antichrist, that he shal slay the two Witnesses of God, Rev. 11.7. and that he shal make war with the Saints, and overcome them, Rev. 11.12.13.15.17. so is it likewise prophesied, that his cruelty shal not always continue; but at the last, The Lord shal take his King­dom in his own hand, and the Gospel shal be preached to them that dwel upon the earth, and Babel that great city shal fall, Rev. 13.6.8.9. and 18.21. So that the blood which your Church hath spilt of the Saints of God already in all the parts of Europe these three hundred years by past, and that in such abundance, that suppose the Lord may number them, yet no man is able to number them. And the patience and suffering of our brethren, is a sufficient evidence that both your Popes are the Antichrist, and they are the Mini­sters of Christ, suppose they slay no mo of them. And al­though the Lord hath shortened your power, yet ye want no good will to spill the blood of the rest. That ransacking [Page 296] of Germany, that cruel persecution of Queen Mary, and bloody Inquisition of Spain in the Low Countreys, and that most savage and cruel massacre of Paris, and that Spanish Navy, which the Lord discomfited with his own mighty and outstretched arm in the 1588. year of God, doth suffi­ciently testifie what heart ye bear to the Ministers of Scot­land, if your power were according to your malice: But fulfill ye the measure of your fathers, that the blood of all the righteous may come upon you. As for the Prophesie of the ignominious handling of the bodies of these Witnesses af­ter their slaughter, it is also fulfilled by your Popes, and their authority, upon the carcasses of the Saints of God, which in all parts almost where ever their blood was shed, was most ignominiously handled, as though they had been not the bodies of men, but the dead carions of dogs and swine. Let both Histories, and some who yet live, bear witness of this. As for the time and place, and their revi­ving and ascending up to heaven, it is to be understood af­ter the manner of prophesies, mystically and figuratively, as I have proved before. The time of three days and an half, signifying all the time of your tyrannous cruelty. The place of their ignominy, is the streets of that great City, which is here called Sodom and Egypt, and the place where our Lord was crucified, not literally, but [...], spi­ritually, as the text saith, Rev. 17.9 18. And also called Babylon, in the 14. and 17. and 18. of the Revelation, which is literally, that seven hilled City, which hath dominion over the Kings of the earth, Rev. 11.8 and 17 5. which as Bellarmin lib. de Rom Pont. cap. 2. confesses, is Rome properly. So as this great City is neither Sodom, nor Egypt, nor Babylon (suppose it be called so) literally, but only mystically and spiritually as the Scripture saith, and your self will not de­ny, for the likeness between them: Sodom, for her filthi­ness and uncleanness: Egypt and Babylon, for her tyranny [Page 297] and cruelty over the Saints of God, wherein she resembles them. So is she not literally the place where Christ was crucified, but only mystically and spiritually, for the like­ness between them: that as by the authority of the Em­peror of Rome, his Deputy Pilat, our Lord was crucified, for the false challenge of treason against the Emperor, which was falsly and wickedly laid to his charge: and therefore is said here by the holy Ghost, to be crucified at Rome; that is, by the authority of the Rulers at Rome: So by the authority of the Popes, who now reign, and have reigned these many years at Rome, Christ is crucified again in his members, because they will not receive his mark, and worship him. And as Jerusalem boasted her self to be a holy City, and the spouse of Christ, and yet was an harlot, a murderer, and a persecuter of the Saints: so Rome doth boast her self to be an holy City, and the spouse of Christ, and the Head of all; and yet is now, and is long since, be­come an harlot, and a murderer, and a persecuter of the Saints. And if ye will ask, When did the bodies of the Saints ly in the streets of Rome? I answer: As by the gates in the city, in the fourth command, Exod 20. is not meant the gates of the City properly, but the authority and juris­diction of the City: so by the streets of Rome, is not only meant the gates within the walls of Rome, but all the pla­ces and parts whither his power & dominion hath spread its self. So that all the places where the Popes of Rome have exercised their tyranny over the Saints are called here the streets of that great City. All these therefore who have been cruelly murdered by the Popes authority, in England, Scotland, France, the Low Countreys, &c. and whose bodies have been cast out, and whose bodies have been ignominiously handled they have lyen in the streets of that great City. And as all the rest of this Prophesie is to be understood spiritually: so is this, reviving and ascending [Page 298] of these Witnesses to heaven in the sight of their enemies, to be understood, not literally, but spiritually. So this is not the meaning of the holy Ghost, that these Witnesses whom the Antichrist shal slay, shal be raised up again in their own persons (which yet shal be at the last day in the general resurrection:) but that the Lord shal raise up other Wit­nesses, indued with that same Spirit which they were in­dued with, preaching the same truth, and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist, as that Prophesie in the 3. of Malachie, of the sending of Elias before the coming of Christ, was fulfilled as our Savior testifies, Matth. 11.10.14. not in the raising up of Elias in his own person again; but in the sending of John Baptist, in the vertue and spirit of Elias. So this Prophesie concerning the reviving of these two Witnesses, whereby was figured the faithful Ministers of Christ who was murdered in the time of Popery, as John Wicleff, John Hus, Jerome of Prague, M. George Wi­shart, and many others, is fulfilled; not by raising up of their persons again, but of others his faithful servants, who in their vertue and spirit, have defended and maintained that same doctrine and cause against the Antichrist, as Martin Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, M. Knox, and sundry others, whom the Lord hath, and dayly raises up in all Countreys, for the overthrow of your Babel. As for your trust what will come to pass, we pass not; for so much hath been fulfilled of these prophesies, which testi­fies your Head to be the Antichrist, and the Ministers of the Reformed Church to be the faithful servants of Christ. And the rest concerning your dayly consumption and final abolition, 2. Thess. 2.8. Rev. 18.2.21. and 19.20. we know assuredly shal come to pass; because the Lord hath so thought it, and said it. And as for any further proof of the clemency and meekness of your Popes, if so the Lord will, we desire it not. For as it is said of the wicked man, [Page 299] Your compassions are cruel, and your by past cruelty testifies of what spirit ye are. And suppose you say you trust that this (among the rest) shal not come to pass, yet I fear you long to see that day upon the Ministers of Scotland, which your brethren rejoyced to see fulfilled in that cruel perse­cution of Queen Mary in England, and in that bloody massacre of Paris, of the Saints of God there: For we can­not think but that ye are of the same spirit and mind which your brethren were of, otherwise ye are not a right Ca­tholick. As for the Laird of Merchistons conjecture con­cerning the day of Judgement, he hath his own probable reasons: and if you be as good as your word, as your fa­vorers have reported of you, we will see the refutation of his book by you. And suppose I know the time to be un­certain to man, or Angel, as our Savior saith, Matth. 24.36. yet his conjecture thereof is in greater modesty and so­briety, then your determination thereof. Whereby if the doctrine of your Church be true concerning the Antichrist, whom ye imagine is yet to come, and the time of his reign, which ye say is to be but three years and an half: then not only the year, but the very day thereof may be known of them that live in those days. For the Scripture saith, He shal be abolished by the brightness of his coming, 2. Thess. 2.8. Yea, that which is greater arrogancy and presump­tion, the learnedest of your Church, Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. pag. 418. hath taken upon him to de­termine the very day of the coming of Christ to Judgement; to wit, 45. days after the perishing of the Antichrist. It is manifest (saith he) that after the death of the Antichrist, there shal be but 45. days to the end of the world.

Master John Welsch.

Now if all this be true, both concerning the Antichrist, the largeness of his dominion, the estat of the Church of God and his [Page 300] true Pastors all that time, which I offer me to prove by the Scrip­ture. And also that the Pope of Rome is that only Antichrist that was to come, and is now disclosed: then, I say, no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat as it is now.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But what if all these sayings of his be false, what shal follow then but that M. John, and the rest of the Ministers are deceived, and deceive others, with such vain and untrue expositions upon the Word of God? For take away M. Johns own invention, and the Word shal never have such a meaning. And although M. John offer never so oft to prove the same, I say, he is never able to do it, nor all the Ministers in Scotland.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

If all these sayings of mine concerning the largeness of the dominion of Antichrist, the estat of the Church of God, and his true Pastors all that time, be false: then not only have I been deceived, but also Bellarmin, the Rhemists, and Sanderus, the chief defenders of your Church, have been deceived, and deceive others: For they have spo­ken and written as much, and further in these points then ever I did, as I have proved before, by their own testimo­nies. And yet I suppose your Head and Clergy will judge them to be as far from error, as you are. So either you or they, must be deceived in this. And as for the fulfilling of these prophesies in your Popes of Rome, I hope it hath been proved sufficiently, which ye nor all the Clergy of Rome, is never able to improve. As for the rest of your an­swer, wherein ye prove that the Pope is not the Antichrist, I have answered to it in the other part of my Treatise con­cerning the Antichrist, therefore I omit it now.

Master Gilbert Brown.

What he means that the Pope is now disclosed, I know not: for I understand that he hath not been like their Church, that some­times is visible, and sometimes not: for he hath always been known by the visible Church, to be the visible head thereof in place of Christ.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

My meaning is this, That suppose in the darkness of Papistry he was taken to have been the Vicare of Christ, yet now the Lord hath smitten him, and consumed him by the sword of his mouth, 2. Thess. 2.8. that is, the Word of God: and hath discovered him to the full, to all these whose eyes the Lord hath opened, that he is that Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told was to come. And where you say that he hath been always known by the vi­sible Church to be the visible Head thereof in place of Christ: I see you regard not what you say, for the mainte­nance of that Head and Kingdom of yours. For certainly either hath the Lord wonderfully blinded you, or else ye speak against the light of your own conscience. For are you ever able to produce one syllable in the whole Scrip­ture to prove this? Yea, hath not his Monarchie and Su­premacie been condemned: First, by the Son of God, Matth. 18.1. and 20.25.26. Mark 10.42. Luke 22.25. Next, by the Apostles themselves, 2. Cor. 1.24. 1. Pet. 5 3. Thirdly, by the Fathers of the primitive Church, in their Synods and Councils, Provincial and General, as by the Bishops of Africk, Cyprian. Epist. 55. ad Cornel. about the year 255. By the General Councils of Nice, 1. Canon 5.6.17. wherein was 318 Bishops, anno 327. Of Constantino­ple, Canon. 2.3 5. wherein was 150. Bishops, anno 381. Of Ephesine, Canon 8. where was 200. Bishops, anno 436. Of Chalcedonense, Actio 16. anno 454. where there was [Page 302] 630. Bishops. Of Constantinople 6. Canon. 36. anno 681. where there was 289. Bishops. Of Nicene 2. Canon. 1. an­no 781. where was present 350. Bishops. Of Constantino­ple 8. Canon. 27. anno where was present 383. Bishops, anno 870. Of the Council of Constance, Sess. 4.5. where was a thousand Fathers almost, anno 1418. And of Basel, Sess. 2.18. anno 1431. all General Councils, condemning your Popes Supremacy, as your Church now affirms of him, some more, some less. And also it is condemned by Pro­vincial Councils, as of Antioch, Canon. 6.12.13.14.15.19.20. and of Carthage 2. Canon. 12. anno 404. and 3. con­firmed in the General Council of Trullan, Canon. 26. and 6. and by the Council of Milevis, Canon. 22. condemned also by the Universities of Paris, Appellat. Univers. Paris. olio­ne 10. ad futur. Concil. infastic. rerum expe. ca. fugi. and Lovane, Aeneas Sylvius de gestis Basil. Concil. lib. 1. and Colen, and Vienna, Histor. de Europa, cap. 22. and Cracovia, Comer. de rebus Polonorum, lib. 21. So then by the autho­rity of Councils, General and Provincial, and of Univer­sities, the Monarchie and Superioritie of the Pope over all General Councils is disallowed. And suppose the Chur­ches of France and Germany did honor them, and gave them some preeminence, both of honor and power, be­ing blinded at that time with the smoke that came out of the bottomless pit: yet it may appear by their supplica­tion, ad Ludovicum 11. pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae ad­versus Rom. aulam defensio Parisiensis curiae. Gravamina na­tionis Germaniae exhibita Maxim. 1. that they did not allow that full Monarchie of his, but misliked it, and hated the same: yea, France made laws against it, in Conventu Bi­turicensi. Now these are such whom your selves do hold for Catholicks, and yet they acknowledged not the Mo­narchie of your Pope. The Churches of Graecia, and of Asia in the East, Chalcon. conc. de reb. Turc. lib. 1. & 6. [Page 303] and of Muscovia, Jovius in Muscovia, in the North, and of Ethiopia in the South, Alvarez in descriptione Aethiopiae, cap. 77. & 83. and of Boheme, Aeneas Sylvius hist. Bohem. cap. 32. Provence, Sleydan. comment. lib. 16. Piemont, M. Fox in the acts and monuments, lib. 7. And the Refor­med Churches that are this day in France, Flanders, Eng­land, Scotland, and so forth throughout Europe, all have condemned your Popes Supremacie. So that if his Su­premacie were to be put to tryal by the judgement and will of men, so many thousands of Pastors, Doctors, Sy­nods, Councils, Universities and Churches, through all ages, in all Countreys, of all sorts and estats, may suffice to put the Pope from his Supremacie: So that I think you may blush, M. Gilbert, that hath so boldly written; that he hath been alwayes acknowledged by the visible Church to be the visible Head of the Church, seeing his Monarchie was never fully acknowledged until the La­teran Council, under Leo the 10. 1516. years after Christ. But seeing the Word of God is the only just tryal of it, and seeing it is not written in the book of life: therefore I con­clud, that his Supremacie is not a citizen of that new Je­rusalem, but a child of Babel; and therefore they are bles­sed that shal dash it against the stones.

M. Gilbert Brown.

That the Church at any time may be invisible, it is repugnant to the Word of God in many places, and to M. John also. For he gives examples afterward of sundry, as he saith, that was of his Re­ligion, and opponed themselves to the Pope and his Clergy; and that, saith he, when he was come to the hight. If the true Church opponed its self to the Antichristian Church, then it was visible and known: and if it was known when the Popes Kingdom was at the highest, much more when it was low: and so it was always known by M. Johns self.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

Whether oppugn ye your own imagination, M. Gil­bert, here, or that which I write? If the first, then you are foolish who fight against your self, as ye do indeed. If the second, then I say, that which I said was this: That no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat, as it is now. For this is our doctrine concerning the invisibility of the Church, the which because you know not, therefore you stumble at it, and oppugns only your own invention, and not our doctrine: and therefore your reasons and Scriptures which ye bring here, serve to no purpose, for they make nothing against us. We say, that the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect, is always invisible, both because the principal part thereof is in heaven: and also because the senses of men cannot discern who are true members of the Catholick Church here, their effectual calling, their faith, love, hope, and inward graces: their union with Christ their Head, their spiritual armor, wea­pons and warfare, and their Head Christ Jesus, and their whole glorie is inward and invisible, and they shal never be seen all gathered together until that great day, Ephes. 5.25.26.27.32. Psal. 45.13. John 10.27. 2. Tim. 2.19. Luke 11.28. Matth. 7. Ephes. 6.12. 2. Cor. 12.3.4. So that sup­pose they may be seen outwardlie, as they are men, and sometimes in respect of their outward ministerie: yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church; that is, in so far as they are chosen, and sanctified, &c. as hath been said, they cannot be discerned by the senses of men, and so are invisible. Next, we say that the particular visible Churches are not always in one outward estat: sometimes outwardlie glorious, sometimes more obscure: sometimes openly known, and seen by all: sometimes known and [Page 305] seen but by a few: sometimes frequent, and consisting in many, sometimes rare, and consisting in few: sometimes adorned with outward ornaments of peace, largeness, outward glory and multitude: sometimes again wanting this outward glory under persecution: but yet having that inward glory of these inward graces. So that when we say these particular Churches are sometimes invisible, we do not mean as though they were known to none (for that is not our doctrine, M. Gilbert, as ye imagine:) but that they are not so openly known that they are pa­tent to all to be the true Church, but known unto them with whom they have to do, and who profess the truth with them. Yea, sometimes some of them are known un­to the very persecuters and enemies, by their constancy and perseverance in their sufferings, suppose they allow not their profession. And in this state was the Church of Israel in the time of Elias, when he complained that he knew none left but himself of the true worshippers of God, 1. Kings 19.10. And the Church of Juda in the days of Achaz and Manasseh Kings of Judah, 2. Chron. 28.24. 2. Kings 16.10. And such like in the time of Christ, both in the time of his living among them, as also in the time of his death and resurrection, the Church was brought to a smal handful: The Princes, Priests, and Scribes, who only was in dignity and authority, being persecuters of Christ, condemned him, and crucified him. And such like in the time of the persecution of Dioclesian the Emperor, and in the time of the Arrian heresie, which over-spred, as it were, the whole world. The which also our Savior fore-told should come to pass: When the Son of man (saith he) shal come, shal he find faith in the world? Matth. 18.8. and 24 11.12. And by the Apostle also, 2. Thess. 2. 1. Tim. 4. And John in the Revelation, in the time of the Antichrist, Rev. 9 1.2.3.4. and 12.6. and 13 14.15.16.17 and 14 8. [Page 306] and 17.2. and 18.3. Confessed also by the learned of your own Church, as Bellarmin and the Rhemists, as they have been quoted before: and by your self also, who confessed that the Church of Christ should be redacted to a smal number, as it were in a wilderness, in the time of the An­tichrist. This now is our doctrine concerning the invisibi­lity of the Church, which is neither repugnant to the Word of God, nor yet to the examples which I brought in after­ward against your Religion. For both these (M. Gilbert) are true, and neither of them repugning one another: that the particular Churches in the time of the Antichrist, are not so openly known, and so outwardly glorious and flowrishing, as they were before; but redacted to a smal number, more obscure and more latent: partly through that universal defection, and partly through that extream persecution of your Church and Head; and that there was some that opponed themselves to the Pope and his Cler­gy, and that even when he was come to the hight. If you will make these repugnant which are not adversa, but only diversa secundum magis & minus; then I say ye are repug­nant to all rules of reasoning, and to the light of nature it self.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Of this I may justly make an argument against M. John, that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The woman that fled to the wilder­ness, is the true Church: and to flie to the wilderness, is to be in­visible, as M. John saith. Now young Merchiston hath, that this in­visibility indured from the year of God 316. till our days, the space of 1260. years, which was by him all the time of the Antichrist. But by M. John Welsch, there was many in that time that opponed themselves to the Pope, and said against him, and his Religion and Clergy, and therefore was known. Of the which the Popes did slay many, as he saith: Therefore it must follow, that either the Pope is not the Antichrist, because he did persecute but visible things, or else the Church was not invisible all the time fore-said.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

Let us see the force of this argument that ye make for your Pope, that he is not the Antichrist. The woman, ye say, that fled to the wilderness, is the true Church. That I grant: and to flie into the wilderness, is to be invisible by me. I answer: By me it is to be latent, and to lurk, to eschew the rage of her persecuters, and not to be openlie conversant, as that all the world may know her: and yet not to be so latent, but that some of them are known, both among themselves, as also to their enemies. And this is our meaning (as I have said before) when we affirm that the particular Churches sometimes become invisible. But you take it as though our meaning were, that the Church is so invisible, that it is known to none; which is your in­vention, M. Gilbert, and not our doctrine: and therefore you fight without an adversarie in this point. But to go forward to the rest of your argument: you say, that by me there was sundrie that oppugned the Pope, and his Clergie, and was put to death by them. This is true: and therefore the blood of the Saints is found in your Church. Now what will you gather of all this? Therefore, say you, the Pope is not the Antichrist, because he persecutes but visible things, or else the Church is not invisible. I deny that either the one or the other will follow. And because you made an argument against your Pope (I should have said with him) that he is not the Antichrist, which is grounded upon your own invention, mistaking our do­ctrine, and therefore hath no feet. I will make another for him, that he is the Antichrist, the which you, nor all your Clergy will not be able to disprove. He is that un­doubted Antichrist, which hath redacted the Church of Christ, as it were in a wilderness, to a smal handful: partly through the pest of his damnable doctrine, partly through [Page 308] his extream persecution, so that they were compelled to lurk and hide themselves from the cruelty of his power. This you cannot deny, because the Scripture affirms this of the Antichrist. But I assume, that the Popes of Rome have done this these many hundred years, as I have pro­ved before, and in the other part of my answer: there­fore of necessity it must follow that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist that the Scripture fore told should come. Answer this if you can.

And as for the time of this invisibilitie, it hath relation to the beginning, and grouth, and hight of your Anti­christian Kingdom: For as it grew, the Church was more and more obscured: and when it was at the hight, the Church was in her eclipse: and as it hath decayed now since, she hath accordingly spred her self abroad. If the Apostle be true, that Mystery of Iniquity began to work in his days, 2. Thess. 2.7. 1. John 4 3. For first, the mani­fold heresies which were sown in the primitive Church, whereof the Popes of Rome have renewed a great many (as shal be proved hereafter) was the first step to that Antichristian Kingdom. Next, the loving of preeminence in the Ministery over their brethren, as the Scripture testifies of Dictrephes, who loved preeminence, 3. of John 9. and specially the aspiring of the Bishops of Rome, to a Domina­tion and Lordship over their brethren, forbidden by Christ; which was manifestly kythed in Pope Victor, who did take upon him to excommunicat the Bishops of Asia, for a light dissention of the celebration of Easter, anno 198. And in others, as Cornelius, Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestin, Popes, who did receive to their Communion those who were excommunicat in Africa, was the second step. Thirdly, if it be true that these impious and superstitious Decreets which your Church ascribes to the Popes of Rome before Constantine, be theirs: as is not likely that [Page 309] such superstitions did creep into the Church of Christ, it be­ing under persecution: then, I say, the Popes of Rome even before Sylvester, by their superstitious Decreets, made a further entry to that Antichristian Kingdom. And be­cause the Roman Empire was the let that hindered Anti­christ to step up to his throne, 2. Thess. 2.7. [...], and the City of Rome behoved to be his seat, Rev. 18. there­fore Constantin the Great leaving the City of Rome to Syl­vester the Bishop of R me, made yet the way more easie: till at the last, they first got the primacy of honor; next, of authority and jurisdiction over their brethren: and then last of all, did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperors unto them. The which they did not attain unto at the first, but piece and piece, and that not without long and great resistance, both of the Church (as I have proved be­fore) condemning his Monarchy in all ages; and of the Emperors, as we shal see hereafter. And as they ever grew in their superiority, so did the purity of the Church of Christ decay: and as a pest infects not a Kingdom all at once, but piece and piece: so did your Antichristian heresie: it infected not all at once, but piece and piece, till at the last it went over all. While as then Merchiston makes the beginning of his reign to be in the 316 year of God, and the Church from thence to become invisible: His meaning is, that then that let, which the Apostle speaks of, was begun to be removed, that his seat and throne might be in Rome; and from thence, as they grew in hight, so was the Church ay more and more continually obscu­red, till at the last the Lord did scatter that darkness by the light of his Gospel, which came to pass in our days.

Master Gilbert Brown.

The Church that is set down to us in the Word of God, can no way be invisible: for when the holy Writ speaks of the Church of [Page 310] Christ, it speaks of a visible number of men and women, and no wise of Angels or spirits, as may be seen in these examples, Numb. 20.4.3. Kings 8.14 Matth. 16.18. and 18.17. Acts 15.3.4. and 18.22. and 22.28. 1. Tim. 3.15.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

I come now to your arguments. First, you say, that the Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no ways be invisible; because, say ye, when it speaks of the Church, it speaks of a visible number of men and women, and no ways of Angels or spirits. I answer, This is most false: For the Scripture sets down to us that Church which is the body of Christ, Eph. 1.22.23. and whereof he is the head and Savior, Eph. 5.23. and which is built upon the rock, Col. 1.18. which is called, the congregation of the first born, whose names are written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. and that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. Matth. 16.28. And this is the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect, as well triumphant as militant, which is invisible, for the respects before said, as I have proved. And suppose the elect that are here militant, may be seen, as they are men, and ofttimes also in respect of their outward profession: yet it follows not but that they are invisible, in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church. And also that sometimes through the extremity of persecution, they may be latent and lurk, so that they are not openly visible and known to all, as I have said be­fore. As for these places of Scripture, to wit, Num. 20 4. 3. Kings 8.14. Acts 15.3.4. and 20.28. and 18.22. and 1. Tim 3 15 they speak all of particular Churches, which we grant unto you are visible, suppose not ay alike, as hath been proved. As for the 16. of Matthew, it speaks of the Church of the chosen; for they only are built upon this rock, and against whom the gates of hell prevail not: and [Page 311] they are invisible, in respect before said, as hath been pro­ved As for the 18 of Matthew, it is quoted afterward: therefore I refer the answer of it unto that place.

Master Gilbert Brown.

The Scripture also in many places compares the Church to visi­ble things that cannot be unseen: as, He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun: A city cannot be hid set on a mountain. It is also compa­red to a light set on a candlestick to lighten the whole house, and not to be put under a bed, or a bushel; with many the like, which I have omitted for brevities cause, saving some here at the end. Moreover, our Savior commands us to complain to the Church if our brother offend us: and also we ought to joyn our selves to the true Church, or else we cannot have remission of our sins. But how can a man complain to it, if it cannot be seen? Or joyn himself to it, if it be invisible? The Church of Christ may never want the true preaching of the Word, and right administration of the Sacra­ments: but these things are always visible, because by the Ministers they are the signs and marks of the Church: therefore the true Church may be always known by them. To be short, not only the Word of God affirms the Church to be alwayes visible, as I have noted before; but also the ancient Fathers in all their works, as partly I have marked also. Psal. 18.6. read S. Aug. on this, Mat. 5.15. Isai. 69.9. Dan 2.35. Mich. 4.1.2. Read Hieron. on these places, Aug 1. tract. in Epist. Joan. item de bapt. lib. 4. cap. 1. Matth. 18.17. Cyprian de simpli. praelat. Jer. 1. Epist ad Damas. Aug. lib. 19. contra Faust. cap. 11. Origen. homil. 30. in Matth. Cyp. lib de unitat. Eccles. Chrysost. hom. 4. in cap. 6. Isai. August. lib. 3. contra Epist. Parmeni. cap. 3. item tract. 1. in Epist. Joan. & tract. 2. item Epist. 166. ad Donatistas.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

As for the 18. Psalm, it speaks not of the visibility of the Church there, but of the Lords wonderful and glorious works; and specially, in disponing such a glorious place or tabernacle, or throne, to the Sun to shine in, the which [Page 312] demonstrates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustine exposition, it results of the corrupted old Translation, which was not taken from the Hebrew fountain, but from the version of the Septuagints: therefore Pagninus, Vata­bius, and Arias Montanus, a Papist, and Tremellius, ex­pone it not so, but after the Hebrew. Secondly, he means not here of the Catholick Church, but of particular Chur­ches, which were exceeding far enlarged in his days: but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist as it was fore-told, and your Church acknowledges. As for the 5. of Matthew, 15.16. there, not the Catholick Church, but the Pastors of particular Churches, are compared to this light which is set up in the candlestick, and to the city set up upon the hill top, which cannot be hid: that is, the eyes of all is on them; and therefore they should be so much the more wake-rife and careful, because their doings cannot be hid. As for Isai. 2.3. and 60.20. and 61.9. and Dan. 2.35. and Mich. 4.12. they pro­phesie of the greatness and clearness of the Church of Christ in the time of the Messias, and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the world, and of the stability and perpetuity of Christs Kingdom. But yet it follows not but both the Catholick Church is invisible, as I said before, and that the visible Churches may be obscured and darkened, as it was fore-told, in the time of the Anti­christ. As for the 18. of Matthew, 17. Go tell the Church, &c. The Church is here taken for the Pastors and Governors of particular Churches, which we grant are visible; but yet it follows not but that both they and the professors may be obscured and darkened, either through heresie, or through extream persecution, or through both together, as it was fore-told in the time of the Antichrist, and hath been fulfilled by your Church. As for the true Church, unto whom we should joyn our selves. I answer: We can have no [Page 313] salvation unless we joyn our selves first to the Catholick Church, that is, unto Jesus and his members by a spiritual communion, without the which there is no salvation. Next, unto some particular visible Church, by the out­ward communion of the Word and Sacraments &c, if we know it, and possibly can joyn our selves unto it: For if either we know it, or may not, as these seven thousand that bowed not their knee to Baal: then I say, salvation is not perilled. As for your last reason, The true Church may ne­ver want the true preaching of the Word, and right administra­tion of the Sacraments. I answer: First, there is not the like necessity of the Sacraments, as there is of the Word. Next, suppose they have it and thereby are known among them­selves, and some of them also to their adversaries; yet it follows not that they are so openly visible, that they are patent and known to all. As for example: There is no question but these seven thousand that did not bow their knee to Baal, 1. Kings 19.18. and these hundred Prophets who was hid in the caves, 1. Kings 18.13. and the Apostles when all were scattered through that persecution, as Luke te­stifies, Acts 8.1. had the exercise of the Word among them. And it is not likely that the Apostles wanted some to teach, suppose they were not known to all, no not to their persecuters, otherwise they would have been perse­cuted. And such like, we doubt not, but in the time of Queen Maries persecution in England, and in other parts, under that Antichristian tyranny, but the Lord had his own, both Pastor and people, among whom the truth was preached, suppose neither we nor their adversaries knew them all: For it is oft-times for the safety of the Church to lurk, and to be hid, that she may escape the fury and rage of her enemies. As for Augustin, Cyprian, Ori­gen, Chrysostome and Jerome, which ye quote here, they speak either of the perpetuity and eternity of the Catholick [Page 314] Church, or else of the largeness and clearness of the parti­cular Churches which were in those days, which is neither against the invisibility of the Catholick Church, nor yet against the obscure estat and smal handful of the Church of Christ, whereunto she should be brought in the days of the Antichrist, as was fore-told by the Scripture, and ful­filled in your Papistical Kingdom. For we grant that in their dayes the Churches of Christ was frequent and glo­rious, but yet they did not ay remain in that estat. For the Churches of the East are almost overthrown by the Ma­homet, and the Churches of the West by the Antichrist. So that partly by the one, and partly by the other, the Church of Christ hath been redacted to a smal handful, as hath been said.

Master John Welsch.

Last of all, I will set you down the names of these worthy men, that in the midst of Popery spake against their errors, and preached the same Religion which we preach. I will but only name a few of them that was in the midst of Po­pery, when it was come to the hight, anno 1158. Gerardus and Dulcimus Navarrensis, M John hath not the right dyet of these his holy Fathers. Answer. If it was so, as you write it, it was error in scri­bendo: and that which I writ af­terward, might have taught you this when I said this was 400. years past. did preach earnestly against the Church of Rome, and called the Pope the Antichrist: and taught also that the Clergy of Rome was become the whore of Baby­lon, fore-spoken in the Revelation: this was 400. years past. In the year of our Lord 1160. one This Waldus and his sect, had wives, and all things common, and so must M. John, if he fol­low him. An­swer. This is falsly alledged of him, and his followers: but either your Ca­non Law errs, Causa 12. qu. 1. Dilectissimis: or else Pope Cle­ment was of this mind: and so if you be of his Religion, you must be so: for albeit ye have no wives, yet other mens wives have been made common to your Popes, and your Cler­gy, in horrible adulteries. Waldus, a citizen of Lyons in France, with a great number, taught that same doctrine which we teach now, condemned the Mass to be wicked, the Pope [Page 315] to be the Antichrist, and Rome to be Babylon. They were persecuted by the Pope, and remained long in Bohemia. In the year 1112. the Pope cau­sed an hundred persons in the Countrey of Alsa­tia, whereof many were noble-men, to be burnt in one day, for the maintaining of that same do­ctrine that we now maintain against the Church of Rome. About the year of our Lord 1230. almost all the Churches of the Grecians, which with the rest of the Churches of Asia and Africk, who do not acknowledge the supremacy of your Pope, are mo then the Churches of Europe, who submit themselves to him, did all renounce the Pope, and the Romish Church, because of their execrable si­mony and idolatry, in the year 1240. In the Countrey of Swevia, there were many Preachers that taught freely against the Pope, and affirmed, he, and his Clergy were hereticks and simoniacks, in the year 1251. or thereabout. Arnoldus de Villanova a learned Spaniard, taught freely against the Church of Rome; and among the rest, that the Pope led the people to hell: for the which cause, the Pope condemned him as an heretick, about the same time. Gulielmus de Sancto Amore, Ma­ster and chief Ruler of that University, taught, that all the testimonies of the Scripture, spoken of the Antichrist, should be applyed to the Pope and his Clergy, and so taught them to be the Anti­christ, and the whore of Babel, anno 1290. Lau­rence an English-man, and Master of the Univer­sity in Paris, proved mightily that the Pope was the Antichrist, and his Clergy the Synagogue of Babylon. About the same time Robertus Gallus, a man of noble parentage, taught, the Pope was an Idol, and said the judgement of God would fall upon him, and his Clergy. Because I have no time to write the doctrine of the rest that spake [Page 316] against the Pope, I will but note their persons, Robert Grosshed, John Gryllis, a p [...]eaching Frier, anno 1253. Gregory Ariminensis, Franciscus de Rupe Scissa, Taulerus in Germany, Gerardus Rhidit, Michael de Cesena, Petrus de Carbona, and Joannes de Poliaco, Joannes Rithetalanda, anno 1360. Armachanus, the Archbish p in Ireland 1360. Nicolas Orem, Matthias Parisiensis, Nilus A [...]chbi­shop of Thessalonica, John Wicleff, and the Lord Cobham, and sun­dry others.

Master Gilbert Brown.

M. John hath set down here a number of ^(a) obscure and infa­mous persons, for the most part justly ^(b) condemned for here­sies, without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he alledges: and all This is also false; for Gerard and Dulcimus Navarrensis, which I first ci­ted, was almost 400. years before M. Luther, and Calvin, and the Waldenses, was more then 300. years before them. two hundred years before Calvin began their Religion, or thereabout. Of the which I contend not, whe­ther they spake against the Pope or not. For all hereticks from the beginning have barked against the Pope: But our contention is, whether such heads of Religion, as they denyed, were heresies or not, which as yet M. John hath not But these heads is proven, that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Rome Babel: they are not hereticks, therefore our Religion was before Martin Luther. proved, nor is not able to defend these whom he calls his worthy men: for appearantly by this all hereticks are worthy men by him, albeit they be not of his Reli­gion in all things.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

You calumniat our Religion of novelty, and say, Mar­tin Luther begin it anno 1517. Unto the which I answe­red, That our Religion hath Christ Jesus in the Old and New Testament to be the Author thereof, and hath the primitive Church many hundred years thereafter, to be the teachers and professors thereof, the which I have pro­ved already by some examples, and that even till the smoak [Page 317] of that Antichristian darkness of yours did overspread all, as it was fore-told by the holy Ghost. At the which time also the Lord did reserve his own elect to himself, even these hundred and forty and four thousand, which did not bow their knees to your Baal, as it was fore-prophesied: whereof also a great many is recorded in Histories, and of whom I set down some examples here. Upon the which I reason: That Religion which is warranted by the Scripture, and professed in the primitive Church, &c. and hath sundry that taught and professed it, and that even in the midst of Popery, when it was at the hight thereof, is not a new Re­ligion, nor invented by Martin Luther; But ours is such as hath been proved: Therefore unrighteous and blasphe­mous must ye be, who slanders the Lords truth and Reli­gion of novelty, and fathers it upon flesh and blood, where­of he is the Author. Your answer to the first two, we have examined: Now let us see your answer to this. First, you say they are obscure men. I answer: If you call them obscure, because they wanted the outward glory, wealth, and renown of this world: Then, suppose it were so, yet have they Jesus Christ the Prince of life, who was called a carpenters son, Matth. 13.54 55 56. and his Pro­phets, of whom some were herd-men, Amos 1.2. and his Apostles who were fisher-men, Mat. 4.18.21. & his Church which consists not of many wise, mighty or noble; but of the foo­lish, weak and vile of the world: for them God hath chosen to confound the wise and noble, 1. Cor. 1.26.27.28. to be com­panions with them: and so they are the liker both the Head and the members. It is true indeed, your Popes and Clergy are not obscure; for they have the wealth and glory of the world. But as Bernard said to the Pope, In this they succeed not to Christ or Peter, but to Constantine. But they receive their good things in this life with the rich glut­t [...]n, and therefore they must receive their pain with h [...]m in the [Page 318] life to come. But why do you call these obscure whom I named here? Are not some of them Friers, some of them Provincials of Gray-Friers, some of them Masters and Ru­lers of Universities, some of them excellently learned, which your own Church cannot deny; some of them Bi­shops and Archbishops, some of them Noble-men; and some of them▪ as namely the Greek and Eastern Churches, in number, learning, purity of doctrine and godliness, far exceeding your Papistical Church? Who is worthy or famous, if these be obscure? Are all men obscure and in­famous to you, but your Popes, and those who submit their necks to him? And if you think these too obscure men to be called worthy men, then behold yet, M. Gilbert, more noble personages who have resisted your Popes Monar­chy. As King Philip le Bell of France, the Prelats of France joyning with him in his Dominions, about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third, King of England, despised the Popes curse, and appealed from him to God, about the year of God 1346. And also sundry Emperors, as Con­stantine the fifth, Leo his son, and Constantine the sixth in the East, and Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. and Frederick the 2. in the West. Will you call these Kings and Princes of the whole world, obscure men? So all sorts of men, M. Gilbert, both rich and poor, Princes and subjects, and these also within your own bowels, being overcome with the strength of the truth of God, have spoken against your Religion. Why you call them infamous, and hereticks justly condemned, I know not, except it be because they taught and professed the truth of God, and condem­ned your Antichristian idolatry and abominations. But all are not infamous and hereticks, whom ye call so: and surely if murderers, hereticks, adulterers, Sodomites open bargainers with the Devil, and the vile monsters of the earth, is to be called obscure, infamous and hereticks, then [Page 319] your Popes are to be called so; who of all men that ever the earth hath born, have been the vilest monsters and he­reticks, as I have proved in my other Treatise concerning the Mass and the Antichrist.

You say, next, that you contend not whether they have spoken against the Pope or not; for all hereticks have ever barked against him, & that sore against your heart, M. Gil­bert; because you cannot deny but ye have taught this do­ctrine with us: and if it be so, M. Gilbert, that these men and Churches, and many thousands more of all sorts, have taught this doctrine with us many hundred years before Martin Luther: for the first two which I named was al­most 400. years before him: then why were you so shame­less, both to write it, and also speak it, to blind your poor Countrey-men, to their and your damnation, that our Re­ligion was begun by Martin Luther, and never professed before him? So leave off, M. Gilbert, to beguile the simple and ignorant people with this sottish and 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, [Page 320] 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? [Page 321] 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 [Page 322] 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 Sixtus Senesis, in lib. Operis Biblioth. Cajetanus in fine comment. Veter. Test. Arias Montanus, in editione quadam Hebr. Bibli. cum in­terlineari. [Page 323] Hugo Cardinalis, are against you, and with us, in the books of Apocrypha. Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo, is against your Transubstantiation, also against your Communion under one kind: And Pope Adrian the 6. against this, that the Pope cannot err, and teach he­resies. Panormitan against this, that it is not lawful to Mi­nisters to marry after their ordination. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 19. Idem lib. 2. de purg. cap. 4. Michael Bai, Gerson and Roffensis, all Papists, against your venial sins. Bellarm. lib. de imaginibus, cap. 8. Abulensis, and Durandus, and Peresius, Papists, against your making of the Images of the Trinity. A great many of you, as Alexander, Tho­mas, Cajetan, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusia­nus and Capreolus, teach, That that same worship should be given to the Image, which is given to that which the Image re­presents: And yet Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro, and others, is against this: Therefore either the one or the other is not of your Religion. And ye your self, if ye be measured by this measure, is not a right Papist, because you dissent from many of them in many things, as hath been proved before. And certainly (M. Gilbert) if this reason of yours hold forth, you shal cut off from your pro­fession such a number of Popes, Councils, Jesuits, Cardi­nals and Doctors from your Religion, that it is to be fea­red, that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholick Faith, yea from being a member of their Synagogue, that for the defence thereof is compelled to cut off so many from the same. And secondly, I say, your reports concerning their doctrine, is not to be credited, but their own Apologies and Writings: whereby it ap­pears that it hath been always your fashion, the more to discredit them, to charge them with a number of absurd opinions, which they never held. As for example, you charge here Waldus, and his followers, to have had their [Page 324] wives, and all other things common, which is your calum­ny of them, and not their practise, or doctrine. For Guliel­mus Parvus writeth, that their life was commendable. And Reynerus in his Book of Inquisitions, one of your own Reli­gion, a Writer of 300. years ago, who was often at the exa­mination of them, as he himself saith, confesseth, That they had great show of holy life, and that they believed all things well of God, and all the articles contained in the Creed, and lived justly before men: and chargeth them that they hated and blas­phemed solam Romanam Ecclesiam, the Romish Church only. So then, if his report be true, as I hope ye will not gain­say, they were both far from that error; for that were nei­ther to believe all things well of God, nor yet to have a show of holy life, and to live justly before men: and also they were of our Religion in all things.

And where you say that we renew many old condem­ned heresies. I answer: That neither the doctrine which I affirmed they taught here, was heresies, nor yet them­selves hereticks. But you and your Church who have condemned them for the truth of God, and have renewed old condemned heresies, as shal be proved afterward. And we have renewed no heresie at all, but only the truth of God, which your Church hath obscured and buried. Therefore your conclusion is false, that our Religion was never professed in all points, as it is now in Scotland, be­fore in no Countrey; no not, say you, by any one man, For it was taught and professed by Christ and his Apo­stles, and also by all the primitive Churches in their dayes, in all points, throughout all the parts of the world where they preached the Gospel, as it is now in Scotland, as we offer to prove by their writings, and I have proved the same in sundry heads here. Next, the substance thereof was continued many hundred years in the Churches of Christ, while partly by the heresies that sprang up (for [Page 325] the popple was soon sown among the good seed, and the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles dayes) and partly by the Mahomet, and partly by the darkness of Popery, it was corrupted piece and piece. And what dif­ference can you find between the Religion that the Wal­denses professed, and us, if ye will give credit to their Apo­logies, and Reynerus testimonies of them? As for M. Ro­bert Bruces testimony, which ye produce, it serves no wise to confirm your purpose: but seeing ye abuse the testimo­nies of Scripture, it is no wonder suppose ye abuse the te­stimonies of men. For it is most true which he affirms, that the truth of God hath continued for that space in this King­dom without heresie or schism, as we never read it did in any Nation in the earth, in such purity without heresie and schism for such a long space. And yet it follows not but it hath dwelt in sundry Churches in such purity before, sup­pose not so long together, which you omit in your conclu­sion. Doth it follow by his testimonie, but that our Reli­gion hath been preached and professed in all true Chur­ches, in all points, suppose not so long in such purity as it is in Scotland? Neither doth it follow, but that the sub­stantial and main points of our Religion have been profes­sed in all Christian Churches longer then that space, sup­pose mixed either with some heresies or schismes. So you must coin a new Logick (M Gilbert) before ye can con­firm your proposition by his testimonie.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But here it is to be noted also, that M. John can find none before the year of Christ 1158. that said against the Pope and his Reli­gion, and none immediatly before Luther▪ the space of an hundred years, and more. So the Church was without his Doctors eleven hundred years and fifty, or thereabout. And such like, Martin Lu­ther had no predecessors to whom he succeeded in his Religion.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

You not two things here which are both false: The one, that I can find none that said against the Pope and his Religion before the year of Christ 1158. For our Savior and his Apostles, and sundry learned Fathers in all ages, and Councils, both General and Provincial, and some of your own Doctors and Popes, have spoken against the Monarchie of your Pope, and your Doctrine and Reli­gion, as I have proved before. And Reynerus a man of your own Religion, testifies, that some said, The Waldenses who had the same Religion which we profess, was continued from Sylvesters dayes, who lived about the 320. year of God. And some said, that it continued even from the Apostles days. Therefore the first is false The second thing is, that I can find none before Luther immediatly, the space of an hun­dred years and more. I see you are not ashamed to speak any thing for the defence of your Kingdom, were it never so manifestly false: For if appears that either ye are not acquainted with the Histories of that age, or else ye dis­semble it of purpose: for John Wicleff he left so many be­hind him in England who professed our Religion, that though your Prelats did molest them what they could, yet they and their favorers in short time grew to such strength and multitude, that by the year 1422. (which was an hundred years immediatly before Luther) Henry Chi­chesley the Archbishop of Canterbury wrot to the Pope that they all could not be suppressed, they were so many, but by force of war. The professors of our Religion began to gather so great force in Bohemia, after the burning of John Hus, and Jerome of Prague, at the Council of Constance, which was about the year 1417. (which was just an hun­dred years immediatly before Luther) that they were able not only to defend themselves by force of armes [Page 327] against the tyrannie of your Popes, but also obtained ma­ny notable victories against the strongest power that the Pope did raise against them. In England William Tay­lor was burnt, anno 1422. and two years after that William White was burnt. And betwixt that time and 1430. Fa­ther Abraham of Colchester, John Wadden, and Richard Hovington were burnt. And after that, Richard Wiche, and John Goose, one Braban, and one Jerome, and others with him, were burnt. Hieronymus Savanarola, a Monk in Italie, with two others, named Dominick and Sylvester, were condemned to death at Florence, in the year 1500. with sundry others, whom for shortness I omit here. Now surely, I cannot but wonder, M. Gilbert, that ye should have been so impudent as to have set it down in writ, that I could get none that professed our Religion an hundred years immediatly before Martin Luther. But the Reader may gather what credit he may give to your notes: and yet with such impudent lies ye blind the poor people. Upon the which I gather, that both these conclusions of yours, is false. For the Church of Christ in all ages, even from the Apostles days to this day, hath ever had her own teachers and professors (unto whom Martin Luther hath succeeded in his Religion) suppose not in the like fre­quencie and puritie, and that by reason partly of the smoke of that bottemless pit, that is, of your doctrine, which darkned both the Sun and the air, Rev. 9.2. that is, both teachers and people: and partly by your extream persecution, where­by ye made war with the Saints of God, and overcame them, Rev 13 7. But your smoke will evanish away at the last, and the clear light of the Lord shal shine more and more, mau­gre all your hearts.

Master Gilbert Brown.

BUt that M. John shal not think that we slander him and his [...]i [...]h old condemned heresies, let him read S. Augustin Epi­phanius, and others noted here, as of these, and many the like.

1. Novatus forsook the Pope of Rome, Cornelius, and caused others do the like; as Eusebius hist. lib. 6. cap. 33. and Nicephorus report, lib. 6. cap. 30.

2. Aërus the heretick denyed that offering or prayers should be done for the dead, and that fasting should be free, as S. Augustine and Epiphane declare, haeres. 75.

3. Eunomius and Aërius held, that only faith justifieth, as Au­gustin. haeres. 55. & lib. de fide & operibus, and Epiphanius haeres. 76. write.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

Now are we, by Gods grace, come unto your last ca­lumnie, in affirming that we renew old condemned here­sies. This is indeed, M. Gilbert, a heavie challenge, if it were true: but it is but like the rest of your calumnies; yea, it hath less appearance of truth, then any thing which ye have spoken against us. A liar, M. Gilbert, shal not en­ter in that heavenly city, but his portion shal be in that lake that burne with fire and brimstone, Rev. 19.20 & 22.15. And he that slandereth his neighbor (much more then he who slandereth the truth of God) shal not rest in the Lords holy mountain, Psal. 15 3. But to come to the first, Novatus intruded him­self in another mans charge, and caused set up himself against Cornelius the lawful Pastor of the Church in Rome then, and that craftily, and withdrew many of his flock [Page 329] from him, which is as contrary to our doctrine, as black to white. For we teach that every Pastor should have his own particular flock, as Cornelius had then in Rome; and no man should intrude himself in another mans charge, as he did. So this is a calumny, M. Gilbert. But your Popes are like Novatus, who not only have disturbed all the Chri­stian Congregations in Europe almost, by setting up and thrusting down such Pastors as they would, but also all the Kingdoms in Europe. As for this doctrine of Aerius: I answer you, as ye did me: I contend not whether he taught this doctrine or not, for the Scriptures have taught the same. But our contention is; whether they be heresie or not, which you have not proved, nor ever will be able to prove by the Scripture. It is true Epiphanius, and Au­gustin following him, reckon him among hereticks: but Theodoretus in his Book de fabulis Judaeorum, and the Ec­clesiastical History, reckon him not among hereticks: and he was not condemned for an heretick in any Council: that therefore which he taught according to the Scripture, we imbrace. But as for the errors of the Aërians, which are errors indeed, and which are ascribed unto them, as the damning of marriage, urging of continency, requiring them whom they receive to their fellowship, to forsake their own pro­per things. These heresies, I say, your Church hath rene­wed, who damns marriage, and urges continency in your Clergy, and receives none to your religious Orders, but such as refuse their own proper things As to the third, the Aërian and Eunomian heresies, they secluded holiness of life from that faith of theirs, and taught such a faith that might stand with whatsoever sins, and with perseverance in them. Will you stand to this, M. Gilbert, before the Lord, that we teach such doctrine? Is not this our do­ctrine, that only living faith which works by love, and brings forth good fruits, doth justifie? But you are like to [Page 330] them that know no other justifying faith, but such a faith, as both the reprobats and the Devils may have. So this is your third calumnie.

M. Gilbert Brown.

4. Simon Magus, Marcion and Manichaeus, denyed that man had free-will, as Augustin. haeres 46. Jerome, and Epiphanius haeres 42. make mention.

5. Jovinianus affirmed that Priests marriage was lawful after the lawful vow of chastity. He moved sundry Nuns to marry in the city of Rome. He made fasting and abstinence from meat super­fluous, as Augustin writes of him, haeres. 82. item lib. 1. cap. 7 de peccat. merit. & remiss.

6. Vigilantius denyed the prayer to Saints, as S. Jerome contra Vigilantium, writes. He despised the burning of lights and candles in the Churches in the day time, and the relicks of Martyrs.

Julian the Apostat was of the same opinion, as Cyrillus contra Ju­lian. declares. The same Julian despised the image of Christ and his Saints, as the fore-said Cyrillus lib. 9. contra Julian. makes men­tion.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As to this fourth heresie, they took away all the liberty and freedom of the will in man: but this is not our do­ctrine. For we affirm that man hath a liberty and freedom in his will, in natural, moral and sinful actions: but not in these things which pleaseth God, before he be renewed. This is your fourth calumnie.

As for the fifth, Jovinian taught, as Augustin haeres. 82. and Jerome in his 8. Epist. in his defence of his Books against Jovinian, set it down: and Bellarmin de Ecclesia militant. lib. 4. cap. 9 reports, that the married estat was equal with virginity. Unto the which we answer: That true and un­defiled virginity we prefer always, as the more noble and excellent gift in them to whom it is given: but we doubt not to say, but that marriage is better in them that cannot [Page 331] contain. And generally we dare prefer the honest mar­riage of Christians, before the proud and fained virginity of many Monastical votaries, as Augustin in Psal. 99. saith, Lowly and humble marriage, is better then proud and hauty vir­ginity. As to the second point, he affirmed indeed that the choise of meats and fasting was no merit, and this is no he­resie. But if this be heresie, then the doctrine of the Scrip­ture is heresie: For it teacheth us, That life everlasting is the free gift of God, Rom. 6 23. as hath been proved be­fore. This is your fifth calumny.

As for the sixth of Vigilantius heresies, if the denying of prayer to be made to Saints be an heresie, then it is an old heresie: for it is the Lords, who is the ancient of days, for this is his doctrine: Call upon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee Psal. 50.15 Isa. 42.8. And let Au­gustin also go for an heretick who saith, That the Saints are not called upon. Aug. de civitate Dei, lib. 22. cap. 20. As for the despising of the burning of lights and candles in the Churches in the day time, I know not to what use it serves, except to be a sign that ye are blinded of the Lord, who in the midst of the day light your candles: Did Jesus Christ or his Apostles so? And this was the custom of Pa­gans, which you have taken from them, Irenaeus lib. 6 cap. 2. As for the despising of the relicks of Martyrs: if he despi­sed these, then he erred: for we both teach and practise, that the bodies of the Saints should be honorably buried, and we do not despise them. But if he taught that they should not be worshipped, then I say he is not an heretick in this, but you are hereticks and idolaters, who express contrary the Commandment of God, do worship the crea­ture: Matth 4.10. Deut. 6 13. And Vigilantius was no he­retick, nor his opinions condemned as heresies, only there was a hot contention between him and Jerome. And as for Julian, he calumniated the Christians that they adored [Page 332] dead men for Gods, and the tree of the cross. Unto whom Cyrillus answered, That they adored not the sign of the cross, but God only. So this was but Julians calumny against them. But if he had lived in your dayes, he might justly have objected it unto you.

Master Gilbert Brown.

7. Valentinus the heretick, denyed the very body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, as Irenaeus saith, lib 4 cap. 34.

8. Simon Magus, Marcion, and the Manichees, held, that God compelled man both to do evil and good, as S. Augustin haeres. 46. Vincentius Lirinensis, S. Clement of Rome, in recognit. and Epipha­nius haeres. 42. have in their works, which is the doct [...]ine of the most learned of the Protestants, as Melancthon, Calvin, Beza in lib. de praedest. contra Calv. sycophant. and others.

9. The Novatians denyed pennance, as S. Augustin haeres. 38. affirms.

10. The Manichees denyed the necessity of Baptism, as the same S. Augustin haeres. 46. reports.

11. Aërius, Eustathius, and the Manichees, condemned fasting days ordained by the Church, as Leo, Epist. 93 cap 4. Epiphanius, haeres. 75. the Council of Gangr. in praefat. as S. Augustin lib. 10. cap. 3. cont. Faust. Manich. records.

12. The Manichees used to fast on the Sunday only, as S. Augu­stin, haeres. and S. Leo, ser. 4. de qua. witness. Read for this also Concil. Gang. cap. 13. & de consecrat. dist. 3. ne quis. Ignatius ad Philip. de cons [...]crat. distinct. 3. jejunium.

13. The Pepusians and Collyridians, denyed holy Orders, and made it no Sacrament, as S. Augustin haeres. 4.24. and Epiphanius haeres 44.79. write.

14. The Pelagians denyed that confession should be made to a Priest, as our Chronicle writer testifies, Hect. Boet. lib. 9 cap. 19. They deny also that Baptism was needful to children or infants, as S. Augustin reports, haeres. 88.

15. The Donatists den [...]ed the order of Monks, and other reli­gious persons as S. Augustin in Psal. 132. and S Chrysostome write, Tom. 5. against the dispraiser of the monastical life.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

Whether Valentinus taught so or not, I contend not: but the question is of this doctrine of the real presence, whether it be contrary to Gods Word, or not; the which I have proved sufficiently before in the fourth point of do­ctrine: and so the denying of it, is no heresie. But yet it appears not by this testimony of Irenaeus, which ye cite here, that he taught such doctrine.

As for the 8. heresie, it is a calumny to ascribe it to us: for Melancthon, Calvin and Beza, have no such doctrine. You are not ashamed, M. Gilbert, of impudent lying.

As for the 9. of Novatus heresie, that is a calumny to ascribe it to us. For Novatus denyed that there was any place of repentance to these, who after they were bapti­zed, fell from the faith by any infirmity, or violence of per­secution, as Epiphanius testifies of him, that he said, No man who hath fallen after Baptism, can any more obtain mercy. But our doctrine is contrare to this: for we teach that there is place to repentance for any sin, except the sin against the holy Ghost, which is ever punished with final impenitency.

As for the 10. of the Manichees heresie, their doctrine was, as Augustin saith there, That Baptism served nothing for salvation to any: and that none who followed their sect, should be baptized: and therefore they brought in a contempt of Baptism, which is contrary to our doctrine. For we teach, that Christians and their children is to be baptized: and that the contempt of it is damnable, suppose not the want of it.

As for the 11. and 12 heresies, we contemn not fa­stings that are appointed by the Church for lawful causes: but we deny that they should be tyed to certain and pre­fixed dayes, as your Church doth: and we think it no [Page 334] 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 [Page 335] 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, [Page 337] 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.

Master Johns Conclusion.

ONe thing which I hope will cut off all controversie, I offer to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist. And if this be true, then all men that profess him, secretly or openly, as it is said in the Rev. 14.10. shal drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

Master Gilbert Brown.

If this controversie of ours shal not be cut away while M. John prove the Pope to be the Antichrist, certainly it will indure ten hundred thousand years after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday. Then it must follow (seeing that is a thing impossible to be done) that all these that will not openly and privatly obey the Pope, and reverence him as the Vicare of Christ, because he is chosen by God to rule his Church here on earth, that they must drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

Our merciful Lord illuminat M. John with his holy Spirit and grace, that he may understand the truth, and receive the same, and so become a member of his true Church, whereby he may be partaker of the merits of Christ, that his soul may be safe. Amen.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

It is not impossible to prove your Popes to be the An­tichrist. It hath been proved already by the learned on our side; to the which, you, and all your Clergy of Rome is not able to answer. It hath been taught and sealed with the blood of infinit number of Christians: And I have not taken so long a term, as you have set down here; and yet, I hope, I have proved it sufficiently. Put all your might to disprove it, if you can. And as to that threatning of yours, M. Gilbert, wherein ye say, that all those who will not openly and privatly obey the Pope, &c. must drink of the wine of the wrath of God. If it may be believed, then how doth this stand first with your Popes pardons, where­by he gives men pardon or licence to profess, subscribe, and swear to our Religion, as it is reported that some of your own Religion have confessed it? Next, how stands it with the dissimulation of your Jesuites, and seminary [Page 345] Priests, when they come to any place where our Reli­gion is openly professed? Thirdly, what comfort is this which ye have pronounced to your own poor Countrey­men, who do not openly avow Papistrie, but have sub­scribed and communicat with us? Is this an open profes­sion, or not? And if it be not, if ye be a true Prophet, then must they drink of the wine of the wrath of God, then must they be condemned in Hell, by your judge­ment, because they profess him not openly. And last of all, if this threatning of yours be true, then beside the many infinit thousands who profess him to be the Antichrist you condemn to Hell all the Greek and Eastern Churches, who in number far exceed them who obey you; and all the Churches that have been six hundred years and more after Christ: For they obeyed not the Pope openly nor pri­vatly as Christs Vicare over them, as I have proved be­fore. And also you condemn a number of your Anti-Popes to Hell, with their Cardinals, Bishops and Chur­ches who followed them: For they gave out themselves to be Popes, and did not obey the other. As also a num­ber of the Fathers of your own Religion, who in two Ge­neral Councils, the one of Constance, where there was al­most a thousand Fathers: the other of Basel, did not obey the Pope, in defining General Councils to be above the Pope. So, if ye speak truth, infinit millions of Christians, in all ages, and innumerable Churches, and thousands of your own Religion, are condemned to Hell. But this is false, M. Gilbert, and who will believe you? And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure, That seeing his Kingdom is that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb, and speaks like the Dragon, Rev. 13.11. And himself is, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that adversary and Antichrist that was to come, 2. Thess. 2.3.4. And his doctrine, is that A­postasie and abomination sore-told in the Scripture, Rev. 17. [Page 346] And his seat, that Harlot, and mystical Babylon, that mother of whoredoms, who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus. Whosoever receives his mark on his fore-head or hand, that is, openly or privatly, professes obedience unto him, shal (as the Angel proclaimed) drink of the wine of the wrath of God, yea of that pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and before the Lamb. And the smoak of his torment shal ascend for evermore: and they shal have no rest day nor night which worship the beast or his image. And as for your prayer, I beseech God (M. Gilbert) that he may open my eyes, and inlarge my heart to understand and imbrace his truth more and more, and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more. But that which ye call truth, is heresie, and that which ye call the true Church, is Babel: and there­fore that doctrine and Church of yours, is that strong delu­sion and whore of Babel; with the which, whosoever shal communicat, is excluded from the merits of Christ, and shal be partaker of her plagues, and finally shal be damned.

Master Gilbert Brown.

IF the Pope be the Antichrist, what is the cause that M. John would not set down some place out of the Word of God that proves the same? But, good Reader, I will let you see how far M. John is against the Word of God in this, and that by some exam­ples only. First, our Savior shew unto the Jews, that albeit he came in the name of his Father, yet they would not receive him. If another (saith he) shal come in his own name, him ye will re­ceive. This no doubt, as Augustin expones the same, is meant of the Antichrist, that the Jews shal receive. Now it is out of all [Page 347] controversie, that the Jews never received the Pope: Therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist. Again, the Pope came never in his own name, but in the Name of Christ; for he is called the Vi­care of Christ, and the servant of the servants of God: therefore he cannot be the Antichrist.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove; to wit, that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Christ, are the self-same Anti­christ that the Scripture fore-told should come. Thou wouldest know (Christian Reader) of what weight this controversie is, Whether the Pope be the Antichrist, or not? For this supremacy of his unto them, is the foundation whereupon their Religion, and the safety of their whole Church depends: so that they call it, The Rock whereupon the Church is built, against which the gates of Hell shal not pre­vail, Rhemist. annot. upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him, in his Preface before the controversie of the Popes supremacy, The foundation which upholds the house of God: the Pastor which feeds his flock: the Emperor which governes his host: the Sun which gives light to the starrs; that is, to the Ministers of the Church: the Head which gives life to his body. So that remove his supremacy, the house of God must fall, the flock of Christ must be scattered, the host of the Lord must be discomfited; the starrs, that is, the Ministery, must be darkened, and the body must ly still without motion. And he applyes these Prophesies, Isai. 28.16. and 8.14.15. spoken and ful­filled only in the Son of God, unto him a calling him that foundation stone in Sion, upon the which the whole Church is built: and that proved stone, against the which the gates of Hell hath never, nor never shal prevail: and that corner stone, which joyns both Jew and Gentil, as two walls to­gether in a Christian Church: and that precious stone, [Page 348] from whence the infinit treasure of grace is most plen­teously derived unto the whole Church: as unity in do­ctrine, the bond of peace, the unity of faith, which is sal­vation it self, and the very life of Religion: And he saith, There is no way to Christ, but by Peter, in whose room their Popes succeed: So that in their judgement, there is no way to Christ, but by the Pope. And he calls him that rock of offence, and stumbling stone, spoken of in Isai. chap. 8. Upon the which whosoever shal fall, shal be broken: and on whom it shal fall, it shal dash him in pieces. O blasphemous mouth! Let the heavens be confounded at this. And therefore this is of such a weight, that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith, whose words are these: We declare, we affirm, we define and pronounce, that it is alto­gether needful to salvation to all creatures, to be under the Pope of Rome: Extra. de minoritate & obedientia, cap. unam sanctam. So that Bellarmin saith, when the Popes supremacy is called in controversie, The sum of all Christianity is called in que­stion: and when that is controverted, Then it is controver­ted whether the Church should stand any longer or not, or fall and dissolve? Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith, which must be believed and practised under the pain of the loss of salvation. And unto us he is that self-same An­tichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told, time hath made manifest, and the Church hath suffered. Unto them he is the Head of the body of Christ, the Pastor of his flock, the Sun that gives light to the starrs, the foundation of the house of God, and a mortal God among men. Unto us he is Gods enemy, the son of perdition, the second beast, and false prophet, 2 Thess 2.13 Rev. 13.11. the adversary of true Religion, a pest in the body, a tyrant in the Common­wealth, and Antichrist in the Church. So thou sees (Chri­stian Reader) of what weight this controversie is.

Let us see then how he defends him from being the [Page 349] Antichrist, and then you shal hear our reasons to the con­trary. You ask, wherefore I set not down some places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist? I an­swer: Not because I could not, but because it was not my purpose at that time. But now I mind to do it, God willing, after that I have answered to your arguments. Your first reason is, The Jews shal receive the Antichrist; but they never received the Pope: therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist. I answer: Your proposition I deny, that the Jews shal receive the Antichrist. For first, I will ask you, Are you of that opinion with Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12 the Rhemists annot. upon 2 Thess. 2. and the rest of your Clergy, that they shal receive him as their Messias, which they look for? If you be not of their mind, then beside that you dissent from the doctrine of your own Church, it is not probable that the Jews would receive him, if they thought not he were their Messias. And if ye be of their mind, then I say, the Jews will re­ceive none as their Messias, but these who are born of the Tribe of Juda, and the family of David in Bethlehem, and who shal reign in Jerusalem. But the Tribes are confoun­ded, so that they cannot know it, and the family of David destroyed by sundry Emperors: or at the least so con­founded that they cannot be distinguished: and Bethlehem is destroyed, and the Temple of Jerusalem utterly casten down: therefore the Messias which they look for, will never come. And so (if this be true) the Antichrist which ye imagine here, will never come, since your Anti­christ and their Messias that they look for, are both one, as your Church suppones. And I say further, Sanderus in 8. demonst, and the Rhemist. annot. upon the 2. Thess. 2. say, the Antichrist shal come of the Tribe of Dan: if then he shal come of the Tribe of Dan (as they say) the Jews will never receive him as their Messias, because they know [Page 350] their Messias which they look for, shal come of the Tribe of Juda. Therefore if Sanderus and the Rhemists speak true, the Jews shal never receive the Antichrist at all. Thirdly, I lay this ground which you cannot deny, that the Jews are to be planted in again in the natural olive; that is, they are to be converted to Christ, because their fall was but for a time, as the Apostle plainly fore-tells, Rom. 11.24. and the Rhemists grant it, annot. upon that chapter. Upon the which, I ask you (M. Gilbert) whether shal they re­ceive the Antichrist, before or after their conversion? If you say, after: then I say, after they have embraced the true Messias and the Gospel, how can it be that they will look for another Messias, and receive the Antichrist as their Savior. Next, we read of their conversion in the Scripture, but nothing of their rejection of Christ after their conversion. And thirdly, seeing (as your Church saith) the Antichrist shal be sent to them, and they shal re­ceive him, because they received not Christ Jesus: of force then it cannot be after their conversion. For the cause, to wit, their hardness of heart, and refusal of the true Messias being taken away, this punishment should not be sent unto them after their embracing of Christ: so not after their conversion. And if you say, before their conversion; then I say, either must you make the reign of your Antichrist longer then three years and an half (which your Church doth) and put a greater space betwixt the perdition of him, and the end of the world, then your Church doth. (For Bellarmin puts but 45. dayes between his perdition and the end of the world, lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17.) and so overthrow your own doctrine concerning the Anti­christ, that ye may establish your imaginary Antichrist. Or else what likelyhood is there that ever they shal be con­verted to Christ, which is against both the Scripture, and your own doctrine? For seeing the Jews are to receive [Page 351] him as their Messias, and seeing he is to build their Tem­ple, restore their ceremonies, and obtain the Monarchy of the whole world, especially by their help (as your do­ctrine affirms, Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. 16, &c.) shal not this drive them further from Christ, and harden their hearts more then ever it was before? And seeing he shal reign but three years and an half, and they cannot embrace the true Savior, as long as he reigns (for they cannot embrace both the Antichrist, and the true Christ together) and seeing after his death the day of judge­ment shal come immediatly, or at the least 45. days after (as Bellarmin saith:) how can it be possible that they shal ever be turned to Christ before the end of the world, if this your doctrine be true? Therefore they cannot receive the Antichrist before their conversion, and so they shal ne­ver receive the Antichrist. So then to conclud this point, as the Messias which the poor blinded Jews look for, will never come, the true Messias being come already, whom they crucified; so the Antichrist which ye imagine, will ne­ver come; for the true Antichrist (which either ye will not see, or else if ye see, ye will not confess him) lurks within your own bosom, these many years, whom ye labor to co­ver, that he should not be seen.

But how prove ye that the Jews will receive the Anti­christ? Because our Savior saith to the Jews, If another shal come in his own name, him ye will receive. I grant indeed our Savior so speaks. But first, I say, this other is not to be restricted to the Antichrist only, but to be referred to all false Prophets, who shal come, not being sent of God: so Nonnus, so Lyra expone it: and this was fulfilled long since in receiving of Theudas and Cozban, and other deceivers whom they received, Joseph. de bello Judaico, lib. 2. cap. 12. Pet. Gala. lib. 40. cap. 21. As for Augustin, it is true, he expones it of the Antichrist. But if Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. [Page 352] Pont. cap. 12. rejects Augustins opinion concerning the generation of the Antichrist, that he shal come of the Tribe of Dan, because it cannot (saith he) be proved by the Scrip­ture: shal it not also be lawful for us, not to be bound to the exposition of Augustin, unless it be certain by the Scripture: so give us that liberty which ye take to your selves. Your first reason then hath no feet: for this place speaks of all false Prophets whatsoever which the Jews should receive; and it hath been accomplished sundry times among them: therefore this yet remains unproved, that the Jews shal receive the Antichrist. This for the first part of the argument. The second part of your argument is, The Pope came never in his own name, but in the name of Christ; therefore he is not the Antichrist. Your antecedent I deny. For if ye will credit Franciscus Toledo, if ye know him, writing upon the same place he saith, He shal come in his own name, who truly shal have no divine vertue, but shal fain himself to be sent of God, as the false Prophets came in their own name, because they were not truly sent of God. And this is that (saih he) which is said now (meaning in this place) if any shal come in his own name, that he is not truly sent of God, neither hath Gods power. So then a false Prophet is said both to come in the Name of God, and in his own name: In the Name of God, falsly vaunting so: in his own name, because God sends him not; but he intrudes himself without a lawfull calling. Now to answer you then, I say, the Pope comes in the Name of Christ, as his Vicare: I grant, he and his Clergy so vaunt; but falsly. For the truth is, he hath come, and he comes in his own name, and that truly, because the Lord never sent him, but he hath intruded himself without God his calling: therefore this cannot free him, but he may be the Anti­christ. But how prove ye that he comes in Christ his Name, and not in his own name? Because (say ye) he calls [Page 353] himself the Vicar of Christ, and the servant of the servants of God. A pretty argument: He so calls himself: Ergo, he is so. Who will credit either you or him in your own cause? Is this all ye can do for your Pope? He is called so: Ergo, he is so. Augustin saith, Non attendamus ad lin­guam, sed ad facta, Tract 3 in Epist. Joan. Let us not take heed to the tongue, but to the deeds. For if all be asked, & all with one mouth confess Christ, let the tongue cease a little, & ask the life: Interroga vitam: and again, whosoever denyes Christ (factis) by his deeds, is Antichrist. The ido­laters of Ephesus might have reasoned so for their great Goddess Diana, Acts 19.27. She is called a great Goddess: Ergo, she is so indeed. And what false Prophet yet ever came, but they said they came in the Name of God, & they called themselves and were called by these whom they de­ceived, the servāts & Prophets of the Lord, Jer. 23.25. Ezec. 13.6.7. and yet will you frame this argument for them, as you do for your Pope? All the false Prophets said, they came in the Name of God, & were called by these whom they de­ceived, the servants of God; therefore they came not in their own name, but in the Name of God. Did not the false Apostles in Ephesus say, they were the Apostles of Christ, & yet they were found liars? Rev. 2.2. And did not the Syna­gogue of Satan call themselves Jews, and yet they blasphemed in so speaking? Rev. 2.9. Doth not the Harlot with whom the Nations of the earth have committed fornication, say in her heart, she is a Queen, Rev. 18.7. and yet she is that great Harlot? Rev. 17 4. And is not her cup of gold, and yet the drink therein is abomination? And should not the Antichrist sit in the temple of God, and yet he is the son of per­dition, and an adversary to God, and to Jesus Christ? 2. Thess. 2.4. And said not the Devil of himself, that all the King­doms of the world were given to him, and he would give them to whom he would? Matth. 4.8, 9 and yet he was a liar? So [Page 354] if this argument of yours will follow, The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ, and the servant of the servants of God, therefore he came never in his own name, and so he is not the Antichrist: you may with as good reason con­clud, that the false Prophets, and false Apostles, came not in their own name, but in the Name of God, because they are called the servants of God, both by themselves, and also by these who were deceived by them. Yea, you may with as good reason conclud, that the Antichrist is not the son of perdition, and adversary to God, 2. Thess 2.3.4. & that all the Kingdoms of the world are given to the Devil, and that he hath the power in his hand of giving them to whom he will; because the Scripture fore-told of the one, that he should have horns like the Lamb, Rev. 17. and the other ascribes this right and power to himself, Matth. 4.9. It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichrist, unless with him also you defend all the false Prophets, false Apostles, false Churches, the Antichrist, and the Devil himself, from be­ing the thing which they are indeed. But who will venter the salvation of their soul, upon this so silly and foolish a reason? But, I pray you, M. Gilbert, let me ask you this; Is your Pope the servant of the servants of God, and the Vicar of Christ, as he calls himself? Dare you avow this in the presence of him who shal judge the quick and the dead, that he is so as he calls himself? Did ever Christ Je­sus either tread upon the necks of Kings and Emperors with his feet? Or was he ever lifted up and carried upon the shoulders of noble-men? Or did he ever give his feet to Emperors to kiss, as your Popes have done, as your own Histories do witness? And have ye ever read what one of his own Archbishops of Colen, one of his own Re­ligion, writes to Pope Nicolaus the first, five hundred years ago? Speaking to him, he saith, Thou pretends the person of [Page 355] the Pope, but thou playes the tyrant: we feel under the habit of a Pastor, a wolf; the stile belyes the parent. Thou vaunts thy self to be God by thy deeds: while as thou art the servant of ser­vants, thou contends to be Lord of Lords: according to the discipline of Christ our Savior, thou art the least of all ministers of the Temple of God; but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine: whatsoever likes thee, is lawful, Aventinus lib. 4. an­nalium. This was evil in those dayes, but there are worse since. And what now, Reader, shal we say of the Pope, since his own Archbishop hath so written of him? You say he is the Vicar of Christ, but Christ Jesus in his latter Testament, did never leave him to be in his stead. For in the 4. Ephes. 11. He gave Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Doctors, for the work of the ministery, and the buil­ding of the body of Christ. But that he ever left a Pope to be head of the Church in his stead, to be a Monarch in this earth, to reign in Rome, and to be Lord over the servants of God, there is not a syllable in the whole Book of God to prove it. And because you say, he is the servant of ser­vants: what service, I pray you, doth he whereby he makes it manifest that he is a servant indeed? For the prin­cipal service of the Ministery of the Church, stands in prea­ching the Word, which he neither doth, neither thinks that it appertains to him to do. Yea, what is it that appertains to any Lord, King, or Monarch in the earth, that he ascribes not to himself, and doth not also practise? Yea, as though that were too little, what either stile or proper­ties or works, which are peculiar only to 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 [Page 356] 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 [Page 358] 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 [Page 359] 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 [Page 360] 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 [Page 361] 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 [Page 362] 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 is worshipped, &c. which no manner of way can agree with the Pope. For he calls himself, the servant of God, and prays most humbly to Christ, and desires sup­port at his holy Mother and Saints. If he deny this, I cannot tell what any man can say to him, but whether God will or not, he will have the Pope to be the Antichrist, albeit it be repugnant to the Word of God. These are no dark prophesies, but manifest sayings of Christ and his Apostles. I would wish M. John to read S. Au­gustin de Antichristo, Tom. 9.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

I come to your third raison. The Antichrist shal be an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God. I grant that. But the Pope is not an adversary, &c. This I deny: the which if you prove, then shal I grant he is not the Antichrist. Let us see your proofs then, for they had need to be sure, seeing all your Religion and safety of your [Page 363] Church depend upon it: and if ye cannot clear him from being an adversary to God, and from lifting up himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, then your Head and your Religion is gone. You say, he is not an adversary to God, because he calls himself the servant of God, and prays most humbly to Christ. We answered to this before. It is not his stiles which he sacrilegiously claims to himself, nor yet his form of godliness, that can free him from this: for wolves will be clad in sheep skins, Matth. 7.15. And false Apostles and Prophets have pre­tended the authority and calling of God: And the Apo­stle testifies, That there are many which profess God in word, Tit. 1.16. and Satan can transform himself in an angel of light, 2. Cor. 11.14. And it was fore-told, that the An­tichrist should sit in the temple of God, 2. Thess. 2.4. that is, in an eminent and high room in the Church of God, and that he should have two horns like the Lamb, Rev. 13.11. that is, as he interprets it, in Apoc. homil. 11. two testaments, as the Church hath; but yet speaks like the Dragon; that is, as he in­terprets it, who under the name of a Christian, pretends the Lamb, that he may spout in more secretly the poyson of the Dra­gon: and that harlot who makes all Nations drunken with the wine of her fornication, should have a golden cup; that is, a show of godliness, that he might the more easily de­ceive. And Origen saith upon Matthew, treatise 28. and treatise 24. The Antichrist holds nothing but the Name of Christ; neither doth he his works, nor teaches his truth. Christ is the truth, and the Antichrist is a disaguised truth, a disaguised justice and mercy. He takes the testimonies of his false doctrine out of the Scripture, for these that will not be pleased otherwise; and he sitteth upon the chair of the Scriptures, showing himself as though he were God. And Cyprian saith, Epist. 7. That they teach despair under the pretence of hope, and perfidy under the pretence of faith, and the night for the day, and perdition in [Page 364] stead of salvation, & the Antichrist under the Name of Christ. So then if ye will believe either the Scripture, or these te­stimonies of the Fathers, neither the stiles, nor yet the show of godliness which your Popes have, will clear them from being the Antichrist.

And as to his humility towards men, we have heard somewhat of it before: And as to his humility to God, we shal hear of it hereafter, whether he be so humble as he pretends, or not. And certainly, it had not been possi­ble that his spiritual idolatry and abominations had been so greedily drunken out by all Nations, if they had not been put in a golden cup, Rev. 17.4. and his delusions had not been so strong to deceive, and they had not been a deceiveable unrighteousness, 2. Thess. 2.10. and 11. that is, such an unrighteousness as had the show of righteousness, that it might the more easily deceive: and the doctrine of the Dragon had not been so easily and universally embraced, if he had not had two horns like the Lamb, Rev. 13.11. that is, the pretence of the Royal and Priestly authority of the Son of God. So he hath taken on these masks, that he may the more easily deceive. It is not then these visards and masks that will be able to hide him from these whose eyes the Lord hath opened. And as for the third thing the in­vocation of Saints departed: I say, this argument is so far from clearing him from being an adversary to God that if there were no more, it is sufficient to convict your Popes and your Church, that they are adversaries to God. For he is an adversary to God who robs God of any portion of his glory, and gives it to his creatures: My glory (saith the Lord) I will not give to another, Isai. 42.8 But the Pope and his Church do so, in giving invocation or prayers (which is a part of Gods glory and worship) unto the Saints departed For the Lord saith. Call upon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorifie me, [Page 365] Psal. 50.14.15. Therefore your Popes and your Church are adversaries to God in this point. For we ought to call upon them only, in whom only we ought to believe, Rom. 10.14. But we ought only to believe in God, Jer. 17.5. therefore we should only pray to him through Jesus Christ. And he only should be called upon, who knows our ne­cessities, and is able to hear our prayers, and to grant them. But only God in Christ, the searcher of the heart, doth these things: therefore he only ought to be called upon. Here therefore ye give out a sufficient evidence against your Popes and your Church, that you are Antichristian, and adversaries unto God: For that which ye bring here to cleanse him, doth fyle him.

Indeed, I will neither deny the hypocrisie nor idolatry of your Popes, for they both agree unto them: and that which Origen saith of the Antichrist, is true of them: For they hold nothing of Christ, but his Name: They neither do his works, nor teach his truth. And yet for all their hypocrisie and pretence of godliness and humility, these notes and marks of the Antichrist, as the Word of God hath described him, doth every way agree to them. So that if the Word of God be true in setting down the marks of the Antichrist, your Popes who bear these marks, of ne­cessity must be the same. You wish me in the end to read S. Augustin de Antichristo, tom. 9. It would appear that you think, that the reading of that work would have alte­red my mind somewhat concerning your Popes, that they are not the Antichrist: and it appears to me, by that your earnest desire, that the doctrine set down in that Treatise, is worthy of all credit and authority, and that your self is of that self-same judgement concerning the Antichrist with the Author of that Treatise: for I think you would not have wished me to read that thing, which ye your self be­lieves not to be true, I therefore read it, and read it over [Page 366] again. And beside many other things, I find this in it, that the Antichrist should be born of a Virgin, by the help of the Devil as Christ was born of the Virgin by the work of the holy Ghost. I wondered that you should have wished me to read that Book, in the which there was so mani­fest an error, and that contrary the doctrine of your own Church. You should beware of this (M. Gilbert:) for if your Head and Church get wit of it, they will not only count you a bad defender of the Catholick Faith, as you say you are: but also it may be they suspect you of heresie, who do wish your adversaries to read that Book wherein so manifest an error is, and that against the doctrine of your own Church. For who will think of you, but that ye are of that same opinion your self, seeing you are so ear­nest with others to read the same. Bellarmin that great de­fender of your Catholick Faith, was more wise then you in this point. For first, he saith, lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. There is a manifest error in that treatise. Next, he saith, It is certain that that treatise cannot be Augustins; but it is pro­bable (saith he) that it is Rabanus his work. So to conclud this, I assure you (M. Gilbert) I am of the same mind that I was concerning your Popes, for all the reading of that work: But I am not of the same mind towards you, that I was before the reading of the same: for either I think you have been very foolish in wishing me to read that which you believed not your self to be true: or else, that ye defend a manifest error; not only against the truth, but also against the doctrine of your own Church. And let your Pope, who is the bond of unity among you, see to this, how to reconcile you and Bellarmin, two defenders of his Catholick Faith; you saying that that work is Au­gustins, and Bellarmin flatly denying it, and affirming that it cannot be his: you wishing your adversary to read it, and Bellarmin confuting a manifest error in it. But betwixt [Page 367] you be it. Now this is all that you have said for the de­fense of your Pope, which are but as figg leaves, which cannot hide his nakedness.

Now I will let thee see (Christian Reader) what we have for us, wherefore we affirm and teach, and is ready also (as thousands have done before us) to seal it with our blood, that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist, which the Scripture hath fore-told should come, time hath made manifest, and the Lord his mouth hath in a part consumed. And first, I will lay this ground which M. Gilbert cannot gain say, and the conscience of all men will subscribe to. That as the true Christ is sufficiently described in the Old and New Testament, so the Antichrist is sufficiently descri­bed there also. And as he is to be believed, under the pain of the endless damnation of their souls, to be the true Christ, to whom the prophesies of the Old Testament con­cerning the Savior to come, doth agree, and of whom the New Testament testifieth that they are accomplished: so he must be that Antichrist which the Scripture fore-told was to come, to whom every one of the marks and pro­perties of the Antichrist set down in the same, do agree, and in whom they are found to be accomplished. Let us therefore out of the Scripture search the marks of the An­tichrist, and then let us see whether their Popes of Rome be stamped with these marks or not. I speak not now of the many Antichrists whereof John speaks, 1. John 2.18. which were fore-runners of that great defection, which was fore-told should come in the Church of God: but of that chief and great Antichrist, who not in one or two things only, but almost in all the points of his Religion, should be con­trary to Jesus Christ, whom these places of Scripture, 1. John 4.3. 2. Thess. 2. Rev. 11.13.17.18. do describe. And while as I affirm, that the Popes of Rome are this great Antichrist: I understand it thus: That they are the Prince [Page 368] and Head of that defection and apostasie, which the Scrip­ture fore-shew and fore-told was to come in the Church. For I do not think that all the strength and force of the Antichrist is included in the Pope; but the Pope and his Kingdom which is contrary to the Kingdom of Christ, is most truly called the Antichrist: whereof, because the Pope is the Prince and Head: therefore by that figure, taking the part for the whole, I call him the Antichrist. And in this we follow the Scripture: for the Scripture speaking of the Antichrist, sometimes calls it, a defection, and a mystery of iniquity, and the second beast, that hath horns like the Lamb, and the Harlot: and sometimes points out the principal and chief in this Kingdom, on whom the whole body of iniquity doth hang: as when he writes here, the man of sin, and son of perdition, which is an adversary, who extolls himself above all, &c. which is most properly spo­ken, not of the body, but of the Head. Having shown now in what sense we take the Antichrist, we will go to the matter. And first, to that 2. Thess. 2.3.4. where he is descri­bed, and that by no dark prophesies, as you say, but by plain sayings. First, therefore, the Scripture calls him there, a man of sin, a son of perdition. The which to be accompli­shed in your Popes, your own Histories, Cardinals, Coun­cils, Favorers, Friers, Friends, and themselves, do suffi­ciently testifie. So that if they speak true of themselves (which you cannot deny) then of all the monsters that ever the earth hath born, some of your Popes have been the greatest monsters. For in this point, M. Gilbert, we deal not with you, as ye deal with us: for ye cite our ene­mies as witnesses of us, which should have no credit; and we cite your own friends, and these of your own Religion. So that they shal be fetched out as witnesses against you in this point, whether your Popes be the men of sin, and sons of perdition, or not. What Commandment is there of the [Page 369] first or second Table, which they have not violated in the highest degree? 1. Whoremongers. 2. Adulterers. 3. So­domits. 4. Incestuous. 5. Fosterers and maintainers of harlots. 6. Tyrants. 7. Devilish, and Sorcerers. 8. In pride passing all creatures under heaven. 9. Atheists without God. 10. Perjured. 11. Burreaus. 12. Bawds, and mer­chants of whores. 13. Sacrilegious. 14. Traitors. 15. Se­ditious. 16. Blasphemous. 17. Parricides. 18. Poysoners of Emperors, Senators, Cardinals, yea of their own pa­rents and sisters. 19. Helpers of the Turks. 20. Drunkards. 21. Simoniacks. 22. Monsters. 23. Bastards. 24. Arrians. 25. Idolaters. 26. And so contentious, that sometimes there was two, sometimes three, and sometimes four, all Popes, striving for the Popedom together. It were long­some and tedious to bring in their monstrous lives, as their own flatterers, Friers, Cardinals, and others of their own Religion, have written the same. I will therefore only set down a few for example, for the probation of this first point.

Leo the third, he by his authority allowed, and by his Bulls confirmed a false and adulterous blood, which some lying deceivers affirmed to spring out of a certain wood­den Crucifix, to be the true blood of the Son of God, and caused a solemn festival day to be made to the honor of it. What horrible, both blasphemy and idolatry was this? The Devil himself could not have done that which the de­vilish Pope did. The Serpent which deceived Eva, could not have perswaded men that Christ Jesus, who (as the Apostle saith) but once shed his blood, and is now in glory at the right hand of his Father, did shed his blood again, which this Pope confirmed and allowed.

John the 8. a woman, or rather Joan, alone of that name, before called Gilberta, an harlot, who in the time of her procession, brought forth a child, and died thereof, [Page 370] sate in the Papal seat of Rome two years and six moneths, that all might understand that that prophesie of the great whore that sate on many waters, which is spoken in the Rev. 17.1. was fulfilled in the idolatrous Church of Rome. And because some of you deny this therefore I have cited these Authors testifying the same. Rodolphus Monachus Benedict. lib. 5. cap. 32. & Marianus Scotus, who died anno 1086. and Sigebertus a Monk, who lived anno 1110. and Martinus Polo­nus the Popes penitentiar, and Laonicus Atheniensis, lib. 6. apodeixeos, & flores tempor. & Franciscus Petrarcha. & Joan­nes Bocatius in libro de claris mulierib. cap. 99. & Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, and sundry others, which for shortness Tomit, as Platine, Mantuanus Baptista, and sundry others.

Steven the 6. he caused take out of the grave the car­kass of Formosus, who had mansworn himself, and spoils it of the Pontifical habit, and commands it to be buried again in the burial of the laicks, cuts off two of his fingers, and casts them into Tyber, and abrogats his decreets, and de­creed, that the ordinances of Formosus should be void, which is a point of Donatism, as Sigebert a Monk noteth. But Romanus the first, and Theodorus the second, Popes, his successors, they allow Formusus, and abrogat the acts of Stephanus: and so did John the 10. by a Council of 74. Bi­shops, restored the acts of Formosus to the full, and abro­gated the acts of Stephanus, and condemned them. Yet for all this, Sergius the 3. having casten down Christopher the first out of his Papal seat, afterward did cast him in prison, where he died, and so obtained this Satanical seat by the help of Marosia his harlot; he causes take out the body of Formosus, which had lyen eight years in the grave, degrades it from the Pontifical honor, cuts off the three fingers which Stephanus the 6. had left, and with them casts his carkass in the river Tyber, and abrogats his acts, and or­dained anew them which was ordained by Formosus, which [Page 371] is a point of Donatism. And this most filthy adulterer, be­gets John the 12. an adulterous bastard, who was Pope af­terward, with Marosia his harlot.

Pope Landus he begets in adultery John the 11. before he was Pope, who afterward was Pope, Petrus Premon­stratensis testis.

John the 11. or 10. Landus his adulterous son, he by the means of Theodora, his impudent harlot, being then ruler of Rome, was first made Bishop of Bononia, and then Arch­bishop of Ravenna, and then last of all, Bishop of Rome, with whom he wallowed himself in whoredom, Luitpran­dus lib. 2. cap. 13. de imper. But he by the means of Maro­sia, his harlots daughter, is cast in prison, and there smothe­red. And her bastard son, whom some call John the 12. whom Pope Sergius the 3. begat with her in adultery, is set up in the Popedom, and he governs the same in that accustomed filthiness. So the Church of Rome was gover­ned by harlots, as noteth Luitprandus lib. 3. cap. 12. and was made an harlot, as it was prophesied of her, Rev. 17.1.

John, whom some call the 13. of that name, he is such a monster, that I know not if ever the earth did bear a grea­ter, who had sold himself to all sorts of licentiousness, adul­teries, incests, and most horrible cruelties, Luitprandus in lib. 6. declareth that. Of his Cardinals, of some he cuts out their tongues, of some he cuts off their hands, of some their noses, of some their privy members. He is accused in a Sy­nod of his own Bishops before the Emperor Otho, that he did not communicat: that he ordained Deacons in sta­bles: that for money he made children Bishops: that he defiled virgins and strangers: that he made the Palace of Lateran a bordel-house: that he drank wine to the De­vil: that in his gaming at the dice, he sought the Devils help: that he committed a three-fold incest, one with two sisters, another with his fathers concubine, the third with [Page 372] his niece: therefore he was deposed from his Popedom. But afterward by the help of his harlots, was restored to it again, having dejected Leo the 8. who was placed in his room by the Emperor. And last of all, in the very act of adultery, he is stricken through (as some say) by the De­vil, God giving out that sentence against him, and so dies without repentance. These are evil, but yet worse (if worse can be) did follow. For from Joan the 8. who was a woman Pope, and an harlot, for the space of 156. years, (as Cardinal Turrecremata summa de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 23. reckons) to Sylvester the second, who got the Popedom in the thousand year of our Lord. For that space, I say, the Popes, suppose they vowed holy chastity, yet they were sold to all lusts, and lived in all licentiousness, harlotry, adul­teries, incests, and in great contentions, cruelty, tyranny, and bribery: so that they might rather be called the Prin­ces of Sodom and Gomorrah, then the Vicars of Christ. Ge­nebrard a Papist, saith, that for the space almost of 150. years, from Joan the 8. who died 884. anno, after Genebrards ac­count, unto Leo the 9. anno 1048. about fifty Popes did revolt wholly from the vertue of their antecessors, and were Apostatical rather then Apostolical, and obtained the Popedom, some by money, some by force and bribe­ry: And so no marvel, saith he, suppose they were monstrous, and entered not in by the door, but by the postern gate: Chronol. lib. 4. seculo 10. But from Sylvester, it appears that the De­vil was then loosed in his full strength and liberty: and the Antichrist reigned then as a Dragon in the Church of Rome. For from him till Gregory the 7. including them both, being 18. or 19. Popes, their own Cardinal Benno writes, that they were all Inchanters or Sorcerers.

Sylvester the second, a teacher of these devilish arts, he by a solemn bargan with the Devil, that if he would pro­mote him to the Popedom, he would give him both soul [Page 373] and body afterward, obtains the same. He had a copper­head in secret, which alwayes gave him answer of that which he demanded of the Devil. He asked of the Devil, how long he should live? Who doubtfully answering him, that he should not die while he said Mass in Jerusalem. He rejoycing at that, and never being purposed to go to Jeru­salem, yet not being ware of the Devil his subtilty, on a certain day went to a certain place in Rome which was cal­led Jerusalem, and there saying his Mass in that Temple, is suddenly taken with a fever, and knowing by the noise of the Devils, his death to be at hand, in the anguish of his soul confessed his devilry: and as Benno a Cardinal writes, he desires his hands and tongue, and (as some other write) his privy members also to be cut off, with the which he sacrificed to the Devil, and blasphemed God. Now judge thou (Christian Reader) whether this seat and throne, and office of the Popedom be of God or not, which the Devil can give, and hath given to men, and which men can obtain by devilry. And judge whether these men whom they call the Head, light, and foundation of their Church, be Christs Vicars, or the Devils Vicars, or not. Yea, judge whether they are the very men of sin, and sons of perdition, and the Antichrists which the Scripture fore­told should come in the Church, or not. But yet this did not fear his successors: for they followed his footsteps in these devilish arts, as witnesseth Platina, Sabellicus, Vo­lateran, Benno a Cardinal, and John de Pineda, part. 3. lib. 19.

Benedictus the 9 he was so skilled in these devilish arts of Magick, that before he was made Pope, in the woods he called upon these evil spirits: and by his devilry caused women to follow him, for to satisfie his filthiness. He by these his devilish arts obtains the Popedom, and makes his former companions Magicians, his most familiar [Page 374] counsellers. But he fearing himself, sold the Popedom unto his fellow Magician, called Joannes Gratianus, who was afterward called Gregory the 6. for 1500. pound. Pla­tin saith, that by the judgement of God he is damned for the selling of his Popedom. So after he is deposed, he is suffocat by a Devil in the woods, and so he perisheth. Of whom it is reported, that after his death, he was seen mon­strously to appear to a certain Hermit, in his body like a Bear, in his head and tail like an Ass: and being asked how he was so monstrously transformed? He answered, I wander in this shape, because I lived in the Popedom without reason, without a law, and without God: (Out of thy own mouth thou art condemned.) There was such tumults, contentions, and great slaughters for that throne, betwixt Sylvester the 3. and Benedict his faction, that Benno a Car­dinal saith, The Church was rent in pieces, and by here­sies, under the color of sweet honey, was suffocat. And Platin a Papist, saith, That the good was oppressed and rejected; and they that might do most by pride and ambi­tion, clamb up to that throne. But Gregory the 6. buyes the Popedom (as hath been said) and so at one time there are three Popes, which have three seats in Rome, whom Platin calls, Teterrima monstra, most ugly monsters.

Gregory the 7. called otherwise Hildebrand, that most ugly monster, he having by the means of Brazutus poyso­ned six Popes his predecessors, to make a way to himself unto the Popedom, climbs up to that devilish throne that same night, without consent either of people or Cler­gy. Of whom Benno a Cardinal writes, that he was a no­table Magician: that when it pleased him he would shake his slieves, and sparks of fire would come out, whereby he deceived the minds of the simple. Of whom the said Car­dinal reports also, that coming to Rome at a time, he left his book of his Magical and devilish arts behind him [Page 375] through forgetfulness: and remembring himself, he sends two of his most faithful servants about it, charging them straitly that they opened not the book: but they, the more they were forbidden, were the more curious; and so opening the book, and reading it, behold the angels of Sa­tan appeared to them in such a multitude, that scarcely did the two young men remain in their wits: and the Devils said unto them, Wherefore have ye called us? Why do ye weary us? Tell us what we shal do, otherwise we will fall upon you? Unto whom one of them answered, Pull down these high walls which are near Rome. Who went and did it quickly, and so the young men came to Rome ex­ceedingly terrified. This same Cardinal reports of him, that he seeking by many deceitful means to put down the Emperor, hearing that the Emperor resorted often to a certain Church to his prayers, and having searched the place where he used to bow himself, hired a villain to lay great stones over the beams of the Temple where the Emperor prayed, that they falling on the Emperor, might crush him in pieces, and so it might be reckoned for a mi­racle of Gods judgements. But it fell not out so: for the stone being so heavy, fell backward upon him, and brea­king a table that was among the beams, the stone and the miserable man fell down upon the floor of the Church, and so the miserable villain is crushed in pieces, with the same stone which he had prepared for the destruction of the Emperor. The same Cardinal also reports, that he sought a response of the Sacrament of the Lords body against the Emperor (as the Pagans wont to do at their Idols:) but when he got none, he cast it in the fire. For the which cause the Bishop of Porteous in open pulpit saith, that Hil­debrand and we should be burnt quick. He excommuni­cats Henry the 4. deposed him from his Empire, and set up Rodolphus Duke of Suevia in the Empire, and sent him a [Page 376] Crown with this verse, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Rodolpho. He loosed all his subjects from their oath of obedience to him, and forbad his Bishops and Clergy, un­der the pain of excommunication, to acknowledge him. This Emperor with his wife and son, came in the Winter, and stood before his Palace bare-footed, three dayes, in linning clothes, and all that time could not get access to this proud Antichrist: who answered, that his Holiness was not at leasure. Antoninus and Vincentius say, that he granted to a Cardinal in the time of his death, that by the instigation of the Devil he stirred up hatred, enmity, and warrs among many. Of whom also Cardinal Benno writes, That seeing the Devil could not get Christ subverted by the Pagans, he labored to subvert his Name under the shape of a Monk, and pretence of Religion.

The most cruel, arrogant, and treasonable tyrant Pope Alexander the third, he continues a debate for that Sata­nical Seat twenty years: first with Victor, then with Pas­chalis, Calixtus and Innocentius, who were elected Popes, and succeeded one after another. He excommunicats the Emperor Frederick and Pope Victor. He betrays the Em­peror to the Souldan, sends his picture to him, and writes to him to cut him off, if he would live in peace. He caused him to fall down on the ground, and to seek mercy, and then tramped upon his neck (the Monarch of the world) repeating that sentence of the Psalm, Super aspidem & basi­liscum, &c. Thou shalt walk upon the serpent, and the coka­trice, and thou shalt tramp down the lyon and the dragon. (O blasphemous mouth! for this is spoken only of Christ.) And when the Emperor answered, Not to thee, but to Peter. He replyed, Both to me, and to Peter.

Boniface the 8. that three-formed beast, of whom the common Proverb is, that he entered in like a Fox, rang like a Lyon, and died like a Dog: He most craftily deceived [Page 377] his predecessor Celestin, by causing one to speak to him for many nights through a whistle, as though it had been the voyce of an Angel: Celestin, Celestin, renounce: for the burden is greater then thou art able to bear. The which the simple man believing, renounced the Popedom, and so he entered in his room: And having imprisoned the simple man his predecessor, he was such a cruel Tyrant, that he persecuted some of his Cardinals every where, spoyling them both of their livings, offices, and their heritages. He wasted and spoyled the places where they were reset, so that they were compelled some of them to dwel in the woods, flying his cruelty. Some did venter upon the cruel hearted Pirats, thinking to find greater humanity with them, then with their holy Father the Pope. He was also without all Religion: for when the Archbishop of Genua upon Ashwednesday, upon his knees, bare headed, doing his service in the Temple before the people: this holy Fa­ther looking on him took a great many of ashes and cast in his eyes, saying these words, Remember man, because thou art a Gibellin, and with the Gibellins thou shalt return to ashes. He nowrished harlots, he begat bastards, he affirmed that no man should judge him, though he carried a number of souls with him to Hell.

John the 23. taught, that the souls separated from the bodies, did not see Gods face while after the resurrection. and sent Friers to preach it. He was declared by the peo­ple of Rome (as Marius saith) to be an heretick, a Tyrant in the Church, and a perturber of the publick peace of Christians.

Benedict the 12. he bought from her other brother Ge­rardus with great gifts, a sister of Franciscus Petrarcha, to commit villany with. He nowrished many harlots, of whom it is written, Iste fuit verò laicis mors, vipera Clero, devius à vero: He was a death to the people, a viper to [Page 378] the Clergy, a wanderer from the truth.

One part of Christendom, to wit, the Romans, make Urbanus the sixth Pope: another sort make Clement the seventh Pope, whereby was such a schism, that it went to their successors, and continued forty years. These Popes did mutually by their Bulls excommunicat one another: they sent infamous libels one to another, wherein they cal­led other mutually Hereticks, Schismaticks, Antichrists, Tyrants, Thieves, Traytors, Sowers of evil seed, and the sons of Belial, and that worthily. Now because the Church of Rome saith, that the Popes cannot err, and that their judgement is infallible, and their decreets most sure: there­fore, if this be true, by their own testimonies they are he­reticks, schismaticks, and Antichrists, &c. Illyricus testifies, that Theodoricus Niem, the Pope his most inward Scribe, faithfully set down the History of the Schism of these Popes in three Books: wherein he saith, that he found the devilish craft of the Popes and their wickedness, whereby they horribly mocked God and Religion, vexed and ty­rannized over the Church of Christ, to be such, that sup­pose he had read, heard, and seen much of their wicked­ness before, yet having read that Book, he saw their wic­kedness was ten fold more then ever he would have suspe­cted. And therefore he saith, Truly now I assent unto the Canonists, who affirm, that the Pope is neither God nor man: for (saith he) they are incarnat Devils, and in malice and wic­kedness, is worse then Satan himself.

Urban the sixth put five Cardinals in sacks, and cast them in the sea, and drowned them. He condemned to death three other Cardinals, commanded their heads to be cut off, their bodies to be rosted in a furnace, and be­ing rosted to put them into sacks; and whensoever he went from one people to another, he carried them upon hor­ses, as spectacles: and that they might be known to be [Page 379] Cardinals, he placed their red hats upon the sacks. Colle­nutius writeth this in his Neapolitan History. Was ever Nero or Heliogabalus so cruel?

John the 24. after his predecessor was poysoned, threat­ned the Cardinals to choose whom he would: for this cause named they many, but with none of them was he pleased: then they prayed to name whom he would Pope. He answered: Give me S. Peters mantle, and I will put it upon him who shal be Pope. And when they had given it him, he put it on himself, and said, I am Pope. He is accu­sed before the Council of Constance of forty weighty and grave crimes, which were sufficiently proved against him. And Bellarmin saith, lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. there was 35. articles proved against him: that he poysoned his pre­decessor Alexander: that he was an Heretick, a Simo­niack, a Liar, an Hypocrit, a Murtherer, a Dicer, and Adul­terer, a Sodomit, and what not? This also was laid to his charge, that he denyed life everlasting: and therefore is deposed, and another set in his room. In his Epitaph it is written of him: Pestis avaritiae me caecum reddidit, aurum Plus justo sitiens munera sacra dedi. That is, The pest of ava­rice made me blind; and thirsting over much for gold, I sold holy things too dear.

Sixtus the fourth, that vile and beastly monster: Wesselu-Groningensis in his Treatise of the Popes pardons, writes of him, that he permitted to the whole family of Cardinal Luciae, at the request of Petrus Ruerius Cardinal, and his brother, to use Sodomitry; (O horrible abomination!) the three moneths of the year, June, July and August. Agrippa saith, That among the Bawds, or maintainers of Bordels of these latter times, Sixtus the 4. was famous: for he built a great Bordel-house in Rome, both for whore­dom and Sodomitry: he fed troups of harlots, gaining thereby great sums of money: for every harlot of Rome [Page 380] every week payed to the Pope a Julian penny, which would amount in the year to twenty thousand Ducats. But they say it is now augmented, that it comes to forty thou­sand. In his Epitaph it is written, Riserat ut vivens coelestia Numina Sixtus, &c. That is; While he was living, he mocked God: and dying, he believed there was no God. An adulte­rer, the destruction of the Town, who past Nero in wic­kedness; who was all wickedness and vice together.

Alexander the 6. he made a covenant with the Devil, and gave himself over to the Devil, that by his help he might obtain the Popedom: the which when he had ob­tained, he so holily led his life, that he preased to do no­thing without first he had asked the advise of the Devil. A Simoniack, an Atheist also: of whom it is written, Vendit Alexander cruces, altaria, Christum: Emerat ille prius, vendere jure potest. That is; He sold the Cross, Al­tars, and Christ himself: he bought them first, and therefore he might sell them again. A traytor also, for two hundred thou­sand Ducats, which he received from the Turk, he poy­sons the Turks brother, Gemen Bajazets, being then cap­tive in Rome. Who also called for the Turks to assist him against the French King. He committed vile incest with his own daughter Lucretia, of whom it is written in her Epi­taph, Alexandri filia, sponsa, nurus. He made one of his sons Prince of Sicile, and another a Cardinal. He gave li­berty to Petrus Mendoza a Spaniard, a Cardinal, whose lust could not be satisfied, neither with a troup of harlots, neither with the Queen her self, to commit Sodomitry with his own bastard son Zanathensis. (O horrible impie­ty!) He commanded to poyson some of the Senators of Rome, and of his own Cardinals, who were at a banket to­gether with himself. But in the righteous judgement of God, the flagon being changed at unawares by him that filled the cups, he himself was poysoned, and so perisheth. [Page 381] His Epitaph saith, Famae contemptor honestae, &c. Contemner of honesty, and all wickedness it self. And in another of his Epitaphs it is written, That he destroyed Cities and Kingdoms, and wasted the world with sword, fire and robbery, to enrich his bastard children: and that he took away the laws both of God and men, and the Gods themselves, that he might more licen­tiously sin.

Julius the 2. committed Sodomitry with two youths of an honorable linage, which the Queen of France sent to a Cardinal to be informed. He was such a cruel Tyrant, that by his tyranny in the space of seven years, there was two hundred thousand Christian men slain. Of whom it is written, that when he went to the warrs, he cast Peters keys in Tybris, with this voyce, Saint Peters keys help not, let Pauls sword defend us. Of whose pardons it is written, Vendit enim coelos, non habet ipse tamen: He selleth heaven, but hath not heaven himself.

Leo the 10. a beastly man, born to all licentiousness, a drunkard and Atheist without God, when one of his Car­dinals Petrus Rembus was repeating a sentence out of the Gospel, he answered blasphemously, What profit that fable of Christ hath brought to us and our Church, it is sufficiently known to all ages. Whereby, though all the world should deny it, this horrible monster sufficiently declares, that he is that man of sin, and son of perdition.

Clemens the 8. and after some the 7. it is written of him, that he was a bastard, a venefician, a Sodomit, a murderer, a bawd, a simoniack, an harlot, perjured, a sacrilegious man, a diviner, and a crafts-man of all wickedness. Of whom Pasquillus writes in his Epitaph; Hic est per quem tot prostant in urbe puellae, &c. That is, A defiler of maidens, a banisher of honesty and chastity; a honorer of all unclean persons; the infamy of the world; the decay of the Empire; a contemner of God; a man of wickedness; a publick enemy; a false and [Page 382] ungrate man; a Tyrant: and such a man as there was never a worse in the world.

Paul the 3. a vile beastly monster as ever the earth did bear, he sold his sister to be an harlot to Pope Alexander the sixth, that he might be made a Cardinal. He deceived a certain maid of honorable parentage, and deflored her under the hope of marriage, of whom he begat Petrus Aloysius, that vile Sodomit. He poysoned his mother and sister, that he might enjoy all the heritage himself. He committed incest with another of his sisters, and afterward poysoned her, because she loved others more then him. He committed vile incest and adultery both, with his niece Nicolaus Quercaeus his wife, who being deprehended in the very act by her husband, was so wounded by him, that he kept the mark thereof to his very end. He committed also incest and adultery with his own daughter Constantia. And that he might the more licentiously enjoy his beastly lust with her, he poysoned her husband, named Bosius Sforsia. He exceeded Heliogabalus and Commodus in filthi­ness, defiling his own sister, niece and daughter. He had 45. thousand harlots on a row, of whom he received tribut and toll every moneth, who were familiar with him day and night.

Julius the third, what better was he? who against the will of all his Cardinals, made one Innocent, with whom he had done villany, Cardinal, and admitted him to his dome­stick familiarity. Vergerius writes, he abstained not from his own Cardinals: and that he used such horrible blasphe­mies, as the most vile bawds, and the most filthy villains use in the contempt of God. When he missed his dish of bacon which was not set at the table, at the command of his Physician, he brast forth in this blasphemy: Bring me my dish, al dispetto de Dio: that is, In despite of God. Again, when he missed a dish of a cold peacock, which he had [Page 383] commanded to keep to him, having other new rosted pea­cocks, he vomit out most horrible blasphemy against God. And when one of his Cardinals answered, Let not your Holiness be offended at so light a matter. He replyed; If God was so angry for the eating of one apple, that he cast out our first parents out of Paradise; wherefore shal it not be law­ful to me who is his Vicar, to be angry for a peacock, seeing it is far greater then an apple? Now let men judge, whether the Popes of Rome bear this mark of the Antichrist, or not; that is, whether they be men of sin and sons of perdition, or not. Much more might I have brought for the manife­sting of this point, as the thirty Schismes among their Church, which never Church had so many, their mutual contentions, strifes, cruelties, exercised one towards ano­ther. But I hope this will suffice to satisfie the conscience of all men, that the Popes are that man of sin, and son of perdition. And certainly if others had written their abo­minations, then men of their own Religion, their own flat­terers and friends, it would have seemed incredible. But their own Writers have by Gods providence so discovered their abominations, that I think the consciences of all men may be at a point in this. This for the first mark.

The second property of the Antichrist, as he is descri­bed in that same place, is to be an adversary to God, 2. Thess. 2.4. For as the Devil is called Satan; that is, an adversary to God: so his chief Lieutenant Antichrist, is called an ad­versary; that is, opposed and contrary to God; and that not in life only, but in doctrine, Religion, and govern­ment; and that not in one point only, but almost in all the substantial points thereof. The which mark the Popes of Rome bear, and that not only in their lives, but also in the whole substantial points of Religion. And to make this clear, besides that which hath been spoken, we shal com­pare the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the government of his [Page 384] Kingdom set down in the Scripture, with the doctrine of the Popes, and the manner of their government, that the contrariety of them may be known: so that it shal be seen, that cold is no more contrary to heat, and black to white, then Papism to Christianity, and the Religion of the Church of Rome, to the Religion of Christ Jesus. The do­ctrine of Christ stands especially in these two things: in the knowledge of his person, and in the knowledge of his offices. And therefore the Apostle saith, I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, 1. Cor. 2.2. And Christ himself saith; It is life eternal to know thee to be the only true God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. John 17 3. The doctrine of the Popes of Rome overthrows both. And first to prove this concerning his person, the Scripture te­stifies that Jesus Christ is conceived of the substance of the Virgin Mary, and that he hath but one true body, made of the seed of David, and of the seed of the woman, Rom. 1.3. Gal. 4. 4 and not many: and that he is like unto us in all things, except sin, Heb. 2.17. The doctrine of the Church of Rome is, that Christ Jesus his body is made of the bread and wine in the Sacrament: & their doctrine makes him to have as many bodies as there is bits of bread in the Sacrament; and not to be like his brethren in all things, except sin: ( Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharistia; fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat. in scr. antidotarius animae:) for his brethren can be but in one place at once, with their own due proportion visibly: But their doctrine of Transubstantiation makes him to be both in heaven and earth at once: in heaven visibly, in earth invisibly: in heaven with his own quantity and pro­portion, in earth without his natural proportion: and not in one place of the earth only, but in innumerable places thereof at once: so that this main foundation of mans sal­vation (without the which there is no eternal life) con­cerning the truth of Christs manhood made of the woman, [Page 385] is utterly defaced and overthrown, by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome, in making him to have infinit bodies, not made of the feed of the woman, but of bread and wine; or at the least, made of two diverse substances. And as they overthrow the doctrine of his person, so they over­throw the doctrine of his offices. His offices are three: a Prophet, a Priest, and a King, which are all overthrown by them. As he is a Prophet, he hath revealed his Fathers whole will unto his servants, John 1.18. and hath left it in register in his latter Testament; and hath forbidden to add, empair, or to alter the same, Deut. 4.2. and hath pro­nounced a wo & a curse unto them that adds, empairs, or alters the same, Rev. 22.18. Gal. 1.8. and that because it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation, and to make the man of God perfect unto every good work, 2. Tim. 3.15.16. and because it is pure and perfect, and easie to all them that will understand it; Prov. 8.9. Psal. 19.8.9 13. & 119. But they have many wayes corrupted this Testament of Christ, by mingling and adulterating the same. First, in that they give divine authority to the Books called Apocrypha, which are humain, Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. Next, in receiving, and commanding others to receive traditions with equal reve­rence and affection with the Scripture. Thirdly, in their cor­rupt Latin translation, which they have made authentical, which some of themselves confess have missed sometimes the meaning of the holy Ghost, Bud. annot. prior. in Pan­dect. Andrad. lib. 4. Arias Montanus Tom. 8. Bibl. Reg. in praefat. Fourthly, in joyning with the Commandments of God, their own commandments, and that not as things indifferent, but as necessary to salvation, Concil. Trident. Sess. 6 cap. 10. Fifthly, in condemning all sense and mea­ning of the holy Scripture, but that which they hold them­selves, Sess. 4. Last of all, in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection, obscurity and ambiguity, calling it dead and [Page 386] dumb, like a nose of wax. They therefore who have alte­red, added, and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his death, which he hath left in writ, for to instruct his Church in all things, and to make her wise to salvation, and perfect to every good work, doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his Prophetical office: But the doctrine of the Church of Rome hath done so: Ergo, they spoyl Jesus Christ of his Prophetical office.

Thirdly, they are no less sacrilegious and injurious to his Priesthood. His Priesthood stands in two things. First, in purchasing unto us by the vertue of that one sacrifice once offered up upon the Cross, an everlasting redemp­tion. Next, in making continual intercession for us with his Father, Heb. 9.11.12, 15.24.25.26.27.28. the which both are overthrown by the doctrine of the Church of Rome. As to the first, it is overthrown many wayes: as first, our Savior saith, That his soul was sorrowful unto the death: and that he swat drops of blood, Matth. 26.37.38. and he sent up strong cryes and supplications, with tears, in the dayes of his flesh, Heb. 5.7. Luke 22.44. and therefore he thrise upon his knees prays, That if it had been possible, that cup might be removed from him, Matth. 27.39. And upon the Cross, through the sense and feeling of that wrath, he breaks forth in that complaint, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? All which do testifie, that he suffered more then a common death; to wit, the terrors of the wrath of God, which was due to the sins of all the elect. But the doctrine of the Church of Rome ranverseth this doctrine of our salvation, and teacheth, that Christ suffe­red not the wrath of God upon his soul: which if it be true, then Christ hath not payed our debt sufficiently: for our debt was not only the natural death of the body, but the wrath of God upon the soul: and therefore the Scrip­ture saith, The soul that sinneth shal die the death, Ezech. 18.20.

Secondly, the Scripture testifieth, that Christs death and blood is a sufficient ransom for our sins, and a sufficient sa­tisfaction unto the justice of God, Heb. 10.10.14. John 19.28. 1. Tim. 2.6. 1. Pet. 2.24. 1. John 1.7. They by the contrary joyn to his satisfaction, the satisfactions of men, both in this life, and in the life to come: in Purgatory, and that not only for their own sins, but for 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 [Page 388] 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 [Page 390] 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 make them Intercessors, but Mediators; at whom, and for whose merits, they seek sal­vation. And upon this ground came that Paganism which they have brought in the Church of God, whereby every Nation, Village, Family, every Estat, and every malady or affliction, have their own Saint to be a Patron for them. Upon the which also hath proceeded this canonizing of Saints; that is, to make men Gods. For they say, that this canonizing of them is, to let men understand that they should be adored, and called upon, as one of their own Archbishops Antonius saith, part. 5. summa tit. 12. For he saith, that se­ven things appertain to the canonizing of Saints. 1. To be reputed publickly to be a Saint. 2. To be prayed to by the Church. [Page 391] 3. To have Temples and Altars. 4. To have offerings and sa­crifices offered to their honor. 5. To have a festival day. 6. To have an Image with a candle, in sign of their glory. 7. To have their relicks. And they say, That they may be directly prayed unto with the Lords Prayer, which our Savior formed only to be said to God the Father. Now how shal they be ex­cused from vile idolatry in this? Pope Innocent saith, That to the worship which is only proper to God, appertains Tem­ples, Altars, sacrifices, feasts. And Durandus a Papist, saith the same, lib. 5. cap. 4. If this then be true, which this Pope and this Papist say, how then can they be cleared from ido­latry, that give unto Saints that service, which by their own confession is only proper to God, as Temples, Al­tars, Festival dayes? &c. And what shal we say to Francis­cus and Dominicus, two of their canonized Saints, in whose persons they have done that lay in them to have abolished the merit & the Name of Christ? Of this Franciscus they say in their Book of Conformities, That he is greater then John the Baptist. And preferring him in many things to him, they say, That John received the word of repentance of Christ; but Fran­ciscus, say they, received it of Christ, and of the Pope, quod plus est, which is more. Of John it was revealed by an Angel to his father what he should be: but of Franciscus it was revealed to his mother, and his servants by Jesus Christ. John was like the friend of the bridegroom: but Franciscus was like the bride­groom himself. They say, He is better then all the Apostles: for they left but their boats; but he left all to his very hose. They call him, Typicus Jesus, a typical Savior, a singular crucified one, who received in vision the same wounds which Christ hath, & suffered the same dolors: who is the way of life, who is the image of Christ, as Christ is the image of the Father. Yea, which is more, they prefer him to Christ Jesus. They say, Christ did but pray, but Franciscus by prayer obtained. They say, The Baptism of Christ forgives original sin, but Franciscus hood [Page 392] much more. It is written also upon the port of the Corde­liers of Bloys, of this Franciscus, That his sin shal be sought for, but it shal not be found, which is only proper to Christ. Now these are not particular opinions, but approved by the Church of Rome: For Pope Gregory the 9. Alexander the 4. and Nicolas the 3. ordained all the faithful, under the pain of heresie, to believe all Franciscus marks. And their Books are set forth by their priviledges.

As for Dominicus, Antoninus who was of that Order, compares him with Christ, and in a manner prefers him to him, Hist. 3. pars, tit. 23. cap. 1. part. 1. & 3. Christ, saith he, did raise in all but three from the dead. Dominicus raised three in Rome, and by his prayer restored forty to life. Christ after the resurrection being immortal, went twise to his disci­ples, the doors being shut; but Dominicus (saith he) having as yet but a mortal body, which (saith he) is more marvellous, went into the Church in the night the doors being shut, that he should not waken his brethren, &c. And such like of the rest of the miracles, wherein he not only compares, but in a māner prefers him to Christ. Christ (saith he) said after his death, all power is given to me in heaven & earth. This power (saith he) is not in a little cōmunicat to Dominicus, above all heavenly, earthly & infernal things (& that in this same life) for he had the An­gels to serve him, the elements obeyed him. And in the end he applyes that which is only spoken of Christ in the 45. Psalm, He is more beautiful then the sons of men. Also he saith, That there was two Images, the one of Paul, the other of Dominicus. At the foot of Pauls Image, it was written, Per istumitur ad Christum: By this man is the way to Christ. At the foot of the Image of Dominicus it was written, By this man the way is made easie to Christ. And marvel not (saith he) at this: for the doctrine of Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, induceth men to believe and to obey the precepts of Christ: but the doctrine of Dominicus induceth men to keep the counsels of Christ, and [Page 393] therefore the way to Christ by him is easier. So he prefers him to Christ in miracles, and to the Apostles. But what shal we say to that that follows? He is called (saith he) Domi­nicus, because he is like our Lord; and he hath possessive, and in possession that which Christ hath absolutly and by authority. Christ saith, I am the light of the world. The Church (saith he) sings of Dominicus, Ye are the light of the world. The Prophets te­stified of Christ, and so did they also (saith he) of Dominicus, and of his Order, as in the 11. chapter of Zachary, where it is spoken of Christ: I have taken unto me two rods, and I called one the staff of beauty, and the other the staff of bands. The staff of beauty (saith he) is the Order of Dominicus: the staff of bands, is the Order of Franciscus. So they abuse the Scrip­ture. He compares him also with Christ, and in a manner, prefers him to him. Christ (saith he) was born upon the bare earth; but lest he had been over much hurt by cold, he was put into the crib by his mother: But Dominicus (saith he) being in the custody of his nurse, even then abhorring the pleasures of the flesh, was found oft-times lying upon the bare earth. When Christ was born, a star appeared, signifying that he should illu­minat the whole world: But (saith he) when Dominicus was born, his Godmother saw a star in his fore-head; a prognostica­tion of a new light of the world. The prayer of the Lord was ever heard when it pleased him, but yet did not ever obtain that which he prayed for: as when in the garden he prayed, that the cup might be transferred from him: But (saith he) Domi­nicus desired nothing of God, but that which he obtained per­fectly according to his desire. Christ loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood: But Dominicus (saith he) not be­ing void of that perfection of love, he took a three-fold correction out of his own hand every day, not with a cord, but with an iron rod, even to the effusion of his blood, and for his own faults, which were very few: another for them that were in Purga­tory: the third for them that were in the world. And so deduces [Page 394] this comparison through all the parts of Christs life. And in the end, he saith, That being to depart from this world, he comforts his disciples, saying, Let not this trouble you, for in the place where I go to, I shall be more comfortable to you, then if I were with you: For after death ye shall have me a better Advocat then ye could have in this life. What blasphemies these are, judge thou (Christian Reader) and yet they are authorized by the Church of Rome, because they serve to establish the Popes supremacy: For Gregory the 9. ca­nonized him as a Saint, anno 1223. and appointed a festi­val day to be kept to his honor: And he that writes these things is an Archbishop of Florence, a man famous among them. To him that will joyn himself to this Order of Fran­ciscus and Dominicus, for to merit the Kingdom of heaven, & to redeem their own souls, or the souls of their friends (as their Bull of Fraternity saith.) The Provincial gives him the Bulls of Fraternity, by the which is made capable of all the me­rits of the Convent, & of the merits of all the Friers of that Province, of their Masses, prayers, fastings, abstinences, de­votions, watchings, disciplins, &c. Whereby (as though it were too little for them to be Saviors of themselves) they teach that they have such abundance of merits, as also may serve for others. They have a prayer to Thomas Becket, in their porteous book, who was made a Saint by Alexander the 3. in these words: Tu per Thomae sanguinem, quem pro te impen­dit, fac nos, Christe, ascendere quo ille ascendit: that is, Make us, O Christ, to ascend to heaven by the blood of Thomas which he shed for thee. Mocking as it were the blood of Jesus.

Now as for the Virgin Mary, what title is proper to Jesus Christ, which they have not ascribed unto her? What honor or worship is given to Jesus Christ, which is not given to her? Damascene saith, praying to the Vir­gin Mary, I shall be saved by hoping in thee. Thou is the salva­tion of mankind. Antoninus saith, part. 3. summa tit. 12. & [Page 395] part. 4. tit. 15. cap. 14. para. 7. That all they upon whom the Virgin Mary turns her eyes, are necessarily justified and saved. And that Christ because he is both Advocat and Judge toge­ther, is too rigorous: for this cause, saith he, God hath provided an Advocat (meaning of the Virgin Mary) in whom nothing is to be found but sweetness. And he saith, The Seraphims willing to have retained Mary as she mounted to heaven: Not (saith she) for it is not meet that man should live his alone (spea­king of the everlasting Son of God, who sits at the right hand of his Father) I am given to him for to be a help to that work of redemption by my compassion, and to that work of glori­fication by my intercession: to the intent, that if he threaten to destroy the earth, as in the time of the Deluge, I may appear be­fore him as the rain-bow, to the intent that he may remember his covenant. And which is yet worse (if worse can be) ano­ther Papist saith, applying that which is only spoken of Christ to her: God (saith he) said to her in her birth, I have given thee to be a light to the Gentils, to the intent that thou may be our salvation (applying it blasphemously to Mary) to the end of the world, and a light to be revealed to the Gentils. And again he saith, That all graces which run down from the Father and the Son, come by her; who (saith he) is a Mediatrix be­tween God and men: And no grace comes from heaven, but through her hands, and all grace enters in her, and comes out of her. And he saith, She is a Mediatrix of salvation, of con­junction, of justification, of reconciliation, of intercession, of communication. And to be short, he saith, The Father hath given to her the half of his Kingdom, the which was signified in the persons of Assuerus and Ester: and that he hath retained to himself justice, and hath left to her to exercise mercy. So that we may appeal from the Court of the Justice of God, to the Court of the mercy of the Virgin Mary. Whereby they most blas­phemously prefer and lift her up above the Lord: for that Judge unto whom appellation is made, must be superior [Page 396] unto these Judges from whom the appellation is made: therefore they blasphemously prefer the tribunal of Mary, to the tribunal of the God of heaven.

And what shal I speak of her Letanies, Psalteries, and Hours? Of her Hours, where she is called, the Queen of mercy, who hath bruised the Serpents head: which thing is spoken only to the first parents of the Son of God, Gen. 3. and the restorer and Savior of mankind: the most godly and most holy: the gate of heaven: the shining port of life: the mother of grace and mercy: our life, our hope; who makes the world to shine by the light of the brightness of her peace: who on­ly hath deserved to be next in honor to the Trinity, by whom the whole world lives, next God. She is called, the comfort of the desolat: the salvation and hope of all them that put their trust in her: the fountain of salvation, grace, godliness, joy, comfort. The Queen of heaven, and star of the sea, whom the Sun ho­nors: the promise of the Prophets: the Queen of the Evange­lists: the teacher of the Apostles: the comfort of the Martyrs: the salvation and consolation of the quick and the dead: the bottomless fountain of all grace: the port of paradise: the Lady of glory: the Queen of joy: the Lady of Angels: the joy of the Saints: the only hope of the miserable, the Empress of the Angels: the comforter of sinners: the keeper of the heart: the praise of all the Saints. And of her is sought in her Hours and Letanies, all these graces generally, which are only proper to God through Jesus Christ to give: as Prote­ction, receiving in the time of death, refuge in the time of misery, remission of sins, the keeping of soul and body, holi­ness of life, staying of the pest, calming of the seas, perse­verance in grace, the eschewing of sin, salvation and eternal life: And that by her merits and prayers their sins may be forgiven; and that being redeemed by her, they may climb up to heaven. And they pray to Mary and John Baptist, by the Redeemer, making Christ a Mediator between them and [Page 397] them. And they pray to Christ to defend them from his anger, and from the anger of his mother: And they pray her to give her self and her Son unto them. What horrible blasphemy is this? Who can give Christ, but only God the Father? They say, God will give them that worship her a reward here, and heaven hereafter. How shal I praise the redeemed by thee? speaking of Mary. And in the prose of the Mass, they have this prayer, Jure matris impera Redemptori: that is, By thy motherly authority, command the Redeemer. And as concerning her Psalteries, how horrible is it to see all that David spake of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to be transferred and applyed to her, without exception, from the beginning to the end? changing only the style of the eternal Lord, in the style of our Lady, blaspheming, Blessed is he who loves Mary, fears her, and praises her name, who hopes in her. The heavens declare thy glory, and the earth and the fulness thereof. Blessed are all they who love thee, because thou hast washen their sins in thy mercies. Have mercy on me, O mother of mercy: and according to the bowels of thy compassions, wash me from all mine iniquities. Save me for thy names sake: Let Mary be lif­ted up, and all her enemies will be scattered. Lord, give thy judge­ment to thy Son, and thy mercy to the Queen his mother. Lady, sal­vation and life is in thy hand. O how good is God to them that wor­ship his mother. God is the God of vengeance, but thou art the Queen of mercy. Come, let us worship the Lady: let us praise the Virgin who hath saved us: let us confess our sins unto her. The Lord said unto our Lady, Sit here, my mother, on my right hand. O man­kind rejoyce, because God hath given to thee such a Mediatrix: and at the name of Mary, let all knees bow in heaven, in earth, and in Hell. This Lady Psalter was compyled by a Cardinal of Rome, Bonaventure, who was canonized for a Saint by Pope Six­tus the fourth, anno 1470. After the same manner have they corrupted the Songs of the Prophets, of Simeon, and of the Virgin, blaspheming after this manner, My soul rejoyceth in my Lady. My soul, magnifie my Lady, &c. Now letst [Page 398] thou, O Lord, the servant of Mary depart in peace, because my eyes have seen the salvation of Mary. And to put an end to these abominations, they ascribe unto the Virgin that which the holy Ghost hath spoken only of Jesus Christ, the everlasting wisdom of his Father, The Lord hath possessed me in the begin­ning of his way: before he made any thing, I was ordained from ever­lasting, Prov. 8.22. And Pope Leo the 10. calls her Deam, a Goddess, Epist. 17. In the General Council of Lateran, in stead of praying to God through Christ, for the assistance of his Spirit, they crave the help and assistance of Mary, Concil. La­teran. sub Julio 2. & Leone 10. Sess. 9.10. &c. And Pope Pius the fifth, acknowledgeth her for the victory of the Chri­stians against the Turk, in their combat which was stricken on the sea: and for that victory hath ordained a yearly re­memberance of her to be kept, Martyrologium Rom. act. 7. And Antoninus one of their Archbishops saith, Hist. part. 3. tit. 23. cap. 3. That Christ sitting at the right hand of God the Fa­ther, rose up angry to have slain all the sinners in the earth; and when none was able to resist, his mother came to him, and pacified him, till two of his servants, Franciscus and Dominicus, might be sent to them: and that Christ answered; Behold, I am pacified, and have accepted thy face. I appeal your conscience, M. Gilbert, before the Lord Jesus Christ, as ye must appear before him in that great day, whether these speeches be not the speeches and blasphemies of the Dragon, or not? And whether this do­ctrine and Religion of yours, be not idolatrous, blasphe­mous, and Antichristian, or not?

Not only have they spoyled the Lord Jesus of his me­diation, intercession, and of his glory due to him, and mankind of their salvation purchased by his blood, in as­cribing it to Saints, Angels, and to the Virgin Mary; but also in ascribing them unto their consecrat things, as their holy water, the tree of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, their golden, silver, and stony Crosses. For unto the Cross they give the worship of Latria, as themselves testifie, which by [Page 399] their own confession is only proper to God. Thomas in part. 3. summae, quaest. 25. artic. 4. & Cajet. in comment. in illum locum Thomae, & Andradius in lib. 9. orthod. explic. And their prayer to the Cross, and the sign of the Cross, is to help them, defend them, and save them: and they adore it and worship it. They pray such like, that the holy water may be sal­vation unto them, and that by the sparging of the same, the health of their soul, the strengthening of their faith, the security of their hope may be given them.

Unto the Images and relicks of the Saints, they offer sacrifice, in burning incense unto them, which the Scrip­ture calles an oblation only proper to the living God, Mark 9 49. Therefore Ezechias brake the brazen serpent, because they burnt incense unto it, 2. Kings 18.4. And the burning of incense to Baal is counted idolatry, 2. Kings 23.5. They pray for their golden, silver, and stony crosses, that as the world was purged from the guiltiness of sin by the Cross of Christ, so by the merit of this Cross, these who offer it up, may be forgiven of all their actual sins, Pontif. Rom. part. 2 tit. de benedict. novae crucis. Careat omni peccato perpe­trato. Is not this to set up their stony, &c. Crosses, in the room of the blood of Jesus Christ? They ascribe to the tree of the Cross, that which is only proper to God, saying, Salva catervam: that is, Give salvation to the assembly gathe­red together in thy praises, Brevia. Rom. in fest. invent. & ex­alt. sanctae crucis. They worship their images after the same manner, as the Heathens did their Idols. And as the Heathens, Baruc. 6.3. bure their golden, silver, and tim­ber Idols upon their shoulders, so do the Papists, Baron. nota Marti. Rom. Sleidan. com. lib. 9. Jodoc. meg. peregr. Hieros. cap. 3. Pellic. in Baruc cap. 6. The Heathens wor­shipped their idols: the Papists do the same, in falling down before the images of Saints, Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. The Heathens decked their idols with vestiments, as though [Page 400] they had been men: so do the Papists with their images, which some of themselves think to be an abuse, and would have it abolished, Molin. Epist. Valen. Salig. Espen. hist. Eccles. Ecclesia reform, in Gallia, lib. 4. They lighted candles before their idols, which their idols saw not: so do the Papists, Erasm. colloq. peregrin. relig. ergo, Polyd. Virg. de invent. rer. lib. 2. cap. 23. & lib. 6. cap. 13. There the faces of their Gods were made black through the smoke of their incense which was burnt in their worship, as it is exponed by some: so do the Papists burn incense to their golden, silver, and copper idols, Miss. Rom. de rit. servand. in celebrat. Missae. And to be short, in this, as their Priests had their heads and their beards shaven, how like are the Papist Priests in this? Pontif. 20. part. 1. Pier. Valer. pro sacerd. barbis. They worship also the image of Christ with the worship of Latria, Thom. Aquin. part. 3. quaest. 25. art. 3. & 4. Ant. Possev. Bibl. select. lib. 1. cap. 10. which them­selves confess to be proper only to God, confessed by one of their own number, a learned Jesuit, Gregor. de Valent. lib. 2. cap. 7. And therefore he defends that some kind of Idolatry is lawful. And Bellarmin saith, lib. 1. de Eccles. trium. cap. 23. That the worship of Latria, is given truly to the Image of the Cross, and the Crucifix, suppose he saith, he thinks it not safe to preach this to the people. They style the Image of the Crucifix, with the styles only proper to God, The King of glory: the Lord that is strong and mighty in battel: the Lord of strength, Conrad. Brun. de imagin. cap. 7. Such like, when the Image of the Dove at the Pentecost, is let down in the Temple with fire and water, then the Priest saith, Receive the holy Ghost, Ibidem. So do the Popes give the style of the immaculat Lamb, to the Images of wax, Sacra cerem. Eccles. 20. lib. 1. tit. 7. The second Council of Nice, Act. 4. saith of the Image of Christ, This is Christ: And the Council of Trent. Sessio 25. And in their consecration of their Ima­ges of wax, ibid. sacra. they pray to God the Father, Let [Page 401] these immaculat Lambs (speaking of the Images) receive that self-same vertue against all the crafts and deceits of the Devil, wherewith that innocent Lamb his own Son Jesus Christ, delivered from the power of the Devil our first parents. And they sing of every one of these wax Images, which they call their Agnus Dei, omne malignum; that is, these wax Images break and annul every sin, as Christs blood doth. And to fill up the heap of their iniquities, not only do they worship the thing signified by the Images, but the Images themselves, as themselves testifie, Polydor. Virg. de invent. lib. 6. cap. 13. And Pius 2. saith, Comment. lib. 2. that in the Church of S. Mary, &c. there is an Image of the Virgin, which the people worship, mirâ Religione, with a marvellous Religion, as the giver of rain and fair weather. And Bellar­min saith, lib. 2. de imag. cap. 21. That the images of Christ, and the Saints, ought to be worshipped properly and by them­selves, as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they represent another thing. And he saith, cap. 13. That the Image it self should be worshipped with that same kind of worship pro­perly, with the which the thing it self represented thereby should be worshipped. The second General Council of Nice is of the same mind. Marinaeus Siculus de rebus Hisp. lib. 5. te­stifies, that in Spain in a certain Temple, the Crucifix of Christ is adored. And he saith, Cujus imaginis invocato nu­mine; At the invocation of the Godhead of the which Image, sundry received their health. Pope John the 22. formed a prayer to be said to the Image of Christs face, kept in a shirt which they call Veronica, and hath granted ten thousand dayes pardon to them that say this prayer devoutly, Salve sancta facies Redemptoris nostri, &c. In the which prayer, first, these styles are given to this Image, as the face of our Redeemer, wherein shines the brightness of the Godhead: the beauty of the world: the glass of the Saints, wherein the hea­venly spirit; desire to look in: the strength of our Christian faith: [Page 402] the destroyer of hereticks, our joy in this life. Secondly, they pray to this Image, to purge us from all the spots of our sins: to joyn us to the company of the blessed: to powr in light in our hearts by that vertue which is given to it: to increase our merit, and to lead us to heaven. When shal we tumble our selves out of the gulf of these abominations and idolatries? Blind now must they be that see not their doctrine to be the do­ctrine of the Dragon. Therefore do I strive with you (saith the Lord) and with your posterity. For go through all the regions of the earth, and see if there be the like abo­minations, as is among them. For they have changed the glory of God into unprofitable Idols. O ye heavens! be astonished at this, and be confounded, and be ye desolat. For two evils have they done: they have forsaken the Lord, and Christ his Son, the fountain of living waters, and have made unto themselves broken pits, which can hold no water: that is, they have made unto themselves false Gods and false Christs, which cannot bring salvation unto them. They have given his glory unto others, so that of all Idolaters that ever have been, they are the greatest. It is no wonder therefore suppose the Lord hath caused it to be proclaimed by an Angel, That he that worshippeth the beast and his image, shal be tormented in fire and brimstone, day and night: and the smoke of their torment shal ascend for evermore, and they shal have no rest, Rev. 14 10.11. I hope now the se­cond point is sufficiently cleared, that they have spoyled Christ of his Priesthood, and of that glory and honor that is due unto him.

Now as they have spoyled him of his Priestly office, so have they robbed him of his Kingly office. His Kingly of­fice stands in two things: The one is, in the inward opera­tion of his Spirit. The other is, in the exercise and ministe­ry of the Word, Sacraments and Discipline, which he hath ordained for that end. As for the first: He by his Spirit [Page 403] prepares the heart, by bringing us to a sight and sense of our misery, that we may run to him to seek for mercy: And then he by his Spirit works that living faith, which makes us fully assured of salvation, which works by love, and brings forth the fruits of holiness and righteousness, where­of prayer is one special. All which is taken away by their doctrine. As to the first: No sufficient knowledge of their misery among them. For first their doctrine is, That we are not dead in sin, but man hath free-will: and then, that concu­piscence after Baptism, is not sin: and that the adoring and worshipping of Images, is not the breaking of the second com­mand. And that the reward of every sin, is not everlasting death. And that men even without faith, may merit the favor of God; and that after they have obtained faith, they may not on­ly fulfill the Law perfectly, but also do more; yea love God with a greater love then he hath commanded, and lead a more strait and heavenly life, then either the Law of God or man prescribes, as Bellarmin saith. And that men may not only satisfie God for their own sins, and merit everlasting life to themselves, but also may communicat of the superabundance of their merits unto others, Malvenda in disput. Ratisb. cum Bucero, & omnes fere Scholastici.

Now, is it possible that these men who so lift up them­selves in the conceit of their own righteousness, can have the knowledge and sense of their misery? And as for this full assurance of faith without doubting, they call it Pre­sumption. And as for the fruits of holiness, without the which no man can see God, let their fruits of their vow of single life among their Clergy, and forbidding of marriage, which the Scripture saith, is the doctrine of Devils, bear witness: whereby innumerable abominations, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, have been committed in their Cloysters and Nunneries, as their visitation doth testifie. And in a fish pond there was found six thousand childrens [Page 404] heads; which moved Gregory to revoke that determination of his, upon this reason, that it was better to let them mar­ry, then to give such occasion of murder, as appeareth by an Epistle of Hulderick Bishop of Ausburgh, written to Pope Nicolas the first. And Pope Pius the 2. saith, that marriage was taken away for some reasons, but it should be restored again for greater. This is ascribed unto him. And as for true prayers, which should be in the Spirit, with sighs and sobs that cannot be expressed, Rom. 8.26. in a known language, with words of understanding, that men may say, Amen, to them: in stead of this, they teach vain repetition and babling in prayers. 1 Cor. 14. as though God were served by reckoning up their mutterings, so many Avees, so many Pater nosters upon a pair of beads, They teach to pray in a strange language, which is a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, which can­not edifie nor build up, no not the tower of Babel it self, suppose it be a tower of confusion. So by their doctrine they have spoyled Christ of his spiritual government in the hearts of his own by the work of his Spirit.

And as for the outward government by the Word, Sa­craments and Discipline, they have both spoyled him of it, and also have deprived the people of God of these means whereby their faith may be wrought, nowrished, and con­firmed in their hearts: For as for the Word, beside their corrupting of it, what by Apocrypha, what by traditions, what by the commandments of the Church, what by their corrupted translation, and their false interpretations, they have starved the people of God for the want of them, in keeping them up in a strange language, and reading them out so in their Assemblies in a strange language; so that the people may have eyes and not read them, ears and not hear them, minds and not understand them, because they are kept up in a strange language. And therefore sundry [Page 405] of our predecessors have been accused and burnt by them, for reading parcels of them, being translated in the vulgar language. And as for the Sacraments, they have increa­sed the number of them, by adding other five unto them: they have impaired them of their vertue, corrupted them with errors, polluted them with ceremonies, and have spoyled the people of the fruit of them, by reason they are ministred in a strange tongue, and they have turned the Sacrament of the Supper in a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. They have taken away the sign of the Sacrament. They have abolished the humanity of Christ, by their monstrous transubstantiation. They have taken away the Communion which should be in the Sacrament, by their privat Masses: and they have spoyled the people of a sweet pledge of their salvation, in taking away the cup from them, by their lamed communion under one kind.

And as for the discipline of Christ, they have renversed it also, the order whereof according to the Scripture, is, that the Church of Christ be governed by his own Mini­sters, and his own laws, set down in the Word, for the sal­vation of his people, Numb. 3.10. Heb. 5.4. Ephes. 4.11. Exod. 25.30. Matth. 28.20. 1. Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.12. all which they have taken away. And first, concerning the Ministers of Christ, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons, which is given of God for the work of the Ministery and building up of the body of Christ, they have removed them from the government of the same, and have set up other Office-bearers, as Legats, Cardinals, Primats, Pa­triarks, Archbishops, Lord Bishops, Chanons, Parsons, Vi­cars, Archdeacons, Priests, Abbots, Provincials, Popes Inquisitors, Commissioners, Officers, Procutors, Promo­ters, and the innumerable rout of their Monks, Friers, Je­suits; whose Sects and Orders, as they have been reckoned [Page 406] by some, extends to an hundred and one, all different in Ceremonies and Orders one from another, all unknown in the Scriptures of God: and transformed the government of the Church of Christ into a visible Monarchy and King­dom of the Romans, as it is named by Turrian a Jesuit, de Eccles. & ordinar. Minist. lib. 1. cap. 2. And the Popes having set themselves in the room of Jesus Christ, the King of his Church, have not only tumbled out Christs Officers, and set in their own, of whom they exact an oath of obe­dience to them: but have lifted up themselves above the higher Powers, Kings and Magistrats, as shal be spoken hereafter. Claiming to themselves both the Swords and authority, to give and to take Kingdoms at their pleasure, exacting an oath of obedience of them, making them their vassals, and tyrannizing over the Church of God. And as they have shut out the Ministers who should rule the Church of God, so have they shut out his Laws whereby it should be ruled. For this new Prince the Pope, hath shut out the Canon of the Scripture, from being a rule to go­vern his Kingdom; and in stead thereof hath set down his Canon Law, Decrees, Decretals, &c. which decretal Epi­stles, Gratian, the gatherer of the Canon Law, would have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scriptures, Distinct. 19 in Canonicis. And to what end doth he use these laws? Not to further the salvation of Gods people, but to satisfie his own (if yet a horse-leech might be satis­fied) and his Courtiers insatiable covetousness, ambition, and lust. For this cause, he hath taken in his own hand the election of Bishops, from them to whom it belonged. For this cause, he hath not permitted the causes of the Church to be debated where they rose, as equity, reason, and peace would he should have done: But he hath removed them thence to be heard at Rome: what by reserving of causes to himself, what by appellations, what by [Page 407] exemptions: And for the same cause, he hath committed the feeding and guiding of the flock of Christ, to brute and beastly creatures, in giving the charge and commodities of the Church to whom he would, by presentations, preven­tions, reservations, translations, provisions, permutations, and commendations. How hath he wasted and seized upon the Church goods, with his pensions, and first fruits and appropriations, so that he hath been cryed out upon of ryot, pride, extortion and simony? Ammian. Marcel. lib. 27. Baptist. Mant. Fast. lib. 5. Bern. Epist. 42. Conc. Ba­sil. Sess. 21.

And as for excommunication, he hath used it not against the wicked, Bernard. ad Eugen. lib. 1. & 3. Mantuan. syl­var. lib. 2. of whom a sink hath flowed at all times in Rome; not against thieves, of whom Rome is made a den: not against murderers, for whom there is a sanctuary in the houses of Cardinals at Rome, Aeneas Sylvius hist. de Asia min. cap. 77. not against adulterers, not against whores, whereof the Pope received such tribut, as hath been spo­ken; but against Emperors, Estats, Nations, who would not serve him at a beck, against any man that denyed his Parish Priest a little tiends: against whole assemblies of the faithful, whom he by most villanous cruelty and trea­chery (as if they had been sheep appointed for the slaugh­ter) hath rid away by fire, by torment, by sword.

And to end this, what shal I speak of his tyrannical laws, whereby he hath oppressed the Church of God, as of single life, auricular confession, choise of meats, apparel & dayes, of new and strange canonizing of Saints, of pil­grimage to the holy Land, of the vows of Monks & Nuns, of the estates and rites of marriage, and of innumerable ceremonies, partly unfruitful, partly foolish, partly im­pious? And what shal I speak of his dispensations against the Old Testament, against the Epistles of Paul, against all [Page 408] right and equity? That a brother may marry his own brothers wife (King Henry the 8.) and an uncle his sisters daughter ( Philip King of Spain.) And Pope Martin the fifth, approved the marriage of one with his sister germain. That Church offices, and livings, may be given to boyes, to simonical merchants, and unlearned persons, Bernard. Epist. 42. & de consid. ad Eugen. lib. 1. & 3. That one may have plurality of Benefices, Dist. 70. cap. Sacerdotum, cap. de mult. de praeb. That he who hath the Benefice, needs not to attend the office, cap. relatum de cler. cap. licet, Ca­non. de elect. in Sexto. That promise may be broken with God and man. That subjects may be discharged of their oath to their Princes, Conc. Constant. Sess. 19. And last of all, what shal I speak of his Indulgences and Pardons, in granting so many hundred and thousand years pardon of their sins, to them that will devoutly say their idolatrous prayers? Some giving three hundred dayes pardon, as Pope Celestin: Some seven hundred years pardon, as Pope Boniface: Some ten thousand years pardon, as Bo­niface the 6. Some thirtytwo thousand, seven hundred & fiftyfive years pardon: And Sixtus the 4 hath doubled the time of this fore-said pardon: And some ten hundred thousand years pardon for deadly sins, as Pope John 22. Portuus book of Sarum, printed anno 1520. Here is par­don for all sins. so that there be money. And as the Reve­lation saith, The very souls of men are made merchandise of, Rev. 18.13. And one of their own friends saith,— venalia Ro­mae Templa, Sacerd [...]tes, Altaria sacra, coronae, Ignes, thura, preces, coelum est venale, Deúsque, Baptist. Mantuan. calam, temp. lib. 3. That is, Churches, Priests, Altars, crowns, fire, incense, prayers, heaven, and God, are to be sold in the Church of Rome. To conclud this then, he is the Antichrist whose Doctrine and Religion, Ministery and Discipline, is directly contrary to the Doctrine, Religion, Ministery and [Page 409] Discipline of Jesus Christ. Again, he is the undoubted An­tichrist, whose doctrine spoyls Jesus Christ of the truth of his humanity, of his Prophetical, Kingly, and Priestly Offi­ces, and sets himself and others up in the same offices: and whose doctrine spoils him of the glory which is due to him only, for our creation and redemption, and gives it to crea­tures: and last of all, he whose doctrine spoyls men of their salvation, must be that undoubted Antichrist. But the Do­ctrine and Religion of the Popes of Rome and his Clergy (as hath been proved sufficiently) are such. Therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist, which the Scripture fore-told was to come. And this for the second mark.

The third mark of the Antichrist, is, That he exalts him­self above all that is called God, and is worshipped; that is, above all powers and majesties, both heavenly and earth­ly. He saith not, Above God himself; but above all that is called God: that is, above all powers heavenly and earth­ly, as hath been said. He then is the undoubted Antichrist, whom the Scripture fore-told should come, who lifts up himself above all powers, as well heavenly, as earthly: (this you cannot deny, because the Scripture so affirms.) But the Pope of Rome have lifted up themselves above all powers, both heavenly and earthly: the which if it shal be proved, then of necessity it must follow, that the Popes of Rome are that undoubted Antichrist. Now for proof hereof, we shal set none other upon their assise, to file or cleanse them in this point, but their own Canon Law, their own Writers, their own Bishops and themselves. Antonius Archbishop of Florence, saith, Sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. That his power is greater then any created power: and that it extends its self to heavenly, earthly, and infernal things. Of whom (saith he) that is true which is spoken of Christ in the 8. Psalm 6. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, that are in heaven, in earth, or in hell, applying it to the Pope. What [Page 410] needs more? This is conviction enough. But yet we will proceed and see how far he hath lifted up himself above all these. As for them in the earth, there are two special powers, the temporal power, and the spiritual power. He claims superiority over both, as is manifest by their own doctrine. The Pope is over the world in stead of Christ, An­ton. in sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. I am Cesar, all the power in the heaven and in the earth is mine, Boniface 8. We affirm and define, that it stands all creatures upon the necessity of their salvation, to be subject to the Pope, Extra de majorit. unam sanct. The Pope should judge all, and be judged of none, unless he be found an heretick. And suppose he should draw after him in­numerable souls by heaps unto Hell, yet no mortal man should be so bold as to say to him, Lord, why dost thou this? Dist. 40. cap. Si. Papa, Gloss. extravagant. ad Apost. How far he hath lifted up himself above the temporal power, Kings, Princes and Emperors, let both their doctrine and practise bear wit­ness. The Pope is as the Sun to rule over the day; that is, the spirituality: and the Emperor as the Moon, to rule over the night; that is, the temporality. And as the earth is seven times greater then the Moon, and the Sun eight times greater then the earth; so is the Pope forty seven times greater then the Emperor. And as the Emperor or Roman Princes take of me their appro­bation, unction, and Imperial Crown; so they must not disdain to submit their heads to me, and to swear to me their oath of allea­geance and fidelity; Pope Clement 5. de jurejurando. The Pope may depose Kings from their Kingdoms, and absolve their sub­jects from their oath of alleageance, and interdict their King­doms, and set up others in their room, Sext. Decretal. de sentent. & re judicata, cap. ad Apost. item Glossa. Childerick King of France, was deposed, and Pepin set in his room. Pope Za­chary, causa 15. quaest. 6. cap. Alius. Henry the fourth, Hen­ry the fifth, Frederick the first, Otho the fourth, Frederick the second, & Conradus his son, all Emperors, were excōmunicat [Page 411] and deposed by the Popes. Justinianus, Otho the first, Fre­derick the first, Henry the fifth, Sigismundus, Carolus the fifth, all Emperors and Monarchs, admitted by the Popes of Rome to kiss their feet. And if this had been their pra­ctise only, and not their doctrine, this pride and arrogancy might have been imputed to the persons, and not to the seat. But his doctrine is so, Author ceremoniarum, lib. 1. & 3. The Pope of Rome doth reverence to no mortal man. All men of whatsoever dignity or preeminence they are of, so soon as they come in the presence of the Pope, ought to kneel thrise down, and to kiss his feet. The Emperor as soon as he sees the Pope, with his bare head, kneeling to the ground, he worships him, and kisses his feet. The Emperor holds the stirrop, while the Pope leaps on. So did Constantin the Great, saith their Canon Law, Dist. 96. cap. Constant. The Emperor at the banket holds the water to the Pope to wash his hands, and brings the first dish to the Popes table. And if the Pope be to be carried in a chair, he, or the King, if they be present, ought to carry the Pope in the chair on their shoulders. So this is clear both by their do­ctrine, and practise, how far they have lifted up themselves above the Kings and Monarchs of the world: so that Pope Gelasius saith, That Emperors are more inferior to Popes, then lead is to gold, Dist. 96. cap. 2.

Their superiority over the spiritual power of the Church of Christ, hath been shown in part before. But for the fur­ther proof of it, they say, That the Pope is above all General Councils, and that they take their force and confirmation only by him, Pope Marcel. dist. 17. cap. Synodum. And that he is supreme Judge in all controversies of Religion, whose judgement is also infalli­ble, Bellarm. de Primat. Pap. And where God hath ordained all causes among men to be judged by men, he hath only reserved the Pope to be judged by himself, and that he cannot be judged by any, neither of Kings, nor of the Emperor, nor of the whole Clergy, nor of the peo­ple, Symmachus Pope 99.3. Aliorum. Pope Innocentius 9. quaest. 3. cap. Nemo. And that he is Judge over all the Churches: and [Page 412] that without a Council, both to absolve and condemn: and none to judge of his judgement: and all to appeal to him, and none from him, whose judgement must stand, as given out of heaven by the mouth of Peter himself, which no man must break or retrait, no man must di­sput or doubt of, Anastas. quaest. 3. cap. Antiquis. Item 11. quaest. 3. cap. Quamvis, & cap. Quatuor, dist. 19. cap. Sic omnes. 9. quaest. 3 cap. Pater. Pope Innocentius 2. art. 17. quaest. 4. cap. Si quis, dist. 19. cap. In memoriam. Sext. decret. tit. 7. de renun­ciatione, cap. Quoniam. And that in omni re dubiâ, that is in all controversies of Religion, he must obediently of all the faithful be heard, whether he can err or not, Bellarm. de Pont. lib. 4. cap. 2. And that he may make lawes to bind the consciences of men, & cap. 15. and that he may creat new Religions, Anton. sum. 3. part. tit. 22. cap. 5.

His power over them that are in Purgatory and Hell. According to his absolut jurisdiction, he hath power to spoil all Pur­gatory, by the communication of his Indulgences and Pardons, except only them who have only the Baptism of the Spirit, and infants who are in Limbo Patrum, Ibidem: and these who have not friends to do for them. The Pope may absolve from an infinit pain; to wit, from the pain of Hell, as Gregory did, who by his prayer absolved the soul of Trajan from the infinit pains of Hell, Anton. tit. 22. cap. 5. The Pope hath as great power in Purgatory and Hell, as that he may deliver as many souls as are tormented there, by his Pardons, and with all speed place them in heaven, and seats of the blessed, as he pleaseth, Clem 6. in bulla & Anton. ibidem cap. 6.

His power over heaven and all the powers therein. All power in heaven and earth is given to me, saith Boniface the 8. The Pope hath so great power in heaven, that he may canonize any dead man, and place him among the Gods, and that against the judgement of his Bishops and all his Cardinals: Clemen. 6. Bulla. Troilus in tract. de canonizatione sanct. He commands the Angels to take souls out of Purgatory, and to carry them to heaven, Clem. 6. in Bulla. His power is greater then the power of all the Saints, Baldus. God hath subjected the Angels in heaven to the Pope, and he is greater then they, in four respects: and no less honor is due unto the Pope, then to the Angels: and then greater (saith he) for the Pope receives from [Page 413] the faithful adoration, and kissing of his feet, which the Angel would not permit to be done to him by John, Anton. ibidem. tit. 22. cap. 5. What needs more now for the proof of this mark? Doth not he lift up himself above all that is called God, who claimes power over heaven and earth and hell? This they cannot deny: But I assume, their own Clarks, Doctors, Popes, and Bulls testifie this, which they cannot choose but confess also: Therefore of necessity the Popes of Rome have exalted themselves above all that is called God, and therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist which was to come, and now is come.

And as they have exalted themselves above all heaven­ly powers, so have they matched themselves with Jesus Christ: for these things are only proper to Jesus Christ, To have all power given him: to have all things subject to him under heaven: to be greater then all the Angels: to receive that worship which the Angels refuse: to command the An­gels: to make laws: to bind the consciences of men: to creat and institut new Religions. And yet the Pope hath arroga­ted all these things to himself, as hath been proved: There­fore he is that undoubted Antichrist: For he that makes himself equal to the Son of God, lifts up himself above all that is called God: this cannot be denyed. But the Popes of Rome have done so, in challenging to themselves these things which are only proper to the Son of God: there­fore they must be the Antichrist. Further, these things are proper to Jesus Christ only, To be the head, the spouse, and foundation of his Church, to be that corner stone, that precious stone, and that proved stone, to be that rock of offence, to be the Sun that gives light to his Church, to be the Prince of Pastors, and to have all treasures of wisdom and understanding hid in him, and to have all power in heaven and earth given him, and to have the fulness of power, Epa. 5.23, Col. 2.8. Eph. 1.21.22.23, Isa. 28.16. and 8.14. Matth. 21.41. Malach. 3.20. [Page 414] Matth. 28.18. 2. Pet. 5.4. Col. 2.3. But all these things the Popes of Rome have arrogated to themselves, as is manifest by these places before quoted. Bellarmin in praefat. de sum. Pontif. lib. 1. ceremon. tit. 7. de majorita. cap. Unam sanctam de constitut. cap. licet. In sexto. de translat. cap. Quanto. in glossa. Yea, he hath not left so much unto Christ as his style, but it is ascrived to him: For Bernard writing to him, saith, Tu es unctione Christus, that is, Thou art Christ, &c. de consi­der. ad Eugenium: yea he hath claimed a greater power to himself, then ever we read that Jesus Christ the Prince of glory, and the Lord of life used, as to deliver damned souls out of hell, and make them Saints in heaven, & that as many as pleases him, Clement. 6. Papae Bulla. So not only hath he made himself equal in authority, in office, in styles with the Prince of glory, the Lord Jesus: but also he hath lifted up himself above him: And that there may be nothing wan­ting to make it manifest, that he is this Antichrist, as though it had been too little to him to have lifted up him­self above all powers in heaven, in earth & in hell: and to have matched himself with the eternal Son of God, both in works, styles, and offices, and to arrogat a greater power then ever he did exercise. He hath matched himself with the majesty of the Godhead, claiming to himself these things which are only proper to the Godhead, De translat. cap. Quanto. As the Popes will is for reason: He hath an heaven­ly arbitriment, he changes the nature of things: Of nothing he makes something: He may depose and set up in Kingdoms whom he will: He hath an absolut jurisdiction that no man may say to him, wherefore dost thou this? He may, liberare ex toto sicut ipse Deus; that is, absolve a man from the whole, as God may do: Yea, that he may do all that God may do, except sin: the key not erring, Panormitan. de elect. cap. licet ab. All which things are only proper to the majesty of God. And as he hath matched himself with the majesty of God himself in his [Page 415] judgement, will, and power; so doth he claim to him the self-same worship and adoration which is only proper to God: This worship is only proper to God, To fall down before his feet, and to adore him, and therefore Satan craved it of Christ, and he refused to give him it: And John would have given it to the Angel, but the Angel refused it. Wherefore did Christ refuse to give it, and the Angel refuse to receive it, Rev. 22.8.9. Matth. 4.9.10. but be­cause it was written, The Lord thy God thou shalt worship, and him only shalt thou serve? But that worship which the Devil craved to be given to him, and which the Angel re­fused as proper only to God, that doth the Pope claim to him and receive from others, as his own Archbishops and Canon Law, and men of his own Religion do testifie. Antonius saith, 3. part. sum. tit. 22. cap. 5. printed Lugduni 1516. He receives adorations, prostrations; that is, worship and falling down before his feet, which (saith he) the Angel refu­sed to receive of John. Steuchus saith, de donat. Constant. p. 141. Constantin the Emperor worshipped the Pope as God, and gave unto him divine honors, and worshipped him as the lively image of Christ. And Blondus saith, Lib. 3. inst. Romae, that all the Princes of the world worship the Pope, ut summum Deum, as the most high God. And Joannes Faber saith, Praefat. in insti­tut. the Pope calls himself by words, the servant of servants, but yet he permits himself to be worshipped, which the Angel in the Revelation refused. And Frier Mantua saith, Cujus vestigia adorat Caesar; & aurato vestiti murice Reges. Whose feet (mea­ning the Popes) or footsteps, Caesar and the Kings of the earth adore or worship. And yet lest any should doubt whither he be the Antichrist or not, he is not only made equal with the majesty of God, in power, arbitriment, and adoration, but also the very Godhead it self, and the very style of the majesty of God is ascribed to him. Aventinus saith, Lib. 7. the Popes of Rome earnestly desire domination & Divinitatem, [Page 416] divinity or Godhead. And de electione, it is said, That he is ta­ken up in the fellowship of the invisible Trinity, Cap. Funda­mento in Sexto. And Baldus saith: The Pope is a God in the earth: And the common voice of the Canonists is, Dominus Deus noster Papa; that is, the Lord our God the Pope, Cano­nist. extra. Joan. 22. cap. Cum inter in glossa. And he is cal­led by his Doctors Optimus, Maximus, most good in grace, most great in power. Stapleton in praefat. in princ. fid. doct. And Aventinus saith, that it is written in his fore-head, Deus sum, I am God. And Gomesius saith, Vict. in tom. 4. Hie­ron. praefat. the Pope, est quoddam numen, a certain Godhead, showing himself to be a visible God in the earth. And in the Council of Lateran, one saith to the Pope, Tu es alter Deus in terris: Thou art another God upon the earth. And the Triden­tin chapter calls him, Terrenum Deum: an earthly God. And his Canon Law saith, It is manifest that the Pope was called God by Constantin. dist. 96. cap. Satis evidenter.

What needs more? He must be blinded by God that sees not the Popes to have lifted up themselves above all that is called God, and is worshipped. But yet I say further. He hath lifted up himself above the majesty of God: First, in making that to be Gods word, that is not Gods word, in decreeing the Apocrypha to be Canonical Scripture. And his Canon Law reckons in the decretal Epistles a­mong the Canonical Scriptures of God, distinct. 19. in Ca­nonicis. Now what is this but to prefer his authority to the authority of God? He denies forgiveness to them that break his law, but he sells the break of Gods law for mo­ney. It is certain that there is no redemption out of Hell: 2. Tim. 2.13. and yet the Popes of Rome claim that au­thority, to deliver souls out of Hell, and to make them Saints in heaven. It is impossible to God, ex injustitia facere justitiam, to make wrong to be right, because the Scripture saith, He cannot deny himself, and he cannot lie, Heb. 6.18. But the [Page 417] Popes Canonists say, That he may ex injustitia facere justi­tiam: Of wrong make right, De translat. cap Quanto in Glossa de concess. Praebend. cap. Proposuit. 16. quaest. Quicunque in Glossa 15. quaest. 6 authorit. in Glossa, dist. 32. Lecto. His Canonists also say, That the Pope may dispense supra jus de jure, above right. And that he may dispense against the law of nature, against the law of God, against the Old Testament, against the Apo­stles, and that he may dispense against all the precepts of the Old and New Testament, Ut citatur à Juello, pag. 59. defens. Apolog. They say, He may dispense against the degrees forbidden in the Law of God. And that he may, according to his absolut power, Dissolve the bond of marriage, upon the consent of both the parties, without any lawful cause. And that he may dispense with oaths and promises made either to God or men, Fox pag. 785. And some say, That he may dispense that one may have me wives then one at once, in some cases. Now what is this else, but to exalt himself above the Lord? And in a Sermon in the Council of Lateran, it is there spoken of him by one of his own Bishops, That all power in heaven and earth, is given to the Pope; Concil. Later. sub Leone, sess. 10. And that which is more, That in him is omnis potestas supra omnes potestates coeli & terrae: All power above all powers, both of heaven and earth. And Aven­tinus saith, That they desire to be feared more then God. To conclud this then, He that hath exalted himself above all powers in heaven, earth and hell: he that hath equal­led himself with the Son of God, the Prince of glory, and with the majesty of God, in styles, authority, office and power: And he who hath lifted up himself above the Lord Jesus, and above the majesty of God, he must be that undoubted Antichrist, which the Apostle Paul hath de­scribed: But the Popes of Rome have done so both by their practise, and by their doctrine, as hath been proved by their own testimonies: Therefore they are that undoub­ted Antichrist who was to come. This for the third mark.

The fourth mark of the Antichrist, set down by the [Page 418] Apostle, is, That he fits in the Temple of God, as God. That is, in an eminent & high place in the Church of God. So Jerome to Gelasius, and Chrysostom upon that place, and Theodoret, & Thomas of Aquin a Papist, expones this place, and Au­gust. de civit. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 19 expones this Temple to be the Church of God, wherein the Antichrist shal sit. For lest men should think that the Antichrist should be an open enemy to God, the Apostle saith, He shal sit in the Tem­ple of God; that is, in the Church of God: as it is taken, 1. Cor. 6.19. where the Saints in Corinth are called the Tem­ple of God. So the Antichrist is fore-told to be an hous­hold enemy, and not a forrain so: and he shal withstand Christ not openly, but covertly. And though he be a deadly enemy to Christ, yet shal he pretend that he is in the Temple of God; that is, a member of the Church: and that he hath a throne; that is, a high dominion within Gods Church. And therefore in the Revelation, he is cal­led, A beast which hath two horns like the Lamb, Rev. 13.11. that is, who in outward show is like the Lamb, pretending his power and authority. And as Primasius saith, exponing that same place, Those whom he seduceth, he seduceth them by hy­pocrifie of a dissimulat truth: for he saith, he were not like the Lamb, if he spake openly as the Dragon. And Augustin saith, Tract. 3 in Epist. Joannis; Let us not take heed to the tongue, but to the deeds: let the tongue rest, and ask the life. Whereby it appears, that they also are Antichrists, who deny Jesus Christ in their life. And therefore (alluding to Judas) he is called the son of perdition, who not by open warfare should oppugn Christ, but by a kiss, as it were, should betray him. And therefore he is described also under the form of a woman, an harlot, Revel. 17.2. Thess. 2 whereby is signified, that he shal not be an open enemy in profession, but secret and dissimulat. And therefore the cup wherein she reacheth out her abomination, is described to be of gold; that is [Page 419] having a show of godliness. And his unrighteousness; that is, his doctrine, is called deceiveable, because of the show of truth that it hath. And his iniquity is called a mystery; that is, not a plain and open impiety, but secret: so colo­red with shows of truth and godliness, that every one can­not perceive it. And yet for all this hypocrisie of his, for all this dissimulation, and show of godliness. He shal speak like the Dragon; Rev. 13.19. that is, his doctrine shal be the do­ctrine of Devils. His drink shal be abomination and fornica­tion; that is, abominable idolatry. Now to whom can this agree? And in whom hath this been fulfilled, except only in the Popes and Bishops of Rome? For doth he not call himself, The Vicar of Christ: the head of the Church: and those that obey him only the true Church, and true Catholicks? Who hath horns like the Lamb and yet speaks like the Dragon, but he? That is, who styles themselves the servant of servants: the Vicar of Christ: the head of the Church, &c. but they? And yet for all this, who have ever lived, taught, or spoken so blasphemously as they? Oraclo vocis mundi moderaris habenas: Et meritò in terris crederis esse Deus. That is; By the oracle of thy voyce, thou rules the world, and worthily is thou believed in the earth to be God. This inscription was written in Rome to Pope Sixtus the fourth. In show of holiness, most vaunting; and yet for all this, of all the creatures under heaven, the most monstrous. Of all idolaters, under the show and pretence of Religion, the vilest and most abominable: and of all creatures in the earth, they have lifted up themselves far­thest above God, and that under the pretence of humility. And therefore the Scripture saith, that the Antichrist shal sit in the Temple of God; not as a Minister teaching and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, in season, and out of season: but as God; that is, claiming to himself these things that are proper and peculiar to God. The which the Popes of Rome have done, as hath been proved before. [Page 420] So to conclud this: He must be the undoubted Antichrist, who suppose he hath lifted up himself above all that is cal­led God, yet he sits in the Temple of God, as God: who hath two horns like the Lamb, and yet speaks like the Dra­gon: whose abominations are drunken out of a golden cup, whose doctrine is deceiveable: and a mystery: that is, who under the pretence of Christ, overthrows Christ: But so it is, the Popes of Rome are such (as hath been pro­ved:) Therefore the Popes of Rome are the undoubted Antichrist. This for the fourth mark.

The fifth mark of the Antichrist, as he is described by the Apostle, is in these words: Ye know (saith the Apo­stle) what withholdeth: namely, that he might be revealed in his own time. This Tertullian de resurrect. cap. 24. Je­rome ad Gelasium, and Chrysostom upon this same place, and so also Ambrose upon this place, and August. de civit. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 29. expone it of the Roman Empire: the which, as long as it flowrished, and was in full strength, the Anti­christ could not climb up to this his full hight and preemi­nence. So that it behoved that Empire first to be transla­ted, and piece and piece diminished, before the Antichrist could come up to his hight; for that stayed him. Now it is manifest out of the 17. chap. of the Revelation, that Rome should be the seat of the Antichrist: and Bellarmin and the Rhemists do not deny it: and Rome was the seat of the Ro­man Empire before. So then it behoved the Empire to translate his seat from Rome, that Rome which was first the seat of the Empire, might be the seat of the Antichrist. Now the issue and event, is a sure and clear interpretation of this Prophesie: For Constantin the Emperor of Rome, translated his seat from Rome to Byzantium, called Constan­tinople in Greece. And piece and piece that Empire of the Greek Emperor began to decay, and was translated from the Greeks to the French-men, by the Popes: and then from [Page 421] them to the Germans, by the Popes also. So that both Rome, and a great part of Italy, and at the last a great part of the Empire is fallen in the Popes hand. So that now he vaunts himself to be Monarch of the whole world; and all Kings and Princes gave him their oath of alleageance: and the Emperors and Kings held their Empires and King­doms of him, and are but his vassals (as their Canon Law saith.) So that by the taking away of the Roman Empire, the Popes did then climb up to their supremacy, and make themselves manifest, that they were the Antichrist. And so this doth also agree to the Pope of Rome, and to none other. He is the Antichrist, whose climbing up was let­ted by the Roman Empire, and who is built up upon the ruines of the same. But the Papacy is such: Therefore the Papacy is that Antichristian Kingdom.

It is said, sixthly, that this mystery began to work in the dayes of the Apostles: that is, the foundations of that apo­stasie was begun to be laid in these dayes, and that he shal continue to the Lords coming: for he shal not be abolished but by the brightness of his coming, suppose he shal be first con­sumed with the sword of his mouth: that is, discovered, and sore beaten by the Lords Word. All which agrees unto Papistrie. For that Kingdom is that Apostasie and Anti­christian Monarchy, whose foundation was beginning to be laid in the Apostles dayes, which should be first consu­med by the Word of God, and utterly abolished by the brightness of his coming. But the Papacy is such: there­fore it is that Antichristian Kingdom, Matth. 18.1.2.3.4. and 20.25.26.27. Mark 10.41. Luke 22.25. 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Pet. 3.2.3. For the foundations of it was soon laid, both of that Hierarchie and supremacy of the Pope, and also of his damnable and erroneous doctrine. For that superiority of the Ministery one over another, of Bishops over Pa­stors, forbidden by Jesus Christ, soon crept in, which was [Page 422] the foundation, or rather staires, by the which the Pope clamb up to his Popedom and supremacy: & the old con­demned heresies which sprang up in the primitive Church, many of them were the foundation of these damnable doctrines, which the Popes brought in afterward, as is proved in the end of the first part.

And as to his consuming by the Lord his mouth, the Lord hath accomplished that already in some measure, and shal assuredly fulfil it dayly more and more: For since the time of the burning of John Hus, and Jerome of Prague, about the year of God 1415. and since the time the Lord stirred up Martin Luther, and sundry others his faithful servants, to preach the Gospel of Christ, which was as it were buried in the darkness of Papistry, the supremacy of the Pope hath taken such a dayly consumption, that many of the Kingdoms of Europe now have forsaken her, and the Lord hath put in their hearts to hate her: But yet we know the dreggs of it shal not be abolished utterly, while the bright coming of the Son of God.

It followes seventhly, the manner how his Kingdom and tyranny shal be promoved, upholden, and established: To wit, By the effectual working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceiveableness of unrigh­teousness among them that perish: Which the Apostle calles strong delusions. And with this, that of the Rev. 13.13.14. (in the description of the second beast, whereby it is mea­ned the Antichristian Kingdom) doth agree, that he did great wonders, and deceived them that dwelt upon the earth, by the signs which was permitted him to do. Now certainly no­thing can be spoken more aptly of the Popes Kingdom then this: For unless the Pope had had an effectual po­wer, strong and devilish also, by signs and lying wonders: and unless his unrighteousness; that is, his false doctrine, had been exceeding deceiveable; that is, covered with a fair [Page 423] color of godliness: and unless his delusions had been strong, his Kingdom had never been so far enlarged, and so firmly established, as we see it hath been: and his dam­nable doctrine and errors would never have de [...]eived so many Nations as they have done. For what is more com­mon and usual in their mouthes then miracles? What is it they vaunt so much of, as of their miracles? So that they make it an infallible mark of the Church. And how, I pray you, have a great part of their errors and superstitions, as the praying to Saints, and worshipping of Images, and pilgrimages, and other of their superstitions and idolatries, as Purgatory, the real presence, their monstrous Transub­stantiation, &c. how, I say, have they been so confirmed and so rooted in the hearts of ignorant people, but by their lying wonders and miracles, which they fain was done? Whereof their golden Legends are full, and sundry yet live, who have been eye-witnesses of the falshood of their miracles. I will only set down for example, some of the false miracles of two Nuns here: the one of Magdalena de la Cruz, Abbess of the Monastery of the Franciscan Nuns, who was condemned by the Inquisitors of Cordoua for her enormous offences, and covenant which she made with the Devil, as they say in their sentence against her. She by the aid of the Devil, with whom she made a cove­nant when she was nine years old, became a singular hypo­crit, and by his help wrought many miracles, as that she appeared unto Mariners in a storm being invocated, and so the storm calmed: that she burnt in flames like Sera­phims, and was ravished in the spirit, and heard wonders which mortal man could not utter: (In this she was made another S. Paul) that she was lifted up in the air, and the Sacrament went visibly out of the hand of the Priest that said Mass, through the air, & entred into her mouth: And when the Sacramēt went by, she being in a garden, the wall [Page 424] of the garden opened its self, and then she worshipped it: Such was the opinion of her holiness, that many Ladies of Spain, and the Empress, seeing themselves at point of child birth, sent their mantles wherein the creature should be wrapped, that she should bless them. She gave to her be­loved friends drops of her monstrous blood, & made them believe it was the blood of Christ: she was condemned as a Witch by the Inquisitors of Spain, about the year of God 1540. The other of a Dominican Nun, Prioress de la Anunciada of Lisbon in Portugal, about the 1586. year of God, that she had deserved to have Christ visible for her husband, that he appeared to her often times, and talked with her, as one friend would talk with another: that she had the impression of Christs five wounds upon her. And as the history recordeth, other infinit miracles did she. So that many became Nuns through the opinion which was conceived of her holiness and miracles. This story is writ­ten in French by one Steven de Lusignan, a Dominican Frier, and dedicated to the Queen of France, with this title, The great miracles and most holy wonders which this present year 1586. hath happened to the right reverend Mother Prio­ress of the Monastery, &c. in Lisbon, approved by Frier Lewes of Granada, and by other persons worthy of credit in Paris, printed by John Bessant 1586. He alledgeth three letters sent from persons of great credit for his warrant. But she was discovered, and confessed her hypocrisie: and that she painted the wounds on her hands, & drew blood on her side, & fained all the rest, that she might be esteemed holy, and therefore was condemned by the Archbishops of Lisbon and Brage, the Bishop of Guardia, the Inquisitors, and sundry others in the end of the 1588. year, as it is to be seen in a book printed at Sevil in Spain 1589. Let these examples suffice to prove this mark, that by lying won­ders they have established their damnable doctrine. So [Page 425] that certainly there is not one thing that doth more confirm this, that their Popes is the Antichrist, and their Kingdom Antichristian, then the effectual working of Satan by ly­ing wonders, whereby their devilish doctrine hath been promoved and established. And what seek we further? Is it not manifest by their own Histories, that their own Popes to the number of 20. or mo, have wrought by the effe­ctual working of Satan? So then to conclud this point: If the Apostle Paul be a true Prophet, which I trust no man will call in question, and if he be the true Antichrist, to whom all these marks do agree: that is, who is the man of sin, and son of perdition, who hath lifted up himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, &c. which cannot be denyed: then of necessity it must follow that the Popes of Rome are the self-same Antichrist which was fore-told to come, because they bear all these marks of that Antichrist whom the Apostle describes, and no other.

And if we will come to the Revelation, where the An­tichrist is most clearly fore-told: What is there in that Re­velation spoken of the Antichrist, which is not fulfilled in the Popes of Rome? In the 13 of the Revelation, mention is made of two beasts; by the first is signified the Roman Empire, by the which the Saints of God were persecuted the first 300. years: by the other is signified the Kingdom of the Antichrist, which rose up immediatly after the dimi­nishing and destruction of the Roman Empire: the which John calls another beast, distinguishing it from the former: which he describes first from his outward form and shape, that he hath two horns like the Lamb, but speaks like the Dra­gon, which hath been accomplished in the Popes of Rome. as I have shewed before. The second from his works that he doth. First, that he did all that the first beast could do before him. Secondly, that he shal cause all to worship the [Page 426] first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Thirdly, that he should deceive them which dwel upon the earth, by the wonders and signes which was permitted to him to do. Fourthly, that he should restore the image of the first beast. Fifthly, that he should suffer none to buy or sell, but such as received his mark on their fore-head and hands. And the last thing from the which that Antichristian Kingdō (which is represented by the second beast) is described, is the number of his name. All the which are so clearly accompli­shed in that Papistical Kingdom, these many hundred years, that he must be blinded of God, that sees not that the Popes are the Antichrist, and their Kingdom Antichristian.

As to the first: Who have exercised all the power of the former Emperors of Rome, but they? Have not they claimed to themselves the Monarchy of the whole world? The authority of both the swords? Have not Emperors and Kings sworn their oath of alleageance and fidelity unto them, taking their unction, consecration, and Crowns of them, and payed tribut unto them? Have they not kissed their feet, holden the stirrops, led their bridles, set them on their horse? Have not the Popes of Rome excommu­nicated Emperors and Kings, deposed them from their Kingdoms, stirred up their subjects against them, set up others in their places? And finally, what outward power or tyranny did ever the Roman Emperors exercise over Kingdoms and Nations; yea, what cruelty, tyranny, ava­rice, blasphemy against God and his Saints, did they ever exercise, which the Popes of Rome have not done; yea, and have overcome them in all these things? The which are so clear and manifest, and that by their owne practises, that they cannot be denyed. Doth he not affirm in the Ca­non Law, Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus, c. Venerabilem de ele­ctio: That Constantin gave the Pope all the Kingdoms in the earth: And that all Kings reign by the Pope: And that he [Page 427] transferrs the Empire from Nation to Nation, and gives them to whom he will: And that all Kings are but the Popes vassals? Steuchus de donat Constant. And therefore saith Blondus, lib. 3. instau. Romae: Now the Princes of the world adore & worship the Pope, as perpetual Dictator; not Cesars successor, but Peters suc­cessor, and the foresaid Emperors Vicar. Yea, saith he, All Eu­rope sends greater, or at the least as great tribut to Rome, as they did in the former times (to wit, to the Roman Empire.) And Bernard saith, serm. de convers. They are the first in the persecu­tion (speaking to the Church) which appear to love the primacy in the Church, & to be Princes thereof. As to the second, who is he that hath caused all to worship the first Beast; that is, hath brought again that tyrānous cruelty & dominion over the poor Church of God, in setting up idolatry, and aboli­shing the true worship of God, which the Heathen Empe­rors did, but the Popes of Rome? For was not the Empe­ror of the East excommunicat, because he would not suffer Images in the Temples? Have not they filled the world with their Idolatry, as hath been proved? Who have made war with the Saints & oppressed them in all the parts where their dominion might reach, but they? France, Ger­many, England, Scotland, the Low Countreys, and all Europe, bear witness unto this. As to the third, who by lying wonders have deceived the world, but they? And as to the fourth, who hath healed the deadly wound of the first Beast, in setting up an Empire here in the West in the per­son of Charles the Great, which was more then three hun­dred years so deadly wounded through the incursion of other Nations, that there was no Empire in the West. Who (I say) did all this, but the Popes of Rome? Giving unto them the style or bare name, but taking by little and little the substance of the whole Empire to themselves: so that Theodorick à Niem saith, lib. 3. cap. 43. The Roman Empire is so little now in Almany, that there is some Bishops or [Page 428] Archbishops, that will spend twise as much as they will do of all the lands that is under their subjection. And some Princes have more land then the Emperor hath. And if ye will look to Rome (saith he) and Italy, it was once the seat of the Empire, but now the Emperor hath nothing of it but the style. As to the fifth: Who is he who hath caused make the Image of the Beast, and given a spirit unto it that it should speak: That is, who have set up a very Image of the Roman Monarchy and Hierarchy, in the whole frame of their government in the Church of God, but the Popes of Rome? So that the whole frame of their government and Hierarchy, is a lively pattern and image of the Roman Empire. For as in the Roman Empire, there was an Emperor whom all did worship as God: unto whom there was joyned a Senat, who was next in authority to him: so is the frame of the government of the Papistical Kingdom. There is a Monarch the Pope, whom all are compelled, when they come in his sight, to worship as an earthly God, to whose sentence all must stand to, who judgeth all, but can be jud­ged of none; who hath joyned with him a Senat of Cardi­nals, who are next him in authority. Secondly, as in the Roman Monarchy, the Emperor took upon him not only the highest Kingly authority in all matters civil, but also the Priestly authority, and power over Religion: and not that only, but also to be Tribuns over the people, who had the power of forbidding and annulling of all decrees made by other Magistrats: Even so the Popes of Rome have usurped all these three First, the highest Royal au­thority over all Kings and Princes: next, to be Lords over Religion: so that as Antoninus one of his Archbishops saith, Summa part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. He may creat new Religions: thirdly, to be Tribuns; that is, to disanul whatsoever decree or judgement of any Bishop or inferior Judges; yea of Synodal and General Councils, if they be not ratified by [Page 429] him. Thirdly, as in Rome was the head of the Empire, the Emperor and his Senat with him; and as the Emperors had their Magistrats under them, in all their Provinces, and places of their dominions, from whom all their authority was, and who was at their beck and commandment: So in the Popes Kingdom, the Pope who is the head, and the Senat of Cardinals, which is next him in authority, have their seat in Rome: and they according to the old pattern of the Roman Empire, have their Bishops, Archbishops, Ab­bots, Priors, Monks, Friers, &c. in all the places of their do­minion under them: who have their whole authority from him, and who all are his sworn men. So here is then the lively image of the former beast.

And as to the sixth, Who did kill all them that would not worship the image, and this frame of government of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Archbishops, &c. and their Religion, but the Popes of Rome? The blood of infinit thousands do testifie this. And what hath brought all under their bon­dage, both one and other, that none might buy or sell: that is, neither brook Civil nor Ecclesiastical offices, but those who were marked with his mark; that is, took on them his profession, and was Catholicks (as he termes them?) Is not this sufficiently known, that none might have offices nor benefices in the Church, but they that received his mark, & orders from him? And none might brook their. Kingdoms and civil dignities, in so far as lay in his power, but these that were of his profession. Rex venit ante fores, surans prius urbis honores: Post homo fit Papae, recipit quo dan­te coronam, Clement. lib. 2. tit. 9. And Erasmus saith in his Adagles, That neither Baptism, nor marriage, nor sacrifice, nor psalms, nor prayer, nor Sacrament, nor grave in the Papisti­cal Kingdom are given without money.

Now last of all, to what Kingdom or Church under hea­ven, since this Revelation was written, doth the number of [Page 430] the name of the Beast, here set down, agree, but to the Latin Kingdom of the Popes, and their Latin Church? for here is set down the name of the King­dom of Antichrist. The number of the name of the Beast here set down, is 666. and the

letters of the name of this Antichristian Kingdom, [...], amounts to the same number of 666. For what is the name of the Popish Kingdom and Hierarchie? Is not the Church called, the Latin Church? Is not all the exercises of their Religion, al­most in Latin? And suppose the Old Te­stament be written in Hebrew, and the New in Greek; yet, have they not condemned the Originals as corrupted? And have they not authorized the Latin interpretation, as only authentical? So that Papacie, is the very Kingdom of Latins. Now the letters of this Greek word [...], which signifies Latin (for the Re­velation was written in Greek) doth amount to the same number 666. And what other Kingdom or Monarchy un­der heaven can show whose name is such, that the letters thereof amounteth to this number? Ireneus an ancient Writer, yea so ancient, that he saw and heard Polycarpus, who was one of Johns Disciples, who received this Reve­lation, mentioneth, that the name of this Beast in this pro­phesie, is [...], Iren. lib. 5. cap. 25. Sed & Latinis no­men 666. numerum habet, & valde ve­risimile est, quia verissimum regnum hoc

habet vocabulum, Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant. And as the letters of this Greek word [...], amounteth to this number 666. so doth the letters of these, Latin words Ecclesia Ita­lica, written in Greek letters, and of [Page 431] the Hebrew word ROMIITH, that sig­nifieth

Romam. Is not this much now, that this number of 666 agrees to the name of the Papistical Kingdom, both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. In Greek [...], that is, Latin: in Hebrew, ROMIITH; that is, Rome: in Latin, Ecclesia Italica; that is, the Italian Church. For Italie is called Latium; that is, Latin. What more would any man require? Will not this suffice to make it manifest, that the Popes are the Antichrist, to whom every thing prophe­sied of the Antichrist by the Apostle Paul, and this Reve­lation, of the second Beast, do so fitly agree? So that there can be none under heaven unto whom they can be ap­plyed, but only to the Popes of Rome. But yet for the full manifestation of this point, we will go to the 17. of the Re­velation. For as his Kingdom was figured under a Beast that had two horns like the Lamb, in the 13. chapter; so there is the principal throne and seat of his Kingdom, figu­red under a great harlot, with whom the Kings and Nations of the earth have committed fornication. The which harlot is most gloriously decked and richly apparelled: Who hath a cup of gold in her hand, full of abomination: in whose fore-head a name is written: A Mystery, that Babylon, that mother of whoredoms, who is drunken with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus; which is that great city, which reigneth over the Kings of the earth, which sitteth upon seven mountains. For the maintenance of whose Kingdom, ten Kings yeelded up their power and authority, to fight against the Lamb, and to overcome him. That this great City is the City of Rome, it is so plain, that he is more then blind that sees it not. For what City did reign over the Nations when this Revelation, was received, but Rome? And what City since the Pope clamb up to his Kingdom hath done the same, but Rome? And what City sitteth upon seven hills, but [Page 432] Rome, whose names are yet known? As testifieth Capito­linus, Palatinus, Aventinus, Caelius, Exquilinus. Quirinalis, Viminalis. And what City hath been the mother of all spiritual and bodily fornication; of all idolatry and abomi­nation, but Rome? Yea, what City hath been so enriched with gold, purple and precious stones, but Rome? And what City hath been drunken with the blood of the Mar­tyrs and Saints, but Rome? All these things are so manifest, that not only some of the Fathers, as Jerome in praefat, ad Didymum, & in Epist. ad Algasium, and Tertullian contra Marci. lib. 13. advers. Judaeos, cap. 9. saw it: But some of themselves confess it, that this Babylon is Rome. Both Bel­larmin grants it plainly, and also the Rhemists do not deny it. For that great Jesuit Bellarmin saith, lib. 1. cap. 2. That John in the Revelation every where calls Rome Babylon: and confirms this; first, by the testimony of Tertullian, and then by the circumstances of the text: For (saith he) there was no other City at that time that did reign over the Nations, but Rome. And it is most notorious (saith he) that Rome sits on seven hills, Lib. 4. cap. 4. What now would ye have more? And in another place; It appears (saith he) that in the time of the Antichrist, Rome shal be made desolat, and shal be burnt, as it is gathered out of the 17. of the Revelation, and this shal not be until the end of the world. These are plain spee­ches. And I say, this great City of Rome, which is called here mystical Babylon, is not described here as she was the seat of the Heathen Emperors, when they reigned in her, as the Roman Church saith; but as she is, and hath been the seat of the Antichrist. For in the time of the Emperors, she made not the Kings of the earth commit fornication with her: that is, she did not pollute them with her idola­try and Religion, as it is fore-told of this Rome: for she left every Kingdom free to use their own Idolatry and su­perstition: But Rome since she began to be the throne [Page 433] and seat of the Antichrist the Popes of Rome have propa­gated her idolatry and worship to all Nations, and have made all Nations drunken with the wine of her fornica­tion: and have obtruded her Religion to all Nations, against their will, with fire and sword. And from thence have proceeded all the wars and blood-sheds, in many Na­tions of Europe, because they did go out of her, and depar­ted from their idolatry.

Further, all the parts of her description here agrees to Rome, having the show of Christianity, and not as she was Heathen under the Heathen Emperors, as that purple and scarlet wherewith she was clad, that gilding with gold and precious stones, and pearls: which the Archbishop of Ratisbon, Albertus Magnus, and the Gloss interprets of the simulation of piety and meekness, & the spiritual graces of God, as faith, hope charity: all which (say they) she shal in hypocrisie pretend: but yet in truth have nothing such, but cruelty and ungodliness, the which can no wayes agree with Rome, as she was in her Gentilism: therefore of necessity Papistical Rome is here described, and not Hea­then Rome. Thirdly, that Rome is here described, which was upholden by the Beast, unto whom the ten Kings yeelded up their power to fight against the Lamb, as is ma­nifest by the 12. and 13 verses of that 17 chapter. But this Beast is not the Empire of Rome, but the Antichristian Kingdom: for these ten Kings had not received their Kingdoms all that time that the Roman Emperors were Heathen, and long after: Therefore Rome as it is the seat of the Antichrist, and not as it was the seat of the Roman Empire, is here descrybed. And the Rhemists say, in their annotations upon this place, that some expons these ten Kings, of ten Kingdoms, into which the Roman Empire shal be divided, which shal all serve Antichrist: therefore Rome as it is here described, m [...]st be the seat of the Anti­christ.

Last of all, the Revelation speaks here of that Rome that shal be burnt with fire, and be made desolat by the ten Kingdoms, which God should stir up to hate her: and he speaks here of that Rome which shal be casten in the midst of the sea: after the which shal follow the day of Judge­ment: But this cannot be Rome, as it was the seat of the Roman Empire, but as it is the seat of the Antichristian Kingdom: for it is more then a thousand years, since Rome left off her Gentilism, and yet this prophesie is not accom­plished in her. Unto these I joyn the testimonies of some of their own Monks Bishops, Poets, Friers Historiogra­phers, Emperors, and Popes also; whereby it will be veri­fied, that this harlot is Rome, and the Popes thereof the Antichrist. Bernard a Monk of Cluniak, who lived about 400 years ago, writing unto Peter the Abbot of that Mo­nastery, speaking of the tyrannous behavior of the Clergy and Bishop of Rome, he accuses them of sacrilegious bry­bery, of buying and selling of the Bishops Pall, the Ring, and of all Laws and equitie. And he saith in another place,

And John a Monk, saith,

The same Monk also saith,

The Archbishop of Golen and Traverse, say to Pope Nicolas the first: Thou pretends the person of the Pope, but thou plays the tyrant. We feel a Wolf under the weed of a Pastor: The style belies the parent. Thou by thy deeds makes show, as if thou wert God. While as thou art the servant of servants, thou contends to be Lord of Lords. According to the discipline of our Savior, thou art the least of all the Ministers of the Temple of God. Thou through the desire of ruling-goeth to perdition. Whatsoever thing pleaseth thee, is lawful is thee. And Gregory a Pope saith; I affirm this boldly upon good assurance, that whosoever he be that calleth himself, or is desirous to be called Universal Priest, in that hautiness of his, is a fore-runner of Antichrist; in that by swelling pride he preferreth himself before others. Arnulphus Arelatensis unto the Council of Rhemes, testifigs this of the Pope; Whom (saith he) Reve­rend Fathers, think ye this man to be, who fitting in an high throne, [Page 436] shines in his purple and golden attyre? to wit, if he want love, and be puffed up by knowledge, he is the Antichrist, fitting in the Temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. Bernard 400. years ago, writing to Eugenius lib. 2 Pope of Rome, in con­clusion he breaketh forth in these words: Thou hust more need (saith he) to have a rake in thy hand, then a scepter to perform the office of a Prophet. And in another place, in his fourth Book to Eugenius, after he hath described and de­tested the pride of the Bishops of Rome; at last he conclu­deth the matter in these words, saying to the Pope, Herein (saith he) thou shows thy self to have succeeded, not to Peter, but to Constantin, Peter is he who never knew what belonged to such solemn showing himself abroad, in braveries of precious stones, or silks, or gold, or ryding upon a white palfray, or being gar­ded with a troup of tall fellows, or environed with a company of ruffling serving men. Also in another place, in his Epistle 230. speaking of the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, he maketh an exclamation in this sort; At the first indeed (saith he) ye began to play the Lords but over the Clergy, contrary to the counsel of Peter, 1. Pet. 5.3. And within a while, contrary to the advise of Paul (Peters fellow Apostle) you will have dominion over the faith of all men, 2. Cor. 1.24. But ye stay not there: ye have taken upon you more; namely to have a peremptory power in Religion it self. Now what remaineth whereon ye might further incroach, except ye will go about to bring the very Angels under your subjection. And in another place upon the Cant. serm. 33. speaking of the behavior of the Romish Prelats: Hence cometh (saith he) that whoorish tricking, that stage-like attire, that prince like pomp, which dayly we see in them: Hence proceeds the gold that they use in their bridles, sadles, and spurrs; insomuch that their spurrs are more glittering then their altars. Hence came their stately tables, their variety of dishes, and quaffing cups. Hence issued their jonketting, banketting, their drunkenness and sursets. Hence followed their viols, harps, and shalms. Hence flowed their sellers, and pantries so stuffed with wines, and viands of all sorts. Hence got they their lee­pots, [Page 437] and painting boxes. And hence had they their purses so well lined with coyn. Fy upon it. Such men they will needs be, and yet they are our great Masters in Israel, as Deans, Archdeans, Bishops and Archbishops. These works of theirs are little inferior unto that filthiness which they committed in darkness. And lastly, he ad­deth these words, For he is the very Antichrist. Frederick the second, fore-told the ruine of Rome, more then three hundred years since, in these words, writing to Innocen­tius the fourth, Pope.

That is,

And in his verse written against the Pope, he affirms plainly, That he was that son of perdition, and that head of the wicked fore spoken by Paul. And in his letters to the Prelats of the world, he calls the Pope, That great Dragon, that hath deceived the whole world; that Antichrist, and that counterfeit Vicar of Christ. Eberhardus Bishop of Salsburgh, above 380 years ago, Aventinus lib. 7. speaking of the Bishops of Rome, he saith: They only desire to reign: They cannot abide peace: They will not cease till they have stamped all under their feet, that they may sit in the Temple of God, and be lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. He who is the servant of servants, is the Lord of Lords, and desires to be thought of, as if he were God. And he saith, That man whom they use to call Antichrist, he speaketh great things, as though he were God, in whose fore-head that name of blasphe­mie is written, I am God, I cannot err. Franciscus Petrarcha, a light of that age for his manifold learning, calls the Court of Rome, Babylon, and that harlot of Babel that sitteth upon many waters, the mother of Idolatry and whoredom, the refuge of heresies and errors. And Petrus Joannes pronounced the Pope to be the Antichrist, and the synagogue of Rome, to be [Page 438] that great Babylon. And Matthias Parisiensis saith, That Antichrist hath seduced all the Universities and Colledges of the learned, so that they teach nothing soundly now. And the Edict of the Empire, under Lodowick the fourth, speaking of Pope John the 22. saith, Christians cannot keep the peace which is given them of God, for this Antichrist (meaning the Pope.) And in another Edict it is written, As he is a disa­guised Pastor, so is he a mystical Antichrist: and we declars him being the author of that Antichristian Empire, to be dam­ned of heresie, and deposed by our right by the Council sentence, and common consent of the Princes and Prelats of Germanie, the Priests of Italie, and people of Rome so desiring. And Aventinus in the history of Hildebrand, writes, That almost all the plain, just, simple, and upright have written, that then (to wit, when he was Pope) the Empire of the Antichrist began, because they saw that come to pass at that time, which our Savior fore-told so many years before.

And to conclud this, Hadrian the 6. Pope, in his in­structions of his Legats to the Convention at Norimberg, he saith: Thou shalt say, that we grant freely that God hath suffe­red this persecution to come upon the Church for the sins of men, and especially of the Priests and Prelats of the Church. And again, he saith, We know that in this seat (speaking of that Pontifical seat in Rome) many abominable things have been for some years, as abuse in spiritual things, excess in commandments; and last of all, all things changed in worse. And the Popes Cardinals (speaking to Paul the third) say, From this fountain (holy Father) as from the Trojan horse, so many abuses have rushed into the Church, and so heavy diseases, wherewith (as we may see) she is brought into a disperat estat. I omit the rest Ye may see the truth is strong that hath made their own mouthes to fyle themselves. To conclud this then: He must be the undoubted Antichrist, and his Kingdom Antichristian, unto whom the whole markes of the Anti­christ, [Page 439] as he is described in the Scripture by the Apostle Paul and John in the Revelation, doth agree: But they all agree unto the Popes of Rome and his Kingdom, as hath been proved. Therefore they must be that undoubted An­tichrist who was to come. Secondly, he must be that un­doubted Antichrist, whom his own Friers. Bishops, Car­dinals, and some of themselves do call Antichrist, and as­cribe these things unto him that belongs properly to the Antichrist: But his own Friers, Bishops, Cardinals, and some of themselves have so testified, as hath been proved also: Therefore out of their own mouthes they are con­demned to be that Antichrist, and their Kingdom Anti­christian.

Now to put an end to this my reply, That Religion is false which hath neither unity, succession, nor antiquitie: this you cannot deny, because you make them the marks of your Church: But your Religion hath neither unity, for that is broken by your manifold contradictions and dissen­tions among your selves, whereof I have marked some, and the diligent Reader of your works may gather many mo. Chrachtovius in his book called Bellum Jesuiticum, hath gathered of two heads; to wit, the Mass and Anti­christ, 205. contradictions: let the Christian Reader judge then what may be gathered of the rest: no succession, nei­ther personal, broken by their Popes, who was Atheists, Schismaticks, Hereticks, and by a woman Pope; neither in doctrine, being direct contrary to the doctrine of Christ: no antiquitie, for the authors and origine of sundry main points of your Religion, is set down here: and all your Roman Clergy, have not satisfied M. Jewels challenge these thirty years ago, concerning the novelty of twenty and seven of your opinions. Therefore, since it hath nei­ther unity, succession, nor antiquity, it is a false Religion, by your own doctrine. Secondly, that Religion which is [Page 440] contrary the Scripture, contrary the practise of the primi­tive Church, which opens a door to all licentiousness, which can bring no true peace and consolation unto the consciences of men, which blusheth to be known and made manifest, which maintaineth many great absur­dities, horrible blasphemies, abominable idolatry, that is the doctrine of Antichrist, and the doctrine of Devils, which by their own mouthes is condemned, must be erro­neous and false: But the Religion of the Church of Rome is such as hath been evidently proved before: therefore it must be false. Wo therefore belongeth to their souls that profess it openly, or secretly.