POPERY ANATOMISED, OR A LEARNED, PIOUS, AND ELABORAT Treatise; wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of Controversy, between us and Papists, are handled; and the truth of our Doctrine clearly proved: And the falsehood of their Religion and Doctrine anatomised, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, Fathers, and also by some of their own Popes, Doctors, Cardinals, and of their own Writers. In answer to M. Gilbert Brown, Priest.  
By that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch, Minister of the Gospel first at Kirkubright, next at Air in Scotland, and last at S. John d'Angely in France.  
The second Edition, revised, corrected, and divided into Sections.  
To which is annexed, A Discovery of the bloody, rebellious, and treasonable principles and practices of Papists, in dissolving Oaths, committing Treasons, raising Wars and Commotions, and using imparalleled cruelties toward Protestants.  
By MATTHEW CRAFORD.  
GLASGOW, By ROBERT SANDERS, Printer to the City and University, 1●72.   

In hanc pij & docti Auctoris Diatriben, & pij & docti viri M. Matth. Crafordij additamentum decastichon Latino-Scoticum.  
ROmulidum qui sacra oupis cognoscere sacra,  
Et fugere, haec sancti perlege scripta viri.  
Perspicuè & solidè Babylonia scita refedit,  
Queîs miseras animas turba dolosa capit.  
Quae nunc; heu! passim, nullo prohibente vagatur,  
Pro sapidis dapibus toxica tetra ferens.  
Non minimas CRAFORDI etiam vir docte mereris  
Grates, addideris quòd bona multa libro.  
Vulnera quò capiat meretrix Romana, nefandi  
Propinans stupri pocula plena sui.  
The same in English.  
WHo cursed Rome and Romish rites would know,  
And them eschew, this Book will clearly show,  
It Babel's doctrine truly doth declare,  
Wherewith poor souls false Papists do ensnare:  
Who now, alace! run freely as they will,  
For wholesome food with poison them to kill.  
Great thanks also should learned CRAFORD get,  
For these good things he to the Book hath set;  
Which may help much to give Rome's Whore a wound,  
Whose whoordoms so doth in the Land abound.  
J. A.   

THE PREFACE TO THE LOVERS OF THE Reform Religion in Britain and Ireland.  
DEARLY BELOVED IN THE LORD,  
The name and memory of that Apostolic and singularly godly and faithful servant of JESUS CHRIST M. John Welsch (who now is attending his Master's work in the Upper-House without wearying, night and day) is so precious in the Church of CHRIST, that the revising & republishing of any of his works (who praise him in the gate) will, I hope, be very acceptable to all the learned and godly, especially this subsequent Treatise, wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of Controversy betwixt us and Papists, are learnedly and solidly debated, and the truth of our Doctrine evidently demonstrated; and the error, superstition, and idolatry of the Church of Rome excellently anatomised and solidly refuted; especially in such a time as this, when Popery so much every where prevaileth, and the Pope and his Agents are most active and diligent, using all-means to get their deadly wound cured, sending over to these Nations daily swarms of Priests and Jesuits, with books, beads, medals, and the like Romish trash, thereby to seduce the poor people, who are in great hazard, partly through their ignorance of the Controversies betwixt us and Papists, partly through the lamentable decay of zeal against Antichrist, and love to the truth; partly through the sad divisions and distractions that are among ourselves, whereby the poor people are sorely brangled and tempted to Scepteiism, and is made use of by Priests and Jesuits, as a strong motive to persuade them to Popery, although there be far greater divisions among Papists, then among us, as I have elsewhere demonstrated.  
We shall not detain you long in the entry, but only speak a little of the Author, and of this Treatise, and the causes that moved the reviving and republishing thereof at this time.  
The now triumphing and glorified Author needeth none of our commendation, he being among the spirits of just men before the throne, and his memory being deservedly very precious in the Church of Christ: But because the lives of godly men are useful for imitation, we shall give a short description of his life. He was descended of an ancient and respective family, being a son of an ancient house of the name of Welsch in Nithsdale. He was born a little after that blessed work of Reformation began in Scotland: and being trained up at Schools, he profited very much, so that he was excellently accomplished in all kind of literature, and eminent for piety and zeal for the Kingdom of Christ: And being called to the Ministry of the Gospel about the year 1588. at the town of Kirkubright, he was most diligent and laborious in preaching, catechising, visiting the sick, and disputing and convincing of Papists, which that Country abounded with. And his labours were singularly blessed of God; for many were brought by his Ministry, to see the error, superstition and idolatry of Popery, and to embrace the truth: and many were really converted to God, and others were edified and built up, confirmed, comforted, and strengthened; so that he, as a shining and burning light, did enlighten that whole Country, who at that time was in many places destitut of Pastors. After he had remained there several years, the General Assembly thought fit to transport him to Air, as a Town of greater note, and more populous, where he was most assiduous and diligent in the work of the Ministry: for he preached not only twice on the Lord's day, but also twice on every day of the week, from nine to ten in the morning, and from four to five at night, where the Lord wonderfully blessed his labours; for both in Air, and in the Country about, many were converted by him: some of whom were as eminent and lively Christians, as readily have been known of latter times. After he had continued in the work of the Ministry several years at Air, he was commissioned by the Presbytery, with some other of his brethren, to keep the Assembly indicted at Aberdene, anno 1605. for which he, with M. John Forbes, M. Andrew Duncan, M. John Sharp, M. Robert Dury, and M. Alexander Strachan, were arraigned, imprisoned, and at length banished, anno 1606. whereupon he went to France, and in a very short time learned the French tongue, and acquired such a facility therein, as was thought strange by these who knew it. He was called to the Ministry in S. John d' Angely, a Protestant town in France, where his Ministry was much blessed with success. But the Civil Wars arising while he was there, that City was besieged on the Protestant interest. M. Welsch did much encourage the people, and told them that their adversaries should not prevail. But in process of time, the town was sore straitened, and ready to be taken, the enemy having raised a battery, and by a close approach, had made a great breach in the wall. M. Welsch hearing thereof (lest the people should be discouraged and faint) went himself with the Canonier up the walls, and desired he should charge such a piece of Canon, and shoot, for GOD should direct that shot, and cause it to prosper; which accordingly did, to the astonishment of onlookers, dismount that battery: and the Lord so ordered things after, that the King did parley on  terms with the City, and did only himself with his Court come in, without doing any violence.  
Upon the LORDS day thereafter, some of the godly in that place, fearing M. Welsch his hazard, did seriously deal with him, that he would forbear to go forth and preach, the Court being there: But he would by no means be hindered, showing them he would adventure to preach the Word to his people, and trust the Lord with what concerned himself: Therefore he went forth and preached, having a very great Auditory, both of friends, and others, who came upon the fame of such a man. But in time of Sermon, a great man of the Court, with some of the Kings own guard, was sent to bring him forthwith before the King: and whilst he was entering the Church, which had some difficulty, by reason of the multitude, M. Welsch did turn himself toward that entry, and desired the people to give way to one of the great Peers of France that was coming in. But after whilst he was coming near the Pulpit to execute his Commission, he did with great authority speak to him before all the people; and in the Name of his Master JESUS CHRIST, charged him, that he would not disturb the worship of GOD. Wherewith he was so affrighted, that he fell a shaking, yea was forced to crutch down, and make no further trouble. Sermon being ended, M. Welsch with much submission, went to the King, who was then greatly incensed, and with a threatening countenance, asked, What he was? And how he durst preach Heresy so near his person, and with such contumacy carry himself? To which with due reverence, bowing himself, he did answer: I am, Sir, the servant and Minister of JESUS CHRIST, whose truth I preached this day: which if your Majesty rightly knew, ye would have judged it your duty to have come yourself and heard. And for my doctrine, I did this day preach these three truths to your people. First, that man is fallen, and by nature in a lost condition; yea, by his own power and abilities, is not able to help himself from that estate. Secondly, that there is no salvation, or deliverance from wrath, by our own merits; but by JESUS CHRIST, and his merit alone. Thirdly, I did also preach this day, the just liberties of the Kingdom of France, that your Majesty oweth obedience to Christ only, who is the Head of the Church: and that the Pope, as he is an enemy to Christ and his truth, so also to the Kings of the earth, whom he keepeth under slavery to his usurped power. Whereat the King for a time keeping silence, with great astonishment turned to some about him, and said, Surely, this is a man of GOD. Yea, after did commune with him, and with great respect dismissed him. The next year, the differences betwixt the King and Protestants growing greater, the City was again besieged. M. Welsch entreated the Citizens to make peace with the King; for God had a controversy with them, for their unthankfulness, and not walking answerably to the Gospel, therefore he was not with them as formerly, but had given them up to their enemies: and if they stood out, their City should be taken. But the City not harkening to him, was taken, and in part sacked. At which time the King passed a solemn order, that none should in the least wrong M. Welsch, nor any thing that belonged to him, under highest pains: and said to him, as Nebuzaradan to Jeremiah, All the land is before thee, whither it seemeth good and convenient for thee to go, thither go. But M. Welsch being grown exceedingly infirm in his body, and the Physicians advising that only his native air could help him, choised to go over to England, whereupon the King granted him a safe-conduct. So he came over to London, where he remained a certain space; but not being permitted to return to Scotland, his sickness increased, and he died. During the time of his sickness, he was so filled and overcome with the sensible enjoyment of GOD, that he was sometimes overheard in prayer, to have these words, LORD, hold thy hand, it is enough; thy servant it a clay vessel, and can hold no more.  
He was a man, for piety, converse, and communion with GOD, most singular and rare. M. Rutherfurd in his Epistle prefixed to his Survey of Antinomianism, showeth that from the witnesses of his life, he had this account, that of every  hours, he gave usually eight to prayer, if other necessary and urgent duties did not hinder; Yea, he spent many days and nights which he set apart, in fasting and prayer, for the condition of the Church, and the sufferings of the Reformed Churches abroad. He used even in the coldest winter nights, to rise for prayer (as the Author of the fulfilling of the Scripture testifieth) and oft times his wife hath risen to seek after him, where he hath been found lying on the ground, weeping, and wrestling with the LORD; yea, some times would have been much of the night alone, in the Church of Air, on that account. One time especially, his wife finding him overcharged with grief, he told her, he had that to press him which she had not, the souls of three thousand people to answer for, whilst he knew not how it was with many of them. And at another time whilst she found him alone, his spirit almost overcharged with anguish and grief, upon her serious enquiry, said, That the times which were to come on Scotland were heavy and sad, though she should not see them, and this for the contempt of the Gospel.  
While he was in France, a Friar travelling through the Country came to his house, and M. Welsch being very hospital, permitted him to stay all night. The Friar's bed being not far from M. Welsch his chamber, heard a noise, with many deep sighs and groans all night, which he supposed to have been an evil spirit, and therefore arose early in the morning, and would needs be gone: a Scots Gentleman being in the house, and seeing the Friar troubled, enquired what the matter meant that he would be gone so soon? He answered, he would not stay in a Huguenots house any longer, for they had converse with evil spirits. The Gentleman understanding the matter, told him, that it was M. Welsch, whose ordinary it was to pray all night, and desired him to stay the next night, and he should see the truth thereof: which accordingly he did, and was so much astonished at M. Welsch his piety, that he forsook Popery, and embraced the Reformed Religion.  
As he conversed with GOD, and dwelled in the Mount by prayer and wrestling with GOD, night and day (for he used to say, He wondered how a Christian could lie in bed all night without rising to spend some of the night in prayer and praise) so he was admitted to very intimat nearness with him: and to speak with reverence, put upon his secrets, so that he had very many things revealed to him, both concerning the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, and concerning particular places and persons; several instances thereof are recorded.  
I. In his letter to my Lady fleming, he foretelleth the judgement coming on Scotland: for he thus speaketh: Alace, for the Kingdom of Scotland: my testimony doth not differ from that of many before this time, who said, that the judgement of Scotland should be blood. This Kingdom shall be drowned in blood: A furbished and glistering sword is dight, and already drawn out of the sheath, which shall not return until it be made drunk with the blood of the men within this Land. First, the heavy intestine sword, and then the fury of a stranger. O doleful Scotland! well were he that were removed far from thee, that his eyes might not see, ●●r his ears hear all the evils that are to come upon thee. Neither the strong man by his strength, nor the rich man by his riches, nor the Noble by his blood, shall be delivered from the judgement. There is a great sacrifice to be made in Bozra, in thee, O Scotland! of the blood of all sorts in the Land. Ephraim shall consume Manasse, and Manasse Ephraim. Brother against brother, and every man in the judgement of the LORD, shall be armed to thrust his sword in the side of his neighbour, and all for the contempt of the most glorious Gospel, and that blood which was offered to thee, O Scotland! in so plentiful a manner, that the like thereof hath not been offered to any Nation; therefore thy judgement shall be the greater. The fulfilling whereof (at least in part) hath since been very sensible, and is known by many alive, who had that letter long before the late troubles did begin.  
II. On a certain night being under an extraordinary pressure of spirit to go and power forth his heart to GOD, he left his wife in bed, and going out to a garden, spent most of the night in that exercise; but his wife weary, at last went to seek for him: but missing him in his ordinary place, went into other gardens, by such passages as she knew; at last she heard a voice, and drawing near to it, could but hear him speak a few words, but with great force and fervency, mixed and accompanied with floods of tears, which were these, O GOD, wilt thou not give me Scotland? O GOD, wilt thou not give me Scotland. She being weary and afraid to interrupt him, went home, and heard not the close. At last he came home, and reentering to his bed, his wife began to reprove his unmercifulness to his own body, than asked him, what was he saying? for she told she heard him. Well, said he, ye had better have been in your bed; but since ye heard, I tell you, I have endured a great fight for Scotland this night, and hardly could I get a remnant reserved, yet he will be gracious.  
III. After this he arose another night, but went not out of doors: but in a chamber he traveled and groaned so, as his wife impatient did rise several times calling him to bed: but he waited his time. And when he came, she began a modest expostulation with him for tarrying. Hold thy peace (said he) it will be well with us; but I shall never preach another preaching in Air. And having fallen asleep, before he awaked, the messenger was come, who by command carried him prisoner to the Castle of Edinburgh.  
iv When he was prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh, for holding the Assembly of Aberdene. The Lord Ochiltrie being at that time Captain of the Castle, caused M. Welsch to sup with him one night in the Castle (being related to him, for M. Welsch mother in law, M. Knoxs wife was his sister) where were also several other Gentlemen, and among them a Popish youth sat toward the lower end of the table. M. Welsch being by the Captain set at the upper end, entertained the company with grave and edifying discourse, which all delighted to hear, save the young Papist, who with laughter and derision laboured to silence him, which was little regarded by M. Welsch. But after supper while the guests sat a little, this youth stood up at the lower end of the table, and while M. Welsch proceeded from grave to gracious entertainment of them at table, the youth came to that height of insolency, as with the finger to point at him, and with the face to make flouting grimaces, whereby he grieved the holy man, so as on a sudden he was forced to a silence.  
The whole company who heard him with delight, were silent with him. Within a little, M. Welsch, as moved by the Spirit of GOD, broke forth into these words: Gentlemen, the Spirit of GOD is provoked against us, and I shall entreat you not to be afraid to see what GOD shall do among you before you rise from the table; for he will smite some one of you with death before you go home. All were silently astonished, waiting to see the issue with fear: and while every man feared himself, except the insolent youth, he fell down dead suddenly at the foot of the table, to show the power of GOD'S jealousy against the mockers of his Spirit, and the offers of his grace.  
V One day while M. Welsch looked out at his chamber window in the Castle, he happened to see the Captain, and called unto him saying, God save you, my Lord. The Captain acknowledging his neglect, and ask for M. Welsch welfare, desired to know how he might serve him. In nothing (said M. Welsch) if you be well, except you would carry my petition to his Majesty, entreating for liberty to preach the Gospel. I willingly will (said the Captain) therefore send it to me. Nay, said M. Welsch, I am your kinsman; I love you so well, as to warn you not to take it in charge, except you resolve to deal truly in delivering it, and getting me an answer. I shall bear the blame, said the Captain, if I do it not. I beseech you, my Lord, said the other, under-take it not, except you mind to do it; for the hazard is great. Well, Ochiltry takes it, but not coming in an opportune season (for he came when the King was passionately moved on another occasion) he thought not fit then to give it: and as at that time he deferred, so thereafter he neglected, and at last quite forgot to deliver it at all. For which his heart smiting him, he durst hardly be seen of M. Welsch for three months. Yet conscience forgetting as well as he, he came to the same place where M. Welsch at first called him: and now M. Welsch asked how he did, and what was become of his petition? The Captain surprised, answered, I delivered it to his Majesty, but he was in a passion, and it seems it hath fallen by, for I have not gotten an answer. Nay, my Lord, said M. Welsch, you should not lie to God and to me; I know you delivered it not: I am sorry, My Lord, for your lot. I warned you not to be false to God; and now I tell you, God shall take your estate and honours in Scotland, and shall give them to your neighbour, and this in your own time. This troubled the Lord Ochiltrie, and came truly to pass: for he being the eldest son of the good Lord Ochiltrie, a Reformer, was forced in his own time to quite all, and give both estate and honours to James the son of Captain James the second brother, who was the last of that house.  
VI While he was Minister at Air, the plague was sore in the Country, but no infection was in the Town: but it came to pass that two men coming with packs of cloth to the Town from a neighbouring place, where there was yet no suspicion thereof. The sentry on the Bridge held them out, notwithstanding they had a pass while the Magistrate came; who though he could not disprove their pass, yet would not permit them to enter the Town, till he sent for M. Welsch. So the baily bids them disburden their beasts, till he considered what was to be done. A little after, M. Welsch coming, the baily saith to him, Sir, here are men come from such a place, we have heard of no plague there; besides they have a pass from known men: What shall we do? M. Welsch made no answer, but uncovering his head, stood in the midst of the company that followed him, and having his eyes directed to heaven (yet speaking nothing) near half a quarter of an hour; at last said, baily, cause these men put on their packs again, and be gone: for if GOD be in heaven, the plague of GOD is in these packs. These men returned, and opened their packs at Cumnock, and it was observed that such contagion was therein, that all the people of that Village died; there was not a man left to bury the dead.  
VII. While he was in prison, John Stewart an eminent Christian woe lived at Air, being come to visit him, found him in a more than ordinary way troubled, and sad; and upon his enquiry thereanent, he saith, John, ye should not be here, go home to Air, for the plague of GOD is broken up in that place, and cause Hue Kennedy, Provest of that Town (who was also a very singular Christian) convean the people to the streets, and pray together, and the Lord shall hear Hue Kennedy, and remove the stroke. This at first did something astonish the said John, and put him to question its truth, having so lately come out of that place; but at his return found it so, and accordingly in every thing it fell out as the man of GOD had showed. These instances are recorded in the fulfilling of the Scriptures, to which I add one not less true than the rest, it is this.  
VIII. While M. Welsch was Minister at Air, there was much profanation of the LORDS Day committed, by reason of great confluence of people (at a Gentleman's house about eight mile's distance from Air) to the football, and other games and pastimes, whereupon M. Welsch did several times writ to the Gentleman, desiring him to suppress the profanation of the LORDS Day at his house; but he not loving to be called a Puritan, slighted it: wherefore M. Welsch came on a day to his gate, and called for the Gentleman, who coming to him, he told him that he had a message from GOD to him, to show him, that because he slighted the advise given him from the LORD, and would not restrain the profanation of the LORDS Day committed in his bounds, therefore the LORD would cast him out of his house and estate, and none of his posterity should ever enjoy it. Which came to pass; for although the Gentleman was in a very good external condition at that time, yet from that day forward all things crossed him, while at length he was necessitat to sell his estate: and while he was giving the buyer possession thereof, he told before his wife and children, with tears, that he had found M. Welsch a true Prophet. This was related by the Gentleman's own son, a godly and reverend Minister, who was present when his father told it with tears.  
He longed much to be in heaven, and to be rid of a body of death, as witnesseth among others, these expressions in that forecited letter: My desire to remain here is not great, knowing that so long as I am in this house of clay, I am absent from the LORD: and if it were dissolved, I look for a building not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. In this I groan, desiring to be clothed upon with my house which is in heaven: If so be that being clothed, I shall not be found naked. For I that am within this tabernacle, do oft times groan, and sigh within myself, being oft times burdened; not that I would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. I long to eat the fruit of that tree which is planted in the midst of the Paradise of GOD; and to drink of the pure river clear as crystal that runs through the streets of that new Jerusalem. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the last day on the earth: and that after my skin worms destroy my body, yet in my flesh shall I see GOD; whom I shall see for myself, and not another for me. And mine eyes shall behold him, though my reins be consumed within me. I long to be refreshed with the souls of them that are under the altar, who were slain for the Word of GOD, and the testimony they held: And to have these long white robes given me, that I may walk in white with these glorious Saints, who have washed their garments, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Why should I think it a strange thing to be removed from this place to that wherein is my hope, my joy, my crown, my eldest brother, my Head, my Father, my Comforter, and all the glorified Saints; and where the song of Moses and the Lamb is sung joyfully. Where we shall not be compelled to sit by the rivers of Babylon, nor to hang up our harps on willow trees; but shall take them, and sing the new hallelujah, Blessing, honour, glory and power to him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever. What is under this old vault of the heavens, and in this old worn earth, which is under the bondage of corruption, groaning and travelling in pain; and as it were, still shooting out the head, looking, waiting and longing for the redemption of the sons of GOD? What is there, I say, that should make me remain here? I expect that new heaven, and that new earth, where righteousness dwelleth, wherein I shall rest for evermore. I look to get entry at the new Jerusalem: at one of these twelve gates, whereupon are written the names of the twelve Tribes of the children of Israel. I know CHRIST JESUS hath prepared room for me: why may I not then with boldness in his blood, step in unto that glory, where my Head and LORD hath gone before me. JESUS CHRIST is the door and the Porter, who then shall hold me out? Will he let them perish for whom he hath died? Will he let that poor sheep be plucked out of his hand, for whom he hath laid down his life? Who shall condemn the man whom GOD hath justified? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of the man for whom CHRIST hath died, or rather risen again? I know I have grievously transgressed; but where sin aboundeth; grace superaboundeth. I know my sins are red as scarlet and crimson, yet the red blood of CHRIST my LORD, can make me as white as snow, as wool. Whom have I in heaven but him? Or whom desire I in earth beside him? O thou the fairest among the children of men, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of the Jews, the life of the dead, the joy of Angels and Saints. My soul panteth to be with thee. I will put my spirit into thy hands, and thou wilt n●● put it out of thy presence. I will come unto thee; for thou casts none away that comes unto thee. O thou the only delight of mankind! Thou camest to seek and save that which is lost. Thou seeking me, hast found me: and now being found by thee, I hope, O LORD, thou wilt not let me perish. I desire to be with thee, and do long for the fruition of thy blessed presence, and joy of thy countenance. Thou the only good Shepherd, art full of grace and truth: therefore I trust thou wilt not thrust me out of the door of thy presence and grace. The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth by thee. Who shall separat me from thy love? Shall tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay: in all these things I am more than a conqueror, through thy Majesty that hath loved me. For I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, Principalities nor Powers, nor height nor depth, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature, is able to separat me from the love of thy Majesty, w ich is in CHRIST JESUS my LORD. I refuse not to die with thee, that I may live with thee. I refuse not to suffer with thee, that I may rejoice with thee. Shall not all things be pleasant to me, which may be my last step, by which or upon which, I may come unto thee. When shall I be satiat with thy face? When shall I be drunk with thy pleasures? Come, LORD JESUS, and tarry not. The Spirit saith, Come: the Bride saith, Come. Even so, LORD JESUS, come quickly, and tarry not. Why should the multitude of mine iniquities, or the greatness of them affright me? Why should I faint in this mine adversity to be with thee? The greater sinner I have been, the greater glory will thy grace be to me unto all eternity. Oh! unspeakable joy! endless, infinite and bottomless compassion! O Ocean of never-fading pleasure! O love of loves! O the height and depth, and breadth, and length of that love of thine that passeth knowledge! O uncreated Love! Beginning without beginning, and ending without end! Thou art my glory, my joy, and my gain, and my crown. Thou hast set me under thy shadow with great delight, and thy fruit is sweet unto my taste. Thou hast brought me into thy banqueting-house, and placed me in thine orchard. Stay me with thy flagons, and comfort me with thine apples: for I am sick, and my soul is wounded with thy love. Behold, thou art fair, my Love: Behold, thou art fair, thou hast doves eyes. Behold, thou art fair, my Love; yea pleasant also: our bed is green. The beams of our house are Cedars, and our rasters are of fir. How fair and how pleasant art thou! O Love for delights! my heart is ravished with thee. O when shall I see thy face? How long will thou delay to be to me as a Roe, or a young Hart, leaping upon the mountains, and skipping upon the hills. As a bundle of myrrh be thou to me, and lie all night between my breasts. Because of the savour of thy good ointments, thy name is as ointment poured out; therefore desire I to go out of the desert, and through to the place where thou sittest at thy repose, and where thou makes thy flocks to rest at noon. When shall I be filled with thy love? Certainly, if a man knew how precious it were, he would count all things dross and dung to gain it. I would long for that scaffold, or that axe, or that cord, that might be to me that last step of this my wearisome journey to go to thee my LORD. Thou who know'st the meaning of the spirit, give answer to the speaking, sighing, and groaning of the spirit. Thou who hast inflamed my heart to speak to thee in this silent, yet love-language of ardent and fervent desires, speak again unto my heart, and answer my desires, which thou hast made me speak to thee. O Death! where is thy sting? O grave! where is thy victory? The sting of Death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law: but thanks be to GOD that giveth me the victory through JESUS CHRIST. What can be troublesome to me, since my LORD looks upon me with so amiable a countenance? And how greatly do I long for these embracements of my LORD? O that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for his love is better than wine. O that my soul were the throne wherein he might dwell eternally. O that my heart were the Temple wherein he might be magnified, and dwell for ever, etc.  
If there were no more but these heavenly breathe of soul, they do speak forth what earnest desires and groan this holy Man had for the full enjoyments of GOD, and what full assurance of faith he enjoyed.  
As he was extraordinary in prayer, so he was marvellously diligent in the rest of his Master's Work: For (as I was assured by an old reverend and godly Minister, who knew the truth thereof) he preached twice every week day, from nine to ten in the morning, and from four to five at night, beside his work on the LORDS Day, and catechising and visiting of families, and of the sick.  
In his preaching he had a deep impression of the great and dreadful Majesty of GOD upon his spirit, that made him speak with great boldness and authority. The learned and godly M. Boyd of Trochrig relateth, in his Commentary upon the Ephesians chap 6. vers. 19.20. praelect. 91. pag. 1101. how that M. Welsch being called to preach before the University of Saumur, one of the most learned Auditories in France, although he was a stranger, and was to preach in a strange tongue, and to strangers, yet did preach with such boldness and authority, as if he had been before the meanest Congregation: whereat Trochrig being astonished, could not but (on his acquaintance with him) question him thereanent, whence he had such confidence, and was so little moved whilst he preached before strangers, so grave and judicious an Auditory, and in a strange tongue? To whom (Ex intimo animi sensu respondit, vultu velut ad condolentiam & compassionem, non ad contemptum vel dedignationem composito. Vah! Ego ne hominum quorumvis faciem aut curem aut metuam; qui memini & reputo apud me, me coram S. Sancta & gloriosà illa majestate consistere, cujus verbum in ipsius conspectu servis & creaturis ejus annuncio? Crede mihi quum ea me subit cogitatio, vultus hominum quorumcunque curare aut magni facere non possum, etiamsi vellem vel maxim.) he answered in a humble way, as one humbled, and not lifted up: O do I either care for or fear the face of any man, who remembers and considers that I am standing before that holy and glorious Majesty, whose word I preach in his sight to his servants and creatures? Believe me, when the impression of that is upon my spirit, I cannot (although I most willingly would) care for, or esteem the countenance of men.  
He was most zealous and tender of all the truths of GOD, and studied to the utmost of his power, to advance the Kingdom and interest of CHRIST; not esteeming his life dear to him for the cause of CHRIST; yea, accounting it his greatest honour to suffer for him and his truth; witness these words of his in the forecited letter. Who am I that he should first have called me, and then constitut me a Minister of glad tidings of the Gospel of salvation these sixteen years already, and now last of all to be a sufferer for his cause and Kingdom? etc.  
He shined most brightly as a star of the first magnitude in Kirkubright and Air the space of sixteen years, and in France about twelve or thirteen years; how long he lived after he came to England, I cannot learn: but I suppose it was not very long: For the sad case of the Churches of France, Bohemia and Germany, broke his heart. His wife was a very eminently godly woman, the daughter of John Knox, our famous Reformer. He had two sons that came to maturity, one whereof was a Doctor of Physic, the other, to wit, M. Josias, was a very faithful and eminent Minister of the Gospel.  
There are several of his Sermons in manuscripts in the hands of many: It is a great loss that these candles should be hid under bushels, and not set on candlesticks.  
As concerning this Treatise, it is both learned, solid, clear, and easy to be understood by very ordinary capacities: and the greatest and weightiest points of Controversy are handled therein (as concerning the Church, the Mass, Antichrist, Justification by Faith, the merit of works, the Judge of Controversies, and several other very weighty points of Controversy) so learnedly, solidly, and convincingly, that now for the space of seventy years, none ever did attempt to make a reply thereto.  
We need not detain you longer in showing reasons that moved us to republish this Treatise at this time: for the great increase of Popery, and ignorance of the people of this Country, is reason sufficient for publishing Treatises of this kind; especially such an one as this, which is preferable to other Treatises of this nature, on several accounts. First, it handles both convincingly, clearly, and yet briefly, the most weighty points of Controversy betwixt us and Papists; whereas other Treatises generally, either handle only some one or two heads, or else they are so voluminous, that common people neither can have money to buy, or time to read them. 2. The Author spent much time in praying for a blessing on this work, and therefore we may expect a blessing on it. 3. The whole Treatise savours of much piety and zeal, especially the Epistle to the Reader: where is laid out to our serious consideration, GOD'S goodness to us on the one hand, and our unanswerableness to him on the other, with the Author's fears, lest the Gospel be removed from us, if we do not repent, and reform. The consideration whereof will undoubtedly have great influence on a gracious soul, to stir him up to mourn and lament for the sins of the Land, and deal seriously for the LORDS abiding with us. I know not any thing more useful (through GOD'S blessing) for stirring us up and awaking us out of our security, in this secure and stupid generation, than the serious consideration of the things held out in that Epistle. Was our provocations so great seventy years ago, that the godly and learned Author expected nothing but the removal of our candlestick, except we did repent? And what can be expected now, but the pouring forth of wrath to the utmost on us, except speedy and serious repentance prevent it, seeing GOD out of his infinite long-suffering and patience, hath continued the Gospel with us to this day, and we have multiplied our provocations above the iniquities of our Fathers, as if they had been small things? We have exceedingly surmounted them, notwithstanding that our light hath been greater, and our mercies more than theirs were. O if the consideration of these things would lead us to repentance!  
That the reading of this Treatise might be less tedious, and you may more easily take it up, I have divided the same in Sections, annexing a title to each Section. And because the Section concerning the Mass, did agree to be placed after the Section concerning Transubstantiation, we have transposed it, and placed it there. I intended to have annexed thereto, An answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies, printed anno 1671. and sent into the Country for seducing of poor souls: but because it would have caused the Book to swell to a Volume. I forbore, intending (if the LORD will) to publish it shortly: and in the mean time I have annexed, A Discovery of the bloody and treasonable principles and practices of Papists; that all may see that not only Papists are Heretics and Idolaters; but also bloody Traitors and incendiaries, unworthy to live in any Christian Kingdom or Commonwealth.  
As it was the design of the blessed Author in writing and publishing this Treatise at first, to confirm the weak, establish the wavering, convince and stop the mouth of gainsayers, and to discover and lay open the errors, idolatries and abominations of that Whore of Rome, that the poor people may be made to flee from Babylon, lest being partakers of her sins, they be made also partakers of her plagues, which are no less than to have their portion in that Lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. So it is our design in republishing the same: For what man is he that doth believe that Popery is the most abominable Idolatry imaginable; to wit, to worship the handiwork of the Baker, and wood and stone, etc. and considers what severe threaten he hath denounced against Idolatry; namely, That they shall be shut out of that New Jerusalem, Rev. 22.15. and shall drink of the wine of the wrath of GOD, and shall be tormented day and night before the holy Angels, and before the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment shall ascend for evermore, and they shall have no rest, Rev. 14.9. And that he is a jealous GOD, visiting, not only this iniquity of Idolatry upon themselves, but likewise upon their children to the third and fourth generation; and is not much troubled to hear and see so many souls seduced and led aside thereto, and doth not judge it of his concernment to lay out himself to the utmost, for discovering the snare & pit that is laid for entraping and ruining eternally of poor souls? Therefore we hope as our endeavours shall be peace to us, so we hope it shall be acceptable to all the lovers of truth.  
That this prayerful Treatise of that great wrestler with GOD, may be blessed, for convincing of gainsayers, informing, establishing and confirming the LORDS people in the truth, and for stirring up, and awaking zeal, love and repentance in the godly, shall be the earnest prayer of  
Your servant for CHRIST'S sake, MATT. CRAFORD.   

TO THE RIGHT EXCELLENT AND MIGHTY PRINCE, JAMES THE VI KING OF SCOTLAND, etc. Grace and Peace be multiplied.  
I Hope it shall not be accounted presumption (most Noble Prince) to offer to your Majesty, the first fruits of these my simple and rude labours, seeing the cause is JESUS CHRIST'S, that KING of Kings, and LORD of glory, which is here defended, even the everlasting truth of GOD, against the venomous stings of one of the Locusts, Rev. 9.3. of that Antichristian Kingdom. The right whereof doth most justly belong to your Majesty, both in respect of these rare and singular gifts of knowledge and understanding, which the LORD hath vouchsafed upon your Majesty, in such a plentiful measure, that your subjects do acknowledge it at home, and strangers do admire it, and commend it abroad: Whereby you are not only able to render a reason of that Faith which is in you, 1. Pet. 3.15. but also able to stop the mouth of the adversary, Tit. 1.9. and convict the gain-sayer whatsoever, by that word of truth, 2. Tim. 3.5. Wherewith your Majesty hath been brought up from your very infancy: So that all the wise men of Babel (I mean the Clergy of that Roman Harlot) is not able to resist the mouth and wisdom which the Lord hath given to your Majesty. And also in respect of that supereminent power (as the Apostle calls it, Rom. 13.1.) whereby as you are most able, so are you most obliged to maintain his truth, propagat his Kingdom, and nowrish his own Spouse, which he hath purchased to himself by his own blood, Acts 20.28. by the breasts of your Majesty's government; as it was promised of old, That his Spouse should suck the breast of Kings, Esa. 60.16. So, who is more obliged, than ye, Sir? Who so sufficient and able every way to maintain it, as ye, Sir? Your knowledge binds you: Your profession binds you: Your sovereign authority, as ye are a King in Israel, binds you. For as the wisest King that ever was, hath said, and left it in writ: or rather that King of Kings, in him, and by him, Prince's reign by me, Prov. 8.15. Ye hold your Kingdom of him, Sir, and must lay down your Crown at his feet, and must stand up and give a reckoning of the government of his Kingdom, of the maintenance of his Truth, & of the nowrishing his Spouse, in that day. Your knowledge, Sir, is able to justify it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: your sovereign authority able to defend it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ye have received that two-edged sword of God's Spirit in your mouth, able to wound, Heb. 4.12. yea to consume that man of sin, and son of perdition. Ye have received that sword of justice and judgement, Rom. 13.4. in your hands; able to destroy betimes all the wicked of your Kingdom; and to root out from the city of the Lord, all the workers of iniquity, Psal. 101.8. Ye know, Sir, the abomination of Babel, Rev. 17.4.5. that as it is said of the virtuous woman, Many women have done virtuously, but thou surmounts them all, Prov. 31.26. So the contrary may be said of her; Many heretics have taught erroneously, and worshipped and wrought abominably; but the whore of Babel, Rev. 17.1. the Church of Rome, in heresy, in abomination, in idolatry, hath surmounted them all, that ever went before her, or ever shall come after her. Many beasts have spoken blasphemously, Rev. 13.1.3.6. but that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb, Rev. 13. & 16.13.14. & 17.3.4.5.6. & 18.24. surmounteth them all in blasphemy, tyranny, cruelty, and abominable idolatry, destroying and making merchandise of the souls of men and women. Other heresies did but subvert some fundamental points of Religion, but the Church of Rome hath subverted them all almost. Of other heresies, some was but against the Godhead of Christ, other some against his manhood, other some against his offices and benefits, or some one head or other: But the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is against them all. Injurious to his Godhead, in making him, not only inferior to the Father, in teaching that he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but also inferior to the very creatures, in praying to Mary to command her Son, Jure Matris impera Redemptori: as I heard your Majesty most solidly prove, and so worse than the Arrians. Injurious to his manhood, to all his offices, his benefits, and all the means, inward and outward, of the knowing and applying of him. And last of all, injurious to his sovereign glory, in communicating it to stocks and stones, a piece of bread, bones and ashes, and the skurf skarf of all things; as I hope, I have made manifest in this my Answer. So that most justly it is called, The speech of the Dragon, and the doctrine of Devils, by the Spirit of God, Rev. 13.11. 1. Tim. 4. And if the profession of such a devilish doctrine be too great an evil, what would the practise thereof be? I mean the idolatrous Mass, that abomination of desolation. The misery, alace! were too great, to see the people of this Country scattered like sheep without shepherds, Matth. 9.36. dying that second and everlasting death, for want of the bread of life, and Gospel of salvation. But this would be the misery of miseries, if the golden cup of Babel, full of all abominations, Rev. 17.4. should be set to their head again, to drink the deadly poison of their own damnation. And certainly, if this famine of the Word of GOD, Amos 8.11.12. whereby not only two or three Cities, as the same Prophet saith, ch. 4.8. but twenty or thirty Parishions in some places, should be compelled to go to one, if they were desirous to drink the waters of life; this, I say, is a judgement heavy enough. But what a judgement would this be, if they were compelled to bide at home, and it were but in their own families, by that abominable Mass, the round bread, the Gods of Babel? Surely a great many of the people of this Country, do not halt now between these two thoughts, whither GOD be the LORD, or Baal; 1. Kings 18.21. but have forsaken the LORD and his Gospel, and in their heart desires the opportunity to say to their round bread, These are our Gods who have redeemed us from Hell, and these will we worship; at least secretly, till our strength grow, and our number increase. The rest of the iniquities of this Land, were too great to provoke the LORD of Hosts, suppose this impiety (which the LORD forbidden, for his CHRIST'S sake) be not added unto all the rest, and above all the rest. For what sin is comparable to Idolatry? Or what iniquity hath been ever so severely punished, as Idolatry? A sin that is immediately against GOD, against CHRIST, against his Glory. A sin that made 24000. of the LORDS own chosen inheritance to fall in the wilderness, for the golden Calf, and Baal-Peor, Exod. 32.28. Num. 25.9. A sin that provoked the LORD in such a high measure, that it made him deliver his own people (whom he had planted in that Land of Promise, and to whom he had sworn to be their GOD) over in the hands of their enemies round about them, Judges 2.11.12.13.14.15. so that whithersoever they went, the hand of the LORD was sore against them. A sin that rend the Kingdom of David asunder, 1. Kings 11.5.11. and made ten parts of it to be given to Jeroboam the son of Nebat, suppose the person was called Jedidiah, the beloved of the LORD, 2. Sam. 12.25. And the promise was made unto him, that his house and throne should stand for ever, 2. Sam. 7.13. And finally, a sin that first moved the LORD to put away Israel from before his face: and caused their land to vomit them out, without all hope ever to return again: and then made his wrath so hot against Juda, 2. Chron. 36.16.17.18. 2. Kings 25.10. till there was no remedy, but the Temple, the King's House, and the houses of all the Nobles, were burnt with fire: the King's sons first slain before his eyes, than his own eyes put out, himself bound with chains of steel, and he and his people carried captives to Babel, where there they remained for the space of seventy years. Are not these things fallen forth as examples to us? And are they not written for our instruction, as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 10.11. upon whom the ends of the world is fallen? And is not the abomination of Babel, Rev. 17.4. their idolatrous Mass, as great abomination in the eyes of the LORD, as Milcom the abomination of the Ammonits'? 1. Kings 11.5. Is it less Idolatry to worship a golden Calf, the Gods of Egypt, or a graven sheep Ashtaroth, the Gods of the Sidonians, Exod. 32.4. 1. Kings 11.5. Judg. 2.13. then to worship a bit of bread, made of wheat, ground in the mill, baken in the oven, conjured and erected up by an idolatrous Priest, which is the God of Babel, the Church of Rome? Is there any more Godhead in the one, then in the other? Hath their Idol of the Mass any more life, feeling or moving, than the Idols of Egypt and Sidon had? And doth not the Church of Rome give as great, yea rather greater worship and Religion to their round bread, than Juda or Israel gave to their golden Calf, or to Ashtaroth the graven sheep: for they worship it as their Creator and Redeemer? And as the worship of the golden Calf, is called the worship of Devils in Moses song, Deut. 32.17. so the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, whereof their round bread in their Mass, is one of the principal, is called, the worship of Devils, Rev. 9.20. by the voice that came from the four horns of the golden Altar. For what Church or Kingdom under heaven is there to be found, who in the time of the blast of the sixth Trumpet, when that fearful Army of the Turks was loosed to overrun Christendom, do worship Idols of gold, and silver, of brass, of wood, and of stone, but the Church of Rome? And if the worship of GOD by Images, as Israel did in the golden Calf, which is but the break of the second Command, be called the worship of Devils; shall not the worship of a false Creator and Redeemer, as they do in their Mass, which is not only the break of the first Command; but also the treading under foot of the Son of GOD in the Gospel, be most justly called, the worship of Devils? And is not the LORD as jealous of his glory now, as he was then? And hath he not sworn, that he will not give it to another? Esai. 42.8. And hath he not threatened as severe judgements against the Whore of Babel, and the worshippers of the Beast and his Image, and them that receive his mark openly or privately, as ever he did against Juda, or Israel? Rev. 13.14.15.16. and 14.8.9.10.12. and 16.1.2.10.19. and 17.1.2. and 18.11.2.3.5.6.21. and 19.19.20.21. and 21.21. Did he not cause it to be proclaimed, by an Angel with a loud voice, that the foundations of the earth might hear it, and tremble, that they shall drink of the wine of the wrath of GOD; yea, of that pure wine, poured out in the cup of his wrath, and they shall be tormented day and night before the holy Angels, and before the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment shall ascend for evermore, and they shall have no rest day nor night, that worship the Beast and his Image? And heard not John, him that sat upon the Throne, the Judge of the whole earth, say, That Idolaters shall have their portion in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death? And seeing the knowledge of our Redemption surmounteth the knowledge of our Creation: and the benefit of our Redemption exceeds (by many degrees) the benefit of our Creation: shall not the worship of an Idol Redeemer, and of a false Jesus, as they do in their Mass, surmount by many degrees, the worship of an Idol Creator, as Juda and Israel did? For the greater the light be, and the greater the mercy be that is bestowed upon any, their sin must be the greater. And as the light of the Gospel is more glorious than the light of the Law, 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13. so the Idolatry of these that are under the Gospel, must be more abominable than the Idolatry of these that were under the Law. Theirs was but the despising of Moses Law, Heb. 10.28. But this Idolatry of their Mass, is the treading under foot of the blood of CHRIST, and so worthy of sorer punishment, (as the Apostle saith; Heb. 10.29.) And suppose that the judgement were to fall but upon the committers of this sin only, it were too great; but it would reach further to a whole Kingdom wherein it were committed, if by repentance; and execution of Justice, it were not prevented. For shall Abimelech King of Gerar, Gen. 20.9. fear the judgement of GOD upon his whole Kingdom, for one adultery only intended, and that in ignorance? And what may a whole Land then fear, for such abominable Idolatry in so clear a light of the Gospel? And shall the ten Tribes fear the wrath of GOD, Josh. 22.21. to be kindled against the whole Congregation of Israel, for the rebellion of the other two Tribes, in setting up an altar to sacrifice upon, as they thought? And what should we fear then against this whole Land, if there were altars reared up, not to worship GOD on, but the Idol of Babel. And if Achans theft, Josh. 7. suppose both the person and the sin was unknown; yea, suppose there was no suspicion, neither of the one nor of the other, spoiled all Israel of GOD'S presence, made them fall before their enemies, and made the LORD refuse to be in the midst of them, unless the sin and person was tried and searched, and the Anathema taken away? And would not Babel's Idolatry be much more effectual to spoil all the Land, if it were defiled therewith, of GOD'S presence; to make us fall before our enemies, and to make the LORD to departed from us, suppose it were but in one person, seeing the sin is more odious in the LORDS eyes, our light greater, and we more obliged than they were? And suppose that this abomination should be but in private families, yet it is a fretting canker, as the Apostle saith, 2. Tim. 2.17. that when it hath infected a member of the body, it will infect the rest, if it be not prevented by cutting off the festered member. And the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And experience hath taught, that by process of time, a little leck hath sunk a great ship: and one person infected with the pestilence, hath infected a whole Kingdom. The first Idolatry of the land of Canaan, began with Teraphim Jehovae, silver sanctified to the LORD, to be an Image, Jud. 17.5.3. but afterward it grew up to the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth, ch. 2.13. It was in the beginning but in one only family, the family of Micah, ch. 17.1. but in process of time, it passed from that family to the Tribe of Dan, ch. 18. and from that Tribe to all the rest of the Tribes, ch. 2.13.14. till at the last all Israel sinned, and did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. So there is no question, Sir, if your Majesty put not to your hand, as you have begun to do, it will get foot in this Land, and it would pass from families to Tribes, from private houses to Temples, from the worship of the round bread, to the worship of stocks and stones: and so by one degree to another, till it have made all guilty; what by infecting, what by communicating with their sins, and then bring the fearful vengeance of GOD upon all. And suppose, Sir, that you have not need to be taught of any; for that light and understanding wherewith the LORD hath anointed you, in so great a measure beyond many, doth teach you all things: and your Majesty hath laid so sure foundation of maintenance, both of Justice and Religion within your Land, and hath begun so substantially to prosecute the same (for the which, from our hearts we render glory and praise to GOD.) So that all further exhortation of your Majesty, would seem to be superfluous: Yet I must borrow leave at your Majesty, to be bold, with all humbleness of mind, and reverence of heart, to GOD, and to your Majesty, to beseech you, by the price of JESUS CHRIST your LORD, to stir up the bowels of your compassion over this desolate Country: For upon whom are the eyes of all Israel, 1. Kings 3.20. but upon you, Sir? And what King is there under Heaven, under whose Government the Gospel hath had so free a passage, and the Church of GOD hath had ●●ch●●●nrity and liberty, in such peace, for so long a 〈◊〉 a whole Kingdom, without Heresy or Schism, 〈◊〉 under your Majesty's Government? So that we were both ungrate to GOD, and to you, Sir, if with all thanksgiving we did not acknowledge it. Take therefore for examples these worthy Kings, who have received a good report in the Word of the LORD; and now resting from their labours, have received that incorruptible Crown of glory. Put on their affections, Sir, and follow their actions, that your report here, and Crown hereafter, may be equal, or rather above theirs. Let your heart melt, Sir, with good Josias, 2. Kings 22.19. not for our father's transgressions, as he did; but for our own sins, and the sins of this Land, Ezek. 9.4. For GOD regarded not the time of their ignorance, Acts 17.30.31. Rom. 2.16. when the Gospel shined not; but now since that light is broken forth, he admonisheth all men to repent, because he hath set a day (which cannot be far off) wherein he will judge every one by the Man CHRIST JESUS, according to his Gospel. And if that great Angel had not descended unto us, with that little Book open in his right hand, Rev. 10.1.2. and the Land had not been once purged of Idolatry, we should not have sinned; but now we have no cloak for our sin, John 15.21.24. Stir up your anger with Moses; Sir, who suppose he was the meekest man upon the face of the whole earth, Num. 12.3. yet when he saw the golden Calf, his anger was kindled, Exod. 32.19. that he broke the Tables of stone, the LORDS own work and writ, burned the Calf in the fire, brayed it in powder, scattered it on the waters, and made the people to drink thereof. Fellow the example of good Jehosaphat, Sir, who fought the LORD his GOD, 2. Chron. 27.4.20. walked in his precepts, lifted up his heart to the ways of the LORD, purged his land of Idolatry: And first sent Levits with his own Princes to teach all the Cities of his Kingdom the Law of the LORD: and after being admonished by the Prophet, for helping of the wicked, and loving them who hated the LORD, (suppose he was his neighbour King, joined in affinity with him) he so repent, that he went from the one end of his Kingdom to the other; even from Beersheba to mount Ephraim, and brought his people to the LORD their GOD, and established Religion and Justice in all the Cities of his Kingdom; and therefore the LORD was with him: he prospered, and had riches and honour in abundance. What joy of heart, Sir, brought Ezechias to the hearts of all the godly, as well indwellers as strangers, when he purged his land of Idolatry, 2. Chron. 29. and 30.31. broke the brazen Serpent which the people had abused, opened the doors of the Temple which were shut up, restored the worship of GOD, sent messengers with letters throughout all Israel, to convert them to the LORD their GOD: restored the Priests and Levites in their Ministry, as the LORD had commanded by his Prophets: spoke to their hearts, strengthened them in their offices, provided for their maintenance, that they might be encouraged in the Law of the LORD? Fellow these examples, Sir: send Pastors throughout all the borders of your Kingdom, to teach your subjects the Law of their LORD, and the Gospel of their salvation: establish Religion and Justice in all the Cities of your Kingdom. 'Cause the waters of life to run from the heart of your Country unto the borders thereof, that publicly and privately, the LORD may be but one, and his Name one, and he may be a sovereign King in all your Land, as it was prophesied and promised, Zech. 14.8.6. Establish Pastors in all your Kingdom: strengthen them in their offices, and speak to their hearts. Provide for their maintenance, that they be not distracted; but may be encouraged in the Law of their GOD, and in the execution of their Ministry. And when it is reported to your Majesty, or ye hear of any, be they many, or be they few; be they man, or be they wife; be it publicly, or be it secretly, in any of the Cities or parts in your Majesty's Kingdom, that they have gone out to entice others to Idolatry, or have committed Idolatry themselves, ye try it, search it, & seek it out most diligently, for so the LORD hath most straight commanded. And if it be true and certain that such abomination is done in your Kingdom, Take evil out of Israel, that he may have mercy on us, and multiply his blessings to us. And then may ye, Sir, (having done all these things) take GOD to record, that you are clean from the blood of all your people; because you have kept no mean back from them which your calling craved; but hath caused the whole counsel of GOD to be showed to them: so that if they perish, their own blood may be upon their own heads. And then shall foreign Nations and strangers say of you, Sir, as Hiram, and the Queen of Sheba said of Solomon, 1. Kings 5.7. and 10.8. Blessed be the LORD GOD who hath set such a wise and understanding Prince over Scotland, to build his Church, and to exercise Justice and judgement there: It was for the love the LORD had to his Church there, that he set such a wise and understanding Prince over them. Yea, the generations to come, Psal. 78.4. shall tell to their children, and their children's children, the great work of the LORD which he hath done by you, Sir, in this Land. I have heard your Majesty gravely protest, before GOD, in two General Assemblies, that it was one of your Majesty's greatest desires; and ye were even, as it were, ambitious of that work, to plant every Parochin within your Kingdom with a Pastor: that the posterities to come, might say, King JAMES the sixth hath done such a notable work in his days. Confirm yourself, Sir, in that purpose: For ye know, Sir, who hath said, I will honour them that honour me. There is no question, Sir, and I speak with confidence, if ye honour him in this Kingdom, and be faithful to him in the Government of it, he shall honour you; not only by making you to reign in that everlasting Kingdom; but also by lifting you up to be Ruler over more Kingdoms here. The LORD anointed David King over all Israel, yet he gave not the possession of it all at once after the death of Saul, but first proved him with the Government of one Tribe seven years and an half: and then finding him faithful over that, he placed him Ruler over all the rest, and established all Israel in his hand. So there is no question, and I am sure of it, if ye honour the LORD to the uttermost of your power, in the Government of this Kingdom, and give him a proof of your fidelity therein: that as he hath given you the undoubted right by birth, to be a King over more Kingdoms than this, so shall he make you Ruler of them, and establish them in your hands. Only, Sir, Be ye strong and courageous to do with all diligence, as the LORD hath commanded you in his Word, Josh. 1.6.7.8.9. and as ye see these faithful Kings have done before you. Decline neither to the right hand, nor to the left; and then assuredly I dare promise you, in the Name of the LORD, he shall not leave you, nor forsake you all your days, and none shall be able to stand before your face. And as he was with Josua and David, so shall he be with you. For the LORD is true who hath promised, & then shalt thou prosper in all thy ways. And consider upon the other part, who ever prospered unto the end, but these that walked as the LORD had commanded. For true is that which the LORD spoke by his Prophet to Asa; He is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found; but if ye will forsake him, he will forsake you, 2. Chron. 1.4.2. Was the LORD any longer with Saul, Joash, Amatzia, Uzzia, all Kings of Juda, than they were with him? No, no: but from time they forsook him, he forsook them. Because Saul despised the word of the LORD, in sparing whom he should not have spared, the LORD despised him from being King over Israel, and the Spirit of the LORD forsook him, 1. Sam. 15.23. and 16.15. Because Joash forsook the LORD, 2. Chron. 24.20. in permitting Idolatry, at the request of his Princes, the LORD forsook him and his Kingdom, and delivered them into the hands of their enemies. Because Amatzia did evil, and obeyed not the counsel of the Prophet, 2. Chron. 5.16. when he admonished him, the LORD determined to destroy him. Vzzia, all the days that he sought the LORD, the LORD prospered him, 2. Chron. 26.5.16.18. but from time he lifted up himself, to corrupt himself, & to trespass against the LORD his GOD, in passing the limits of his calling, and invading the Priest's office, he had no honour of the LORD, but was smitten with leprosy. But let all these things be far from your Majesty, since you see what every one of these have done to Kings, and Kingdoms before you: let your heart be constant before the LORD your GOD, all the days of your life, that priores & posteriores, 2. Chron. 25.26. be never registrat of your Majesty, as it was of them; neither in the Books of the LORDS Commentary before him, neither in the Chronicles of the Kings of Scotland; but that both your former and latter may be that which is good and right in the eyes of the LORD. That both the LORD may give this testimony to your own conscience, and to the conscience of all his children, that he gave of David, I have found you a man according to mine own heart, that will do all my will. And also, that it may be written of your Majesty in the Chronicles of the Kings of Scotland, as it was written of David, Ezechias, Josias, in the Chronicles of the Kings of Juda, That King JAMES the sixth, his heart was perfect toward the LORD his GOD all his days, and his Government was in such Peace and Justice, that after him there was none like him of all the Kings of Scotland: Neither was there any such before him, who did cleave unto the LORD his GOD, with all his heart, and followed all his Commandments, and neither declined to the right hand, nor to the left. Now the LORD grant to your Majesty, that ye may find this favour in his eyes, for his CHRIST'S sake. I have now taken this boldness, to offer these my labours unto your Majesty, as a testimony of my most humble and loyal heart unto your Majesty, as GOD the searcher of the heart knows. Your Majesty did exceedingly encourage me, to let it go forth unto the light; what by your Majesty's most gracious acceptation of mine endeavour, and most  censure, and approbation of my labours: what by your Majesty's humane counsel and advise, confirmed by your Majesty's Privilege and authority to me to publish the same. Such was Your Majesty's humanity to me, not only in these, but in all your actions, both public and private, with all your subjects, of whatsoever rank or degree. Ye show such humanity and affability, that that saying of Trajanus the Emperor, That a Prince should behave himself so to his subjects, as he would have them to do to him, if he were a private man, is verified in you, Sir; wherein certainly ye need not to give place to any of whatsoever rank: You express it so lively in all your actions, and I have found it for my own part by experience. So that Your Majesty hath often caused me to remember that notable saying of Titus that Roman Emperor, A subject should never go sad-hearted from the speech of his Prince. The which experience makes me to conceive hope, that Your Majesty will pardon this my boldness, will accept in good part this my small mite. I therefore most humbly desire Your Majesty to accept it, as from Your Majesty's most humble obedient servant and subject. For whose peace and prosperity, I am always earnest with the LORD. Now the GOD of all Peace, even that KING of Kings, power all light and grace in all abundance, more and more, upon Your Majesty; and so root and ground your heart in JESUS CHRIST, that ye may honour him more and more in your life and calling here, that ye may be honoured of him again, both in this life, and in that day, with immortal and everlasting glory. Amen.  
From Air the 18. of November 1602. Your Majesty's most humble subject, M. JOHN WELSCH.   

UNTO THE GODLY AND CHRISTIAN READER IN THIS LAND, Grace, Mercy and Peace, from GOD the Father, and JESUS CHRIST his Son, our LORD and only Saviour. Amen.  
WHen I think, Christian Reader, of the unsearchable mercies (for so I may call them) which the LORD, according to his rich grace, whereby he hath been abundant towards us, (if ever towards any) hath vouchsafed upon us; and of our great ingratitude and manifold iniquities wherewith we have recompensed him again; I cannot but tremble to think of these most fearful judgements of GOD, which we have most justly deserved, and which cannot but most assuredly fall upon us, unless with most speedy and earnest repentance, of all sorts, they be prevented and averted. For unto what Kingdom or Nation under heaven, hath GOD been more liberal in communicating the insearchable riches of his dear Son in his Gospel, Eph. 3 8. as unto us in this Nation? Nay, unto what one Kingdom under heaven hath God been so rich and superabundant in mercy, as unto this? There are but few Kingdoms upon whom the Lord hath caused the glorious light of his Gospel to shine upon, a gross darkness covering the most part of the Kingdoms of the earth: and yet Scotland hath found this favour in the eyes of the most high GOD. So that that may be most truly said of us, which is written of the land of Zabulon and Nephthali, Matth. 4.16. A people that sat in darkness saw great light: and unto them which sat in the region of death, light is risen up. Many Kingdoms upon whom this light is risen, are but in part delivered from the bondage of that second beast, Rev. 13.11. & 17.4. and from that abomination of Babel, a part worshipping the LORD, and a part worshipping Baal, I mean the idol of the Mass, and their idols of stock and stone. But our deliverance was full, from that bondage; for that was fulfilled in us which was promised and prophesied of old, Zech. 14 9 That the LORD should be but one, and his Name one. And in these Kingdoms where the LORD is but one, and his Name one; that is, where he only is worshipped, some of them have embraced him, but as a Prophet, to teach them, and as a Priest to satisfy for their sins, and to interceded for them: but not as a sovereign King to rule them, and govern them by that form of government, which he hath prescribed in his Word, with his own Laws, Offices, and Officers, retaining yet a part of that hierarchy of Babel, with some of her Laws, Offices, and Officers. But the LORD was rich in mercy towards us, in bestowing himself upon us, not only as a Prophet to teach us, and as a Priest to satisfy for our sins, and to interceded for us, but also as a sovereign King, to govern us with that self same form of government, which he hath commanded in his Word, and unto the which only he hath annexed the promises of his blessing and presence, with his own Laws, Offices, and Officers. So that as the Prophet saith, Zech. 14.9. He was not only one in us, and his Name one: but also a sovereign King in our land.  
O Scotland! what Nation was like unto thee, that had the Gospel so freely preached, his Sacraments so purely ministered, his censures and all the privileges of his Kingdom, in such liberty executed, as thou hadst? For what one Nation under heaven, hath God done so great things, as for thee? What one Kingdom is to be found in the whole earth, where Idolatry was so fully rooted out, wherein all the means of his glory, and all the privileges of his Kingdom, was so fully restored to their own integrity and perfection, as they were first instituted, wherein all these means of the Word, Sacraments, and Discipline, hath continued for so long a space in such peace, in such purity, in such liberty, without heresy or schism, as in thee? O Scotland! So that thy day hath been like the day of Joshua, When the Sun stood in Gibeon, and the Moon in Aialon, Josua 10.12. For I know not if ever Nation or Kingdom hath had so long a day of the Gospel, in such peace, purity, and liberty, as thou hast had? Or if ever Nation after us, shall have so long a day, after such a manner again. And it seems to me, that as the LORD confirmed Ezechiah of his promise, by causing, 2. Kings 20. the Sun to return back again miraculously, by the degrees whereby it went down: So the LORD hath confirmed his superabundant love towards us, in causing the light of the Gospel to return again (as it were) oft times, and that most wonderfully and miraculously, by the degrees whereby our iniquities in the righteous judgement of God, did hasten it to go down upon us. Yea, the blessing of Abraham hath come upon us. For he hath blessed them that blessed us, and hath cursed them who hath cursed us, he hath striven against them who hath striven against us, and hath made our oppressors to eat their own flesh, and to drink their own blood: no instrument form against thee, (O Church of Scotland!) hath ever prospered: and the tongue that hath risen against thee, the LORD hath condemned, that all flesh might know that GOD was thy Saviour, and the strong GOD of Jacob thy avenger. And certainly, if ever people might have been called Jephzibas, Esai 62.6. that is, the LORDS delight, or their land, Beula; that is, married unto him; the Church and Kingdom of Scotland might have been so called. For the LORD had delight in us, and our land hath a husband, even the LORD our Redeemer, he was an ornament unto us, Esa. 60 19 he set his beauty on us; Ezech. 16.14. he crowned us with glory, and a Diadem by the hand of our GOD, was set upon our heads, Esai 6.2. And true is that of us, which our Saviour spoke to his disciples, Luke 10.24. Many Kings and Prophets hath desired to see the things that we have seen, and hear the things that we have heard, and have not seen them nor heard them. So who are so ladened with mercy and kindness as we have been? for we have been made the head and not the tail, Deut. 28.13. as the LORD promised. And surely if ever people should have been Joshurim, Deut. 32.15. that is upright and strait in the eyes of the LORD, we should have been so. No, who should have been so holy as we? Who so strong in CHRIST, and rooted and grounded in him, as we? Coloss. 2.7. Who so rich in all grace, and fruitful in all good works, as we? For who had so many and so glorious means, to have made us to have abounded in all grace, as we had? What could the LORD have done more to us, than he hath done, Isai. 5.4. For we wanted no mean that ever the LORD commanded in his Word, either to have bred grace in us, or to have preserved it and increased it? But they to whom much is given, much shall be required at their hands again. For as the LORD made us a spectacle of his mercy, wherein he did demonstrat the riches of his free grace in CHRIST JESUS, unto all the Kingdoms of the earth, and above them all: So it had been our part proportionably, to have met him with thankfulness again: and to have been examples of all grace, godliness, righteousness, and of all good works, unto all others, and above all others. But, alace! sinful Nation, laden with iniquities, Esai 1.4. who is so sinful as thou art? What Nation so polluted with all abomination and wickedness, as thou art? Thy iniquities are more than the sand of the sea, they are grown up so high, that the top of them reach up to the very heavens, Hosea 9.7. and the cry of them is like, yea beyond the cry of Sodom: there is such a burden of iniquity upon this Land, that (considering all circumstances both of the means, and of the time and space the LORD hath given us to repent) I know not if ever Nation, was so great in the eyes of the LORD as this Land is. For may not that which the Prophet spoke of Juda. Ezechiel 22. be most justly said of thee? O Scotland! For art thou not replenished with blood, from corner to corner, so that blood touches blood? Are not thy Nobles in thee, every one ready to shed blood? In thee the father and the mother are despised: in the midst of thee, the widow and the fatherless are oppressed: In thee the very abominations of the Gentiles are committed. The discovering of the Father's shame, and adultery with thy neighbour's wife: thou art so laden with adulteries, incests, and whoredooms, that the Land groans under thee: thou hast profaned his Sabaths, despised his Law, contemned his Gospel, withholden from him the fruits of his Kingdom, and hast trodden under foot the blood of CHRIST, and hast grieved that Spirit of grace. So that when I think of the number and greatness of our sins, I cannot but wonder that the LORD should not have withdrawn his Kingdom long since from us, and have given it unto others, that would have brought forth the fruits thereof, Matth. 21.41. Yea, I wonder, that he hath not caused the Land to vomit us out, for the abominations and sins wherewith we have defiled it, in so great a light. And surely, when I think of the severity of the Justice of GOD, in punishing other Nations and Kingdoms, for the contempt of his Gospel, and the withholding of the fruits of his Kingdom from him, my soul trembles. For wherefore did the LORD reject the natural branches, that chosen generation, of whom the Fathers was, and of whom CHRIST was according to the flesh, Rom. 11. 2●. & 9.5. and gave them and their posterity over to the hardness of their hearts this 1500. years and more, to be damned for ever and ever in that everlasting darkness, and yet his wrath is not turned back: but because they would not be gathered, and knew not in that their day, the things that belonged to their peace, and would not render to him the fruits of his Kingdom in due season? Matth. 23.37. Luke 19.42.43. Mat. 21.41. And wherefore did the LORD remove his Candlestick, Rev. 2.5. from a great many of the Churches, both of the East, and of the West, which were planted by the Apostles, and were once lanterns of light, and hath given them over to strong delusions to believe lies, 2. Thes. 2.10.12. the one to the impiety of Mahomet, and the savage Tyrant of the Church: the other to the bondage of that second beast, and fearful darkness of that bottomless pit. Rev. 13.11. & 9.1. But because they received not the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness, as the Apostle saith? 2. Thes. 2.12. Now if GOD spared not them, but gave them over to a most fearful bondage, both of soul and body, both spiritual and corporal, temporal and eternal; how should we not fear, as great, or rather greater judgements, seeing we had all these as examples before us, to have forewarned us, and to have made us to fear? For we are not to think, as our Saviour saith to the Galileans, that they were greater sinners than we; but unless we all repent, we shall likewise perish, Luke 13.3. And as though all our former sins were too light to pull down and to hasten the LORDS fearful departing from us, this darkness of the bottomless pit, Rev. 9.1. which is spreading itself again in this corner of the Country, and this abomination of desolation, the idol of the Mass, which is set up in the private families of this Country, is added unto all the rest, and above all the rest. So that it is to be feared, unless it be prevented by a most speedy and earnest repentance of all sorts in this Land, that as we have been lifted up to heaven through his Gospel, Matth. 11.23. so shall we be thrown down in the bottomless gulf of the LORDS fearful wrath and vengeance: and as we have been made a spectacle of his mercy unto all Nations, and above all other; so we shall be made a most fearful spectacle of his wrath unto all other Nations, and above all other. O therefore that the LORD would power upon us that Spirit of grace and deprecation, that even from the house of David to the house of Levi: Zech. 12.10.11.12. that is, from the King's house, to the Ministry, and from them to the people, from man to wife, that we might all look up to him, whom we have pierced through with our iniquities: and mourn upon him, as for our first or only begotten son: and that we might mourn publicly & privately, together and a part, every Congregation by themselves, and every family by themselves, and every person by himself. Oh, that we had hearts to repent; at the least, in the evening of this our day, before the Sun went down altogether upon us: and then there is no question the LORD would not remove his Candlestick from us, Rev. 2.5. nor make his glory to departed, 1. Sam. 4.22. but would continue his covenant with us and our posterity, and would cover all our enemies faces with shame, as with a garment: yea, he would scatter that darkness that is beginning to overspread this Land again, and Dagon should fall before the ark of the Lord: 1. Sam. 5.3.4 and his last fall should be worse than his first. Let me therefore be bold with you, to beseech you, yea to charge you in the bowels of JESUS CHRIST, by the price of his blood, and by his glorious appearing to judgement, as ye would have it comfortable to you, and as ye would have his glory to remain with us and our posterity: yea, as ye would not be arraigned guilty, in that great day of the LORDS banishment, and removing of his glorious presence out of this Land. (For if we repent not, the LORD, as he hath begun to departed from a great part of this Country, so shall he most assuredly departed from the rest of this Land.) I say, Let me beseech you, that every one of you would try and search your sins, by the light of his Spirit in his Word, both the sins of our persons and callings, that we would humble our hearts for them, and power them out as water in his bosom, mourning for them, and for the sins of the Land: Ezec. 9.4. and that we would turn our feet to walk in all his precepts and commandments. And let us who are the Watchmen over the house of Israel, begin first, Ezec. 3.2. & 33. For the judgement of GOD will begin at his own house, and at the Sanctuary. For if we that are the lights of our people be darkness, how great must their darkness be? And if we that is the salt of the earth to season them with grace, become unsavoury, wherewith shall either they or we be seasoned? Matth. 5.14. & 6.23. And if that we that is the stomach and the heart; as it were, become senseless, and dead; is it any wonder suppose all the rest of the members be dead and senseless? Let us therefore first convert our selves, and then let us with tears and mourning cry aloud to our Congregations, and spare not. Let us lift up our voices as a Trumpet, that the deafest and deadest may hear. Let us show them their sins and defections, that at the least, they perish not for want of warning, and so their blood be craved at our hands, Ezec. 3.3.4.5. Let us be instant in season, and out of season, to preach the Word, improve, rebuke, exhort, with all doctrine and long-suffering, as we are most gravely charged by the Spirit of GOD. Let us admonish every man, and instruct every man publicly, and privately: that we may do our endeavour at the least, to present every man perfect, Col. 1.28. as a pure Virgin to JESUS CHRIST. And if they will not hear, let us say to the earth, Earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD: let us rise up and contend with the mountains, and let us make the hills to hear our voice, and take them as witnesses against them. And then shall we have this comfort in the days of our afflictions, that we have not kept back the word of the holy One. Job. 6.10. And then shall we be a sweet smelling savour in CHRIST, as well in them that perish, as in them that are saved. Let you that are the people walk worthy of that great salvation that is brought unto you, and be fruitful in all good works, denying all ungodliness, and worldly lusts: living godly, soberly, and righteously, waiting for that blessed hope, and glorious appearing of that great GOD our Saviour, the LORD JESUS, 1. Thess. 2.12. Heb. 2.3. Tit. 2.11.12. And you that are Princes of the Land, and Magistrates of the Country, Remove iniquity from your tents, and let not your families be houses of iniquity, Job 11.14. Mic. 26.10. Mat. 5.16. Phil. 2.15. Shine before your tenants, servants, and householders', as lanterns of light; for such Master, such servant. Be examples to them of godliness, sobriety, and righteousness. Cleanse your hearts and hands from blood, oppressions, whoredoms, adulteries. Be an eye to the blind, and a foot to the lame, and a staff of comfort to the oppressed. Deal your bread to the hungry, and hid not your eyes from your own flesh, Esai. 58.7. maintain the godly, and be a terror to the wicked, Rom. 13.3.4. That your faces may chase away iniquity, and fin may hid its self from your presence. Take vengeance on all evil doers, and spare not where the LORD bids strike. And because a great many of you, through your most cruel and barbarous covetousness & sacrilege (the like whereof I think hath not been heard of, no not among the Turks, and barbarous Americans, that they spoil their GOD, and let their worship decay for want of maintenance, as ye do in Scotland:) are the causes of the everlasting damnation of a great part of the poor people, for want of the preaching of the Word of salvation unto them. For their blood are found under your wings: Jerem. 2.34. and their blood cry more strongly from the low hells, to the high heavens against you, for wrath and vengeance, than ever Abel's blood did against his brother Cain, Gen. 4.10.  
Now therefore at the last, repent you of it. Purge your hands of it; and at the least vouchsafe so much upon every Church; as may sustain a Pastor to break the bread of life unto them: and think the damnation of so many millions of souls of your poor brethren, who might have been saved, for aught that ye know, if they had had the Gospel of salvation preached unto them: too great guiltiness, suppose ye had not blood upon blood. Otherwise, if ye will not, I call heaven and earth to witness against you, Deut. 30.19. that the indignation of the LORD shall root you and your posterity out of the land of the living: and their blood that perish for want of teaching, shall be laid to your charge, and ye shall be arraigned as murderers of their souls, in that great day. And not only that curse shall fall upon you, which was commanded to be pronounced upon Mount Hebal, Deut. 27.23.18. for causing the blind to go out of the way, whereunto all the people should say, Amen: But also, that most fearful and irrevocable sentence shall be pronounced, and executed upon you in that great day, (by the Judge of the whole earth,) Depart from me ye cursed, in that everlasting fire of hell, to be damned with the Devil and his Angels for evermore. Matth. 25.41. Lay it therefore to your hearts, and flatter not yourselves in a carnal and vain presumption. Be not cruel to your own souls, and to the souls of the poor people any more: otherwise ye shall most assuredly drink of the wine of the wrath of God, and be casten in the great wine-fat of his wrath, where there ye shall be tormented day and night. Let every one of us therefore in the conscience of so great and singular mercies, which the LORD hath vouchsafed upon us, in such a plentiful measure, Harden not our hearts while it is called to day: but let us rend them, and turn them unto the LORD our GOD; Heb. 4.7. Joel. 2.13. and let us not delay it, while he calls upon us by his word, and spreads out his arms unto us. Otherwise, if we will not, but despise the day of our salvation. than I protest unto you in the Name of the great GOD, that he will hear the cry of our sins, and will abhor us greatly, as he did Israel, that he shall forsake his glorious Tents and Tabernacles in this land: and first give over his strength to captivity, and his glory to the hands of our enemies, Psal. 78.49.60.61. etc. And then accounting no more of us, then of the mire in the street, he shall deliver us over, both old and young. Pastor and people, to the sword of the enemy. For this, I dare say, if he take his Kingdom from us, he shall not let Scotland be a free Kingdom, Matth. 21.43. as it hath been before. For true is he who hath said it, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish, and these Nations shall be utterly destroyed, Esai. 60.12. And if he spare not his own strength and glory, I mean his glorious Gospel, but deliver it over into captivity; into the hands of his enemies, he shall have no compassion of us, but shall surrender us over to the edge of the sword to be consumed thereby: and as the LORD hath been more abundant in his mercy towards us, then towards any others: so shall his wrath be accordingly. For if other Kingdoms or Nations, yea if Tyrus or Sidon, Sodom or Gomorrha: Matth. 11.21.22. yea if the Turks or barbarous Americans had heard the things that we have heard, they would have repent long since in sackcloth and ashes: and therefore our condemnation shall be heavier, than any condemnation under heaven. Now therefore if there be any consolation in CHRIST, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, Philip. 2.1. if any love to his glory, to his blood, to his Gospel, and if there be any compassion and mercy in your hearts, to this poor and sinful land, and his poor Church and Kingdom therein: repent you of your sins, reconcile you to GOD, take hold of his blood, wash you and cleanse you in it, until ye be white and bright in his eyes. Rev. 7.14. Bring him into the chambers of your hearts, and make him to dwell in you, Eph. 3.17. Galat. 6.14. that he may crucify your sins, and bury them in the grave with him, Col 2.12.13. and may quicken and raise you up together wi●h him: and may set you in those heavenly places with himself, Eph. 2 5 6. And then having rooted and grounded your hearts in him, Col. 2.7. and having filled your souls with the abundance of his presence, bring him out first to your families, and then to your tenants, servants, neighbours and people. According to your callings instruct them, rebuke them, admonish them, correct them, and reform them, and rest not till ye have set him up as a LORD, and a King in their hearts; or at the least, till you have obtained this assurance in your consciences that ye have been so faithful and sincere in your callings, that if CHRIST be hid from any, to whom your callings or occasions have reached, he is hid from such only as perish.  
Now, oh! that the LORD would give us these hearts, and so purge us, that we might be thus fruitful to the praise of his glory: then assuredly would he repent him of all the evil that he hath thought against us; then should he have delight in us, & in our posterity: and then these Canaanites, (I mean the relics of that cursed generation of Babel, the Church of Rome) which is yet left unrooted out of this land, to try us and tempt us, if we will serve the LORD our GOD, and to be pricks and thorns in our side, should not bring us in bondage again, but should be made tributaries to JESUS CHRIST: yea, our latter estate, should be more glorious than the former. Now let us find this favour in thy eyes, O LORD, our Redeemer: and glorify thy great Name among us, by converting our hearts, at the least the hearts of all thy children, in mercy rather, then by confounding and consuming of us in thy wrath and indignation. For wherefore should thy enemies say, Take up their GOD and their Gospel? Wherefore should they, O LORD our GOD, blaspheme thy holy Name, when they shall see thee angry with thy own inheritance, and redeemed ones? Oh! turn us unto thee, and put us not away from thy face: and let not those that are thy enemies, triumph over us. Purchase thyself an everlasting Name, through our conversion and repentance, that the enemy and the avenger may be still: and our hearts may be enlarged, and our mouths may be opened, to proclaim the everlasting mercies, and to shout forth thy praises. Turn you unto him, you that are his children, and delight in his Tents. You that love the beauty of Zion, and the glorious presence of his Redeemer, fill your privy chambers with strong cries and many tears. 'Cause heaven and earth to be filled with groans and sighs of his own Spirit in you: and take a claught of that Prince of life, ere he remove altogether: and before he have stolen himself far away, that he cannot be found again. And wrestle with him, as Jacob did, and let him not departed out of your hearts: entreat him, yea enforce him, as it were, by your tears and sorrowful cries, not to leave his own Tents and Tabernacles in this Land: not to give over his glorious Gospel, which is his strength and glory, into captivity, in the hands of their enemies. Remember that he cannot abide the intercession of his own Spirit in his own. He cannot hid his eyes from his own flesh and blood: he can deny nothing to his own beloved Son, that makes intercession for his Saints. Let us therefore step up to that Throne of grace with all confidence: and assuredly, as he is true who hath promised, we shall find grace and mercy in the time of this our need: both comfort to our own hearts, and it may be peace in our days, that our eyes shall not see the evils that are to come: and at that bright appearing of our LORD of life, all tears shall be wiped away from our eyes. We shall be clothed with those long white robes, and shall be fed with the fatness of his house, and shall drink of the rivers of his pleasures, which is at his right hand for evermore. For Zions sake in this Land, Christian Reader, have I thus written unto thee: and for Jerusalem's cause, have I not kept silence at this time, that her glory and wont brightness may be renewed, & that the Church of Scotland which was the beauty of Europe, and the praise of the whole earth, for her liberty, purity, and discipline, might be established in the same; and her salvation and righteousness, might break forth as a burning lamp, to all the Nations of the earth: and that other Churches in other Kingdoms, which desired to see our beauty and spiritual glory and accounted them blessed which might have had the occasion to have dwelled in our Tents, to have seen and enjoyed the same: yea who would have been content to have bought it with the price of their blood to their posterity: that they, I say, may see the continuance thereof and may rejoice. Turn thou, O LORD our GOD, our hearts unto thee, that thy glorious presence may be continued with us for ever, for JESUS CHRIST his sake, our LORD and Redeemer, to whom be all praise and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.  
Now I come to this matter in hand: the occasion of it was this. There was one who was sometimes an hearer of the word with me, who show me that he had been in conference with a Papist, and he had brought him thus far, that if he would show him of any that professed our Religion before Martin Luther, he would renounce his Papistry, and therefore desired me to set them down in writ. The which I did: and set it down in this form, as thou seest it here. So this being carried to M. Gilbert Brown, he writs an answer to it, and sent it to me. Unto the which I have made this reply. Thou hast them all three here: first, that which I did write, than his answer to it, and then my reply to his answer.  
Indeed it is true Christian Reader, that there was many things that did hinder me & withdraw me from this resolution, either to make any answer to it at all, or yet to let it go forth to the light. As first, that so many things have been written already by the lights & lanterns of this age against that ruinous Babel, that all further convictions seemed to be superfluous. Next, the conscience of my own tenuity and weakness, together with a continual burden of a fourfold teaching every week in my ordinary charge, beside others both private and public duties, which not only my own people, but also this desolate Country craved, whereby I was let to afford that time and study unto it, as the gravity of such a matter required. And last of all, the consideration both of the person and work of the adversary▪ that neither the one nor the other would be accounted worthy of any answer at all himself being both rejected and excommunicated, according to the express commandment of the holy Ghost, as an Heretic, being perverted and damned in his own conscience, and delivered over unto Satan, that he might learn, if it were possible, not to blaspheme the everlasting truth of GOD any more, Tit. 3.10.11.12. 1. Cor. 5.5. 1. Tim. 1.20. And also denounced his rebel, for his treasonable attempts, both against this Church and Kingdom: his work also being so foolish in its self, as both I heard his Majesty affirm, that he was a foolish reasoner in it: and also I hope, the indifferent Reader shall see the same: his reasons & arguments being also so oft answered unto by the learned of our side, so that it seemed but actum agere, to make any further answer thereunto: yet notwithstanding of all these impediments, these motions and reasons prevailed with me at the last, both to answer it, and also to let it go forth to the open view and sight of all men: to wit, the conscience of that duty which I owe unto the truth of GOD, being so highly blasphemed and evil spoken of: the unfeigned love of the salvation of my Countrymen, who for the most part, are blinded with the smoke of the darkness of that bottomless pit: the railing and thrasonical bragging of the adversary, both by word and writ, that it would never be answered: and that the Ministry would never suffer an answer to come to light, because they knew the answer to be unworthy, and none other was able to answer to it: the most earnest pressing of a great many of my brethren, who knew the lamentable estate of this blind Country: the constant desire of all men in this Country to see the same: together with his Majesty's most gracious acceptation of my endeavour, and most  judgement of this my labour, and most humane counsel to publish the same, which did not a little encourage me: and last of all, the express commandment of the holy Ghost, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes: the which if it have place in any thing, it must have place here, where not only this seeming wise in his own eyes, would undoubtedly follow upon my silence, but also a seeming wise in the eyes of all this part of the Country almost: both to the prejudice of the everlasting truth of GOD, and also to the stumbling of the weak, the further obduring of the obstinate, and the wounding of the hearts of the godly therein. Augustin. lib. de Trinitate, cap. 3. & lib. cont. Mend. cap. 6. hath a notable sentence to this purpose. It is to be wished, saith he, where heresy flowrishes, that all these who have any gift of writing, that they all writ, suppose they should write not only of the selfsame matters or questions, but also the selfsame things or arguments, suppose perchance in other words. For, saith he, it is expedient that Heretics understand that there are not only one or two, but many in the camps of the Catholics, who dare with open face meet them. And he saith, There is another commodity that comes by the writing of many: to wit, that by this means, the Catholics books themselves are more shortly and easily brought unto the hands of all men, so that while as some fall upon one, and some fall upon others, yet notwithstanding they are all instructed to use the same weapons in their common dangers. The which how fitly it agrees unto this purpose of mine, I leave it to the judgement of all men, who know the estate of this blinded Country, wherein that darkness of the Antichristian Kingdom is so far spread, the confident brags of the adversary are so universally credited, the people scattered as sheep without shepherd●, Matth. 9.36. lying wide open to all the assaults of the Devil: and the deceits of these ravenous wolves, and their hands so full of Papistical books, the deadly weapons of their own destruction, without any one book, almost, for aught that I know, whereby either these that are perverted, may be revoked from their errors, or these that are assaulted, may be sustained from yielding to the adversary, or those that are weak may be confirmed. Not unlike the miserable estate wherein the Hebrews were brought unto, through the tyranny of the Philistims, wanting both sword and spear in the time of their warfare, having no smiths in their whole land, whereby they were compelled to go to their enemies to sharpen their cowter and sock, and other instruments, 1. Sam. 13.19.20 22. Now as for the work itself, I say nothing of it, but only recommend it to the blessing of GOD in all your hearts and consciences. The which also hath been my earnest desire to GOD, from the first time that I put in hand to the pen, continually, that his effectual presence might be joined therewith, both to convict the contra●● minded, and to confirm the godly. Read ye it theref●●● with that affection of heart wherewith it was written, an● desire ye that blessing in the reading of it, as I did in th● writing of it: and then I hope through GOD'S blessing, ye shall reap some profit by it. Now the GOD of all mercy, and the Father of all light, illuminat all our eyes more and more, and cause the light of his glorious Gospel to shine in our hearts, and bless all the means thereof, that we may be the children of light here, and may be partakers of that everlasting weight of glory hereafter in CHRIST JESUS. Amen. From Air the 18. December 1602.  
Yours in the Lord, M. john Welsch, Preacher of Christ's Gospel.   


AN INDEX OF THE SECTIONS of M. Welsch Treatise.  
SEction I. The Introduction. page 1.  
Section II. Whither the Church of Rome be a true Church? page 4  
Section III. Concerning the infallibility of the Church, and her immunity from error. page 12  
Section iv Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church, and the Reformed not true Churches? page 44  
Section V Concerning the Judge of Controversies; namely, Wither God speaking in the Scriptures be Judge of Controversies? page 71  
Section VI Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants. page 85  
Section VII. Wither a man by the help of the grace of God, may perfectly keep the Commandments? page 93  
Section VIII. Wither a man by his freewill may resist the will of God? page 104  
Section IX. Concerning transubstantiation, and Christ's real and substantial body and blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. page 106  
Section X. Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. page 131  
Section XI. Concerning the degrees and means whereby the sacrifice of the Mass crap in. page 170  
Section XII. Of the manifold abuses of the Mass. page 189  
Section XIII. Concerning Confession and Absolution by the Priest. page 219  
Section XIV. Of Extremeunction, whither it be a Sacrament? page 2●1  
Section XV. Concerning Imposition of hands, whither it be a Sacrament? page 226  
Section XVI. Concerning Marriage, whither it be a Sacrament? page 231  
Section XVII. Concerning the merit of Good Works. page 240  
Section XVIII. Concerning works of Supererogation. page 246  
Section XIX. Concerning Christ's descending into Hell. page 253  
Section XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery and the Reformed Religion. page 258  
Section XXI. Concerning Justification by Faith. page 263  
Section XXII. Concerning the authority of the Fathers. page 270  
Section XXIII. Concerning the visibility of the Church, and which ●he visible Church may make defection? page 278  
Section XXIV. Where our Religion was before Luther? Or a Catalogue of them who professed our Religion in the midst of Popery. page 314  
Section XXV. That the Reformed Churches have not renewed old condemned Heresies. page 328  
Section XXVI. That the Church of Rome renewed and maintaineth old condemned Heresies. page 337  
Section XXVII. Concerning Antichrist. page 343  
Section XXVIII. That the Pope is Antichrist. page 346   

An Index of the Sections contained in M. Crafords' Treatise.  
SEction I. Showing that the principles of Papists are bloody, treasonable and rebellious, against the person and authority of Princes, and peace of Kingdoms. And the excuses of H. T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies are proved to be frivolous. page 445  
Section II. Showing that no Oath or Bond can oblige a Papist, and that they hold it as a principle, that no faith is to be kept to Heretics. page 457  
Section III. Showing that the Pope, and Synagogue of Rome, have been the grand Authors of Wars, and Combustions, and Confusions in the Christian world both before and since the Reformation. page 465  
Section iv That the continual practice of Papists ever since the Reformation, hath been to plot and practise bloody and treasonable Conspiracies, Affassinations and Murders, both of Princes and People, who profe● the Reformed Religion. page 474  
Section V Containing some instances in particular of the barbarous and inhuman cruelty of Papists to Protestants, where they had the power over them. page 490  
The Conclusion. Holding forth the hazard that the Churches of Britain and Ireland are in, of being ruined by Antichrist. page 5●8    

A LEARNED, PIOUS, AND ELABORAT Treatise; wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of Controversy betwixt the Reformed Churches and Papists, are solidly debated, and the truth of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches (especially of the Churches of Scotland) evidently demonstrated, and the falsehood and error of the Popish Religion and doctrine plainly discovered, and solidly refuted by Scripture, Fathers, and also by some of their own Popes, Doctors, Cardinals, and other Popish Writers. By way of Reply to one M. Gilbert Brown Priest.  

SECTION I. THE INTRODUCTION.  

M. Gilbert Brown. An Answer to a certain Libel or Writing, sent by M. JOHN WELSCH to a Catholic, as an Answer to an objection of the Roman Church, etc.  
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 eyesalve 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 forbidden that we Catholics, 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 heretics in their days, as Ireneus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Basile, Gregory, chrysostom, 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 shall give some examples afterward, as the heresy 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 yourselves from the suspicion of it. Thirdly, ye challenge us and our doctrine with the crimes of novelty and heresy: And so ye conclude, 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 mouths, 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 rend his clothes, and said Christ blasphemed, Matth. 26.65. when he spoke but the truth. As for your golden styles which you take to yourselves of Catholics, 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 poison 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 sheep's 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 foretell it: And did not the false Apostles in Ephesus, call themselves the Apostles of Christ, and yet they were found liars? And did not the synagogue of Satan call herself 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 Abraham's seed, and they that sat in Moses chair, and was the successors of Aaron, condemn the Saviour of the world, John 8.37. Matth. 23.2. Therefore not by your styles, but by your fruits ye must be tried, Matth. 7.16. For if ye be Catholics, etc. 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.    

SECTION II. Whither the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church?  
ANd because, Christian Reader, by this style of Catholic, which they ascrive only to their Church, they cause the simple to err, and leads many blindfold to damnation; therefore I will take this vizard from them. Ye are not the Catholic Church, as ye style yourself, and thus I prove it. Pope Pius the fifth, who wrote a Catechism according to the decree of the Council of Trent, (Catechism. Conc. Trident. in expositione Symb.) He there saith, That the Church which is called the body of Christ, whereof he is the head, is called Catholic, because it is spread in the light of one faith from the East to the West, receiving men of all sorts, containing all the faithful which have been from Adam, even until this day, or shall be hereafter to the end of the world professing the true faith, etc.  
Now I reason thus: The Catholic Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter to the end of the world, or else Pope Pius, and the Fathers of Trent errs. But the Roman Church comprehends not all the faithful from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter: Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. Choose you now which of these ye will deny. The proposition, I suppose, ye will not: for than ye should bring two inconveniencies; the one upon Pope Pius, and the Fathers of Trent, that they have erred in defining the Catholic Church, and so the Church and the Pope may err. The other is upon yourself, who said that your Church hath not erred. And so ye lose your still of a defender of the Catholic faith: for this is a chief point of their faith, that the Church cannot err. I hope therefore that these are Labyrinths which ye will not wittingly cast yourself into, and so you must hold fast the proposition. All the question is then of the assumption, Wither the Roman Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now, and which shall be to the end of the world, or not? First, I say, a particular Church comprehends not all the faithful from Adam, etc. But the Roman Church is a particular Church, or else the Fathers of the Council of Basile, and Verratus a Papist errs; for they call the Roman Church a particular Church. We grant, say they, (Basil. Concil. Epist. Synod. 3 Verratus disputationum contra Lutheranos, Tom. 6. de authoritate & potest. univers. Eccles. cap. 1.) that the Roman Church is a principal Church among others; but while you commend a part, forget not the whole. And they say, The Universal Church comprehends the Roman Church. Choose you then whither will you contradict the Fathers of the Council of Basile, and a Papist Verratus, and be so absurd as to call the arm of the body the whole body; an arm of the Ocean sea, the whole Ocean sea; or to go from your tittle, that the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church?  
Secondly, the Catholic Church comprehends them that were before Christ: but the Church of Rome comprehends not them; for there was a Church ere ever there was a Church at Rome; and the Roman Church comprehends none but them that acknowledges the Pope to be the head of the Church. But those that were before Christ never did that: Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church.  
Thirdly, the Catholic Church is invisible: for at the least, neither are they that are glorified, neither are they that are to be born, visible. But ye will not have the Roman Church, but always visible: Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church.  
Fourthly, if the Roman Church be the Catholic Church, then either it shall follow, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, or else that the Roman Church wants a visible head. Choose you whither of these ye will; for the one ye must, if ye will have the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church. But to say that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, I suppose ye dare not be so blasphemous: for the glorified Saints, and Peter himself, are of the Catholic Church; or else (as I said before) Pope Pius and the Fathers of Trent errs. And so then if ye will make him head of the Catholic Church, ye must make him head of the glorified Saints, and of Peter also. So then choose you whither will ye leave the style of Catholic, which ye claim as proper to your Church; or will ye have the Pope the head of the triumphant Church in heaven? Or last of all will ye have your Roman Church to want a visible head? One of these ye must choose. So to end this point, this style of Catholic, it is like the numbering of the people by David: for as it brought him in a wonderful strait, when he saw it behoved him to choose, either seven years' famine, or four months flying before his enemies, or three days pestilence, 2. Sam. 24. So this tittle of yours, if you will abide by it, brings you in a wonderful strait: for ye have not the choice of one of three evils; but these three things must ye either choose, or else let this style of Catholic go; one of you fight against another, the Church invisible, and the Pope not to be the head of the Church. Of the which, the least of these is more able to overthrow your Kingdom, than they all were able to have overthrown the Kingdom of David; for they are the main pillars of your Kingdom, your unity, your visibility, your Pope's supremacy; all which you must either lose, or else let your style of Catholic go from your Church. But how will ye wrestle yourself out of this? For if ye will believe the Fathers of Trent, and Pope Pius, in defining the Catholic Church, ye cannot eschew these inconveniencies. And if you will not believe them, that they spoke truly in that point, ye must accuse them of error. And so the Church hath erred, the Pope hath erred, and yourself hath erred, that said your Church hath the truth in all things. And surely as Cajaphas being high Priest that year, spoke the truth, when he said that one must die for the people, John 11.50. and not the whole Nation perish, suppose in an evil sense. So have the Fathers of Trent, and Pope Pius here spoken truly, both according to the Scriptures; for the Church is called the assembly of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. And that new Jerusalem which is from above, which is the mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. And also according to the Fathers, Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. & Bernard in Cant. c. 78. & August. de catechis. rud. cap. 20. & Gregor. moral. in Job. lib. 28. cap. 9 who affirmeth that the Church is the company of the predestinate, and all the elect are within the compass of it, & are citizens of it. So as Christ said to the Jews, Matth. 12.27. If I cast out devils by the prince of devils, by whom then casteth your children them out? So if we speak now by an erroneous spirit, that says the Catholic Church comprehends all the elect, that was, is, and shall be, and the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholic Church. By what spirit hath your Council and Pope and these Fathers spoken the same? So not your children, but your Fathers shall be your Judges.  
Ye did mark some contradiction, as ye thought, between me and some others, unto the which I will answer in the own time. Let me therefore mark this one now, and mark it, Reader. Ye have heard now how that all these with one voice have said, that the Catholic Church comprehends all the elect, that was, is, and shall be. Is it any heresy then to hold this point? I think you will not, nor dare not say it. What will you say then to your general Council of Constance, Sess 15. art. 1. 6. who condemned John Hus for the same doctrine, the first and sixth article, for saying that there is an Universal Church▪ which is the company of the predestinate, and as it is taken in this sense, it is an article of our faith? For these, among the rest, was this pure innocent condemned and burnt as an heretic, & his doctrine as heresy: which of these will ye say now have erred, whither the general Council of Constance, or the Fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregory, Augustine, Clement, and Bernard? For surely if the latter erred not, than not only did the Council of Constance err, but also have brought upon themselves innocent blood, in condemning the innocent, and the truth in him. And if the Council of Constance erred not, in condemning these articles of John Hus, then have they condemned the doctrine of the Fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregory, Augustine, etc. and their persons, in the person of John Husband Choose which of them ye will. I speak the truth to thee in Christ (Reader) be not deceived. But open thy eyes and behold the verity itself condemned by a general Council, and the professor of it burned for an heretic: but his blood and the blood of the rest of the martyrs of God, is found in this whore of Babel, and therefore one day she shall be recompensed for all her iniquity, Rev. 17.6. and 18.24. Go out of her therefore, and save thy soul, that thou be not tormented in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone with her for evermore, Rev 18.45. Otherwise I call heaven and earth to witness against thee, that thou shalt die in her sin, and the smoke of thy torment shall ascend for evermore, Rev. 14.1.  
What now will you say to these things, that your Church is not the Catholic Church, but a part of it only; and is only Catholic, because of the Catholic doctrine that she professes? But if this be true, wherefore then did your general Council condemn it in John Hus, and burn him for that doctrine, which both yourself must confess to be true, and is agreeable to Scripture, Fathers, and your own Popes?  
Next, I say, suppose when ye are brought to this straight, ye must say so: yet for all this, not only call ye your Church Catholic, because of the soundness of doctrine which ye suppose she professes, but also and specially to make the simple believe, that there is no salvation out of her: As appeareth by the Epistle of Cardinal Cusanus, writing to the Bohemians, Cochlaeus histor. Hussitar. lib. 21. Therefore ye call it the only true Church, and the Catholic Church: for out of the particular Church there is salvation, but out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.  
thirdly, I say, as the Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Judas, are entitled Catholic, not because of the soundness of their doctrine, which is common to the Epistles of Paul also, and all the rest of the Scripture, which in that respect may also be called Catholic, but because they are written generally to all: So the Church is called Catholic properly, not because of the soundness of doctrine, for that is common to all the particular Churches that have the purity of Religion, but because it comprehends all the particular Churches, and all the elect. And also to put a difference between the Church of the Jews, which did comprehend but one certain people, and the Christian Church since the coming of Christ, which is not bound to any certain place or nation, or people, but indifferently receives all, both Jew and Gentil that believes, and therefore is it called Catholic: and therefore in our Belief we say not, I believe the Catholic doctrine, but the Catholic Church. So by this she is properly distinguished from particular Churches, as the mother from the daughters, and the whole body from the particular members. So than if you would speak properly of your Church, and not make your styles snares to catch the souls of the simple, call her but a particular Church, and a member of the Catholic Church, but yet dead and rotten, as shall be shown afterward, by the grace of God. Otherwise, if you will but call her the Catholic Church, you first rob the mother, for she is properly Catholic, and also injures the rest of the daughters: For in respect of the soundness of faith, they may also challenge the same to them.  
And thirdly, ye deceive the souls of the simple thereby, by making them believe there is not one other Church but yours. And last of all, you are sacrilegious, in decking an adulteress with the styles of the spouse of Christ.  
As to the third point, wherein ye calumniate the truth of God which we profess, in calling it a new Evangel, and old renewed, and new invented heresies of our own. These are indeed heavy words wherewith ye blaspheme the word of the Lord, Acts 18.6. and 19.9. and speak evil of it to the people of this Country. And therefore as the Apostle saith of them that blasphemed his doctrine, Your damnation is just, Rom. 3.8. For a woe by Gods own mouth is pronounced against them that call good evil, and evil good, truth falsehood, and falsehood truth, and darkness light, and light darkness, Isai. 5.20. But as the Archangel when he strave with Satan about the body of Moses, did not blame him with cursed speaking, but said, The Lord rebuke thee, Judas 9 so we will not blame you with cursed speaking, but the Lord rebuke you. For ye speak here the vision of your own heart, and not from the mouth of the Lord: And ye are not the first that hath blasphemed the truth of God; for so did the Jews before you, call the doctrine of the Gospel, a sect, a heresy; and the Gentiles called it strange Gods, and a new doctrine; and the preachers thereof, a setter forth of strange Gods, and of new doctrine, and a babbler, Acts 28. and 14. and 17. The Jews said, that Christ had a Devil; and yet as our Lord testifies, it was they that were the children of the Devil, John 8.44. Ye say that we preach a new Evangel, and old & new heresies; but this is the sin & the doctrine of your Church: For to let that pass of that new & everlasting Gospel, which your Friars invented & devised, as testifieth Guliel. de sancto Amore, in his book de pericul. noviss temp. anno 1192. wherein was contained such blasphemies, as the heaven and earth abhors to hear them: That God the Father reigned under the law: God the Son under grace: And the holy Ghost was then that year to begin his kingdom, and to continue to the end of the world. And that Jesus Christ was not God, his Sacrament nothing, and his Evangel not a true Evangel. (O horrible blasphemy) the which if God had not raised up some men in those days to have resisted it, as the Waldenses, and others which ye call heretics and infamous men, the Gospel of Christ had been lost; and in stead of it, we would have gotten a new Gospel, the dregs whereof yet remains in your Church. But I will let this pass, because the wise men of Babel (I mean your Clergy of Rome) saw that that was too plain an iniquity, therefore they caused it quietly to be removed and buried, and yet they not condemned as heretics that preached it. But by the contrary, the Waldenses, and others that withstood it, was condemned as heretics, and their books burnt. To let this pass, I say, which testifieth what the world might have looked for at your hands, if the Lord had not provided better for his poor Church Your whole doctrine is Antichristian, as shall be proved hereafter, your Church Babel, Rev. 17. your Kingdom that second beast, Rev. 13.11. that hath two horns like the Lamb, and yet speaks like the dragon; and your head, the man of sin, 2. Thess. 2. and son of perdition. And ye are they that have renewed old condemned heresies, and have invented new of your own, as shall be proved afterward, by God's grace.   

SECTION III. Concerning the Church's infallibility, and immunity from error.  

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 days of Christ and his Apostles till now, never interrupted, never spoken against, but of late since Martin Luther's days: But yours, say they, is newly forged, and invented, never heard tell of, but since Luther and calvin's days. 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 altars the same, that he may the better oppugn his own invention.  
Our objection, or rather one of our proofs, whereby we prove that we Catholics is the only true Church of Christ, and have the only truth in all things, is this.  
We have abundantly set down to us by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy writ, that the kingdom and Church of Christ shall never fail in this earth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But shall be permanent for ever, and shall have always the presence and assistance of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, who shall 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 adjoin some of the ancient Fathers exponing the same.  
Out of the Old Testament.  
Psal. 60.5. read August. upon this. Psal. 88 v. 1.2.3.4.5.19.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38. read Aug. on these places. Psal. 104. ver. 8. read Aug. Psal. 110.9. Esa. 9.7. read S. Hier. on Esa. 51.7.8. read S. Hier. on Esa. 54.8.9. read Hier. on Esa. 55.3.13. Esa. 59.21. read Hier. on Jer. 31.3.36. read Hier. on Ezec. 37.25.26. Dan. 2.44. Dan. 7.14.27. Mich. 4.7.  
Out of the New Testament.  
Luc. 1.33. read S. August. upon the 109. Psal. Matth. 10.18. read here Saint Hierome upon this place, Luke 22.32. John 14.16.17. John 17.18.19.20. Matth. 28.20. 1. Tim. 3.15. Acts 5.39.  
Some of the ancient Fathers.  
Hilar. de Trinitat. lib. 7. August. de utili. credent. cap. 87. Ambros. lib. 9 cap. 20. Chrysost. in serm. de penned. Clem. Alex. lib. 6. storm. in the end.  
And because the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church concurs and agrees in one unity, I would wish M. John to consider the same, that the Church of Christ by all men's judgements, shall never fail, nor be interrupted, nor broken.   

M. John Welsch his Reply.  
I will follow your footsteps, and first answer to that part which ye say is true, and then unto that which ye say is false. And as to the first, the ground which ye laid down, whereupon ye go about to build the truth of your Religion, is the Church of Christ shall never fail, nor be interrupted, etc. It is recorded in Histories, Athenaeus dipnosophist lib. 12. of one Thrasilaus a frantic man among the Greeks, whensoever he saw any ships arrive at the haven of Athens, he thought them all his own, and took an inventary 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 shall never prevail against it: It shall 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 itself in possession of the Church, we must distinguish the name of the Church. The Church therefore is taken sometimes for the company of the elect and chosen, whereof a part is in heaven triumphing with Christ their Lord; a part here in the earth fight her battles, lying in her camp, and awaiting for the victory. And these are termed the invisible Church, because God's election cannot be discerned by the judgement of man's 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 than the superfluous humours of the body are true and lively members thereof. So than if ye mean by the Church, The Church of the elect, and if ye mean by this, That it shall never fail, nor be interrupted, etc. only this, that it shall never be utterly abolished, but shall have always the presence of the holy Ghost to lead her in all truth, yea and in all holiness also, in so far, as shall 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 absolutely cannot perish, or make absolute defection: for Calvin (saith he) and the rest of the heretics grant that, but they speak and mean (saith he) of the invisible Church. So if ye mean no further but this, than 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 cumbered yourself 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 says; when some cries for mortar, others brings stone. Bellarmin, the great maister-builder, cries 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 cries to prove that, and ye cumber yourself in bringing in a number of Scriptures to prove that the Church shall always 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 shall never fail, etc. that is, it shall never fail in doctrine, nor be interrupted in the same, not only in the matters needful to salvation, but in all truth, as ye affirm of your Church, and as Bellarmin says, as hath been said before. If ye go this far, as ye do indeed, and as Bellarmin doth and yourself must do, if ye be a right defender of your Catholic faith here, or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the purity 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 shall be proved afterward. And mark this, Christian reader, as the Philistines Church wherein they praised their God, Judg. 16. and mocked Samson the Lord's 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 hangs: 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 straight, 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 shall 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 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 incredulity reject it, and so he is not bound to sanctify 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 Saviour 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, infinite examples not only of the Saints of God, of the laics (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 stability of Christ's Kingdom, and the perpetuity of his covenant made with her, cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine. So ye have lost your vanguard. Let us come to the rest, and see if they will favour your cause any better than 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 shall not prevail against it. And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of Scripture which shall fight more for 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 shall never prevail against the Church that is built on the Rock, that is, on Christ: Therefore the Church that is built on him, shall never be all utterly 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 shall never perish. But if you go further, and say; That the Church of Christ shall never err, because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall 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 shall 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 heavenly but earthly; not spiritual, but like the Kingdoms of this world, proper to Israel, Acts 1.6. not common to all, by virtue of the promise: and also he is commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, 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 heretics, but also some of them have been heretics. And therefore if your argument be good, the gates of hell both may, and have prevailed against them. That they may be heretics, I will fetch no other witnesses, but your own Councils, Canons, Cardinals, and your own Popes; for they shall be your Judges in this matter. Bellarmin saith, lib. 7. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 30. that the Pope being a manifest heretic, 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 heretic, should be deposed by the Church. Johannes de Turrecremata a Cardinal saith, lib. 4 part. 2. cap. 20. That when the Pope falls in heresy, he is deposed of God. Alphonsus de Castro saith, lib. 1. cap. 2. That the Pope, as he is a Pope, may be an heretic, and teach heresy, which also hath sometimes (saith he) fallen out in them. Innocentius the 3. serm. 2. the consecr. Pontificis. And Hadrian the 2. Popes; as also the 6. and 8. Synod, and their own Canon Law, Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa, do testify that they may be heretics. And also Pope Hadrian 6. Bellar. lib. 4. de Romano Pontif. cap. 2.  
And some of them have been heretics also. Zepherinus a Montanist, Tertuli. ad prax. Marcellinus, one that sacrificed ●o Devils, the Idols of the Gentiles, Damasus & Concil. Sinuess●num. Liberius an Arrien, that denied 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 favourer of the Nestorian heresy, Platina in vita Anastas. & supplement. Chronic. & distinct. 19 cap. Anastasius. Fascic. temp. Vigilius an Eutychian, whose heresy 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. denied 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 heresy, 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, than 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 shall 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  Rock the Lord Jesus. I say further, this promise is made and performed in every one of the elect: For the gates of hell shall not prevail; that is, get the final and full victory over any of them. And therefore our Saviour saith, None of my sheep shall perish, John 10 28. and yet ye will not deny, but every one of the elect may err. Therefore this promise doth not privilege 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 Saviour 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 Peter's faith failed not; but yet it swooned, as it were, when he denied his Lord, and that by perjuring and cursing of himself; and yet he erred both in the quality of Christ's Kingdom, in the calling of the Gentiles, 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 than it shall 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 yourselves cannot deny, and we have proved by examples of your own Popes: for if any were exemed 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 Peter's 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 heretics. And if by that faith which our Lord prayed for, ye understand that lively faith that embraceth the promises of God's mercy in Christ, which worketh by love, and showeth forth the self by good works; as by keeping of Christ's commandments, and by loving one another, Rom. 3.25. Gal. 5.6. 1. John 2.4. Then I say, your own writers, friends, favourers, and Cardinals testifieth of them, Platin, Genebrard, Crantz, that they have gone from Peter's steps, that they got the Popedom by bribery 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 dwell with them, and to remain with them for ever: And in the 16. chap. vers 13. that he shall 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 dwell 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 sanctify 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 tie 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 enable 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 Timothy, 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, than 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 threatened 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 desolate to the impiety of Mahomet; and she that was once called by God's 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 Catholic, 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 hypocrites in it, may not be wholly consumed with rottenness and destruction, and whose whole frame and outward government, may not lose 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 Pope's supremacy as heresy: Therefore one of these two must follow, either that the Church; that is, the pillar and ground of the truth, not only may err, but hath erred; or else it is an heresy condemned many hundred years ago, That the Pope is the head of the Church, & so Popery is heresy. 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 show 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 pharisees, 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 men's 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 syllable in God's Word that will uphold this main foundation of your Church (that the Church cannot err) take heed to yourself, M. Gilbert, in time, and build not the damnation of your own soul, and the damnation of the souls of many others, upon a point of doctrine that hath not God to bear witness to it in the whole Scripture. I might end here; but because this point (as I said before) is the main pillar that upholds the whole weight of their Church and Religion: therefore I will utterly overthrow the same, and I will prove out of the Word of God, That the Church in all ages, both may err, and hath erred.  
And first, the Scripture testifieth, that it is only proper to God alone by nature to be perfectly holy, and true, and free from all errors, Mark 10.18. And contrariwise, man by nature is unholy, a liar, prone to deceive, and to be deceived, Rom. 3.4 9.10.11.17. and 19 vers. so that by nature he is nothing else but a mass of blindness and corruption; so that the light he hath, he hath it by free grace, by God's 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, etc. John 2.19. Now seeing the visible Church here beneath stands but of these two sorts, to 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 Christ's time, and after Christ.  
First, Adam being made in perfect holiness and integrity, how grievously did he err, when contrary God's commandment, giving more credit to the Devil then to his Maker, he broke that first covenant? For Tertullian saith, Who will doubt to call Adam's fall an heresy, Contra Marcionem, lib. 1. Now if Adam in his full light did not stand, but so foully erred, which is he that is come forth of his loins, 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 murder 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 posterity of Seth, Gen. 5. and at the last, Religion began to be so profaned, that at length it grew to such a height, that Religion being contracted only in the family of Noah, it could be punished with no less than 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 Noah's 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 Idolatry, God calling, Gen. 12. Abraham out of his own country, serving strange Gods, Josu. 24.2.3. His eldest son Ishmael 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 posterity fell away. jacob's family was not clean, neither from Idolatry, being polluted with strange Gods by his wife Rachel, till he cleansed his house. And as for his posterity, what stiffneckedness, what rebellion, what Idolatry was among them, so that no threatening no blessing, no correction, nor teaching, could keep them in the purity of God's 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 days, and therefore they are given over to the cruelty and tyranny 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 saul's time the Ark of the Lord was not sought, 1. Chro. 13.3. and so there wanted a chief part of the public 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, Solomon's son, Juda committed Idolatry, and built high places, wherein they worshipped contrary to God's commandment. Jehoram King of Juda, made Juda and Jerusalem to commit spiritual fornication and Idolatry. 1. Kings 14 22.23 as the house of Ahab made Israel to commit Idolatry. 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 Idolatry? 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 King's commandment, offers upon that altar, and the altar of the Lord is removed out of his place, 2. Kings 16.10.11. etc. In the time of Joash, both the King and the Nobility 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 Idolatry, 2. Chro. 24. Such like in the time of Achaz, he made high places in all the corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Juda, and there  incense to strange Gods, 2. Chro. 28. In the time of Manasses, the whole public worship of God was so defaced, and Idolatry so universally set up, that the Scriptures testify, Juda sinned more heinously than 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 high 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 precisely, 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 days of Josua, which was more than a thousand years, Nehem. 8.18. And all the time of the captivity, where was there any public face of the Church of God, with his public worship uncorrupted in all things as the Lord commanded it? As concerning the Kingdom of Israel, from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Juda, they never had the worship of God in integrity; but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him, and after another manner, and by other Priests than 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, shall I pursue the say of the Prophets, how the only visible Church in the world, is called an harlot, Isai. 1. the Temple a den of thiefs, Jer. 7. the Prophets all blind guides, and dumb dogs that cannot bark? Isai. 57.10.11. Hosea 2.  
Now when God of his infinite mercy sent his only begotten Son in the world, the light, the life, the salvation of the world, what did the Church and the Clergy, the Scribes and the pharisees that sat 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 excommunicate, 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 pharisees 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 tribute 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 entered in the Kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffered others to enter in, Mat. 23.13. And yet they are these, that if ye look to their antiquity, they have their beginning from Abraham: if to their succession, they succeeded to Aaron: if to their callings, they were Scribes and pharisees, and sat 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 glory, 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 solemnly called together, where they condemned the Lord of life, and crucified the Prince of glory. 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 broke the Law, and teached others so to do, Mat. 5. And therefore Christ saith, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and pharisees, ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 5.20. For whereas the Law of God counts hatred murder, and lust adultery, and rash swearing unlawful swearing, and our enemies our neighbours, whom we ought to love and to do good unto: They by the contrary, taught that our friends was only our neighbours whom we should love, and therefore they said, that we should hate our enemies, verse. 43. That hatred was not the breaking of the sixth command, and lust no breaking of the seventh command, and rash swearing no breaking of the third command. And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew, doth vindicat the true meaning of the commandments from their false expositions. And he testifies of them, that they did abrogat the Law of God through their traditions, and so in vain they worshipped God, teaching for God's Law (which he calls doctrine) men's precepts, Mat. 15.6. which he proves there by an example of abrogating and annulling of that duty which we owe 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 pharisees, 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 privileged 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 captivity, and in the time of Christ, erred: but yet the Christian Church hath greater privileges and promises that it cannot err? Let us examine this also, whither the Christian Church be privileged from erring, or not. And certainly, if any Christian Church, at any time had this prerogative, apparently the primitive Church which was in the days 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 Christ's 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 Christ's resurrection? Mat. 10 And erred they not concerning the estate of Christ's kingdom after the resurrection? Acts 1.6. and 11. And concerning the teaching of the Gentiles, after they had received the holy Ghost, Acts 10. Gal. 2. And Peter himself, as hath been shown. And sundry Papists, as Alex. Hallensis in 3. part, 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 Christ's 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 joining the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification, Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresy 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 itself 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 Saviour, who have their ordinar succession of Patriarches 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 Newfound land, and not all Europe; for all the Churches in Greece, which is a great part of Europe, acknowledges not your supremacy. Now take the Greek Churches from you; next, the Reformed Churches in Scotland, England, Germany▪ Denmark, France, Zealand, 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 small, 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 heresy. 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 privilege which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been, is, or shall be? Yea, above Adam when he was in his integrity (for he erred;) yea, above the Angels, for they remained not in the truth, Judas 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 Christ's 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 privilege given unto the Church of Rome, that hath exemed her from error, others having erred. What is then your prerogative above all other Churches?  
I know that ye will say, because of Peter's chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him. First, then if Peter's 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 sat, should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs, from erring; yea, the Church which the truth itself 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 thiefs: the Scribes and Pharisees that sat in Moses chair, condemned the Lord of glory: and Jerusalem itself cried out, Crucify, crucify 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 Peter's 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 privilege 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 exemed any from erring, should it not have exemed himself especially from erring? But as it hath been shown he erred, Acts 1.6. Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors, not yet the Church that acknowledges them, from erring. Secondly, if it had exemed any Church from erring, should it not have exemed the Church of Antiochia especially; for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative than your Church hath? For first, it was Peter's first seat. Next, the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there, Gal. 2.11. But neither was Rome Peter's first seat, nor is there so much as a syllable 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 heretics, and should be deposed, and are deposed when they are manifest heretics? (as hath been proved before.) And what will ye say to your Popes that have been heretics indeed, one of them an Arrian, another an Eutychian, the third a Nestorian, the fourth a Montanist, the fifth deposed as an heretic, the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw God's 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 man's wife, and so died without repentance? Dare you say, and would ye have the salvation of men's souls to lean to this point of doctrine, that they cannot 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 the poor flock of Jesus Christ, for whom he shed his blood, with such heresy 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 senseless 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 shall err. Upon the which I reason, If the Pope may err, and hath erred, than 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 cannot 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, than it is either granted 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 will 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 than 300) but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him, and whom in many places he confutes. And I think if Popes have not this privilege, surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this privilege. But because (as Bellarmin confesseth, Lib. 2. the author. Concil. c. 11.) If a general Council err, than 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 ways. 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council descent from the Pope's Legates. 2. If it be against the Pope's instruction, suppose both the Fathers and the Legates of the Council agree together. 3. They may err before they have received the Pope's confirmation and judgement, suppose all both Fathers and Legates consent together; because (saith he) the Pope's 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 Legates. 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 then this is your last refuge▪ All depends on his instruction and confirmation, he hath a privilege 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, than he hath himself: But (as hath been proved before) the Popes may err, and have been heretics: 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 privately, as he is a private man, and as a private 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 heresy, as they are Popes. Either therefore the Popes may err, as they are Popes judicially, and teach heresy, 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 heretics, and that when they were Popes, sundry of them have made decrees, not only contrary to God's 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 heresy, the marriage is dissolved, and the Catholic party 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 Clement's decrees, that all things should be common, and that wives also should be common, causa 12 quaest. 1. Dilectissimis. Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat. cap. Comperimus. That the mystery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided, and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacrilege: and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary, and the whole Roman Church practices 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 ministered 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 private men's, but as Pope's 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 heresy.  
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 been proved: why may they not err also being joined together, seeing Councils have this privilege 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 rebaptising of heretics. 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 Catholics and Heretics is judged null and void, Canon 67. which yourself 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 decreed▪ that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges of authority, honour and dignity in Ecclesiastical affairs 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 their 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, than 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 heretics. Now to conclude, 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 privilege of not erring above all other Churches, hath erred also, and that not only her people which they call Laics, 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 private 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 conclude, 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 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, than 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, etc. 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 Father's testimonies which ye bring in, they will serve you no further than the Scripture hath done: For they will go no further with you, than this that the Church of Christ and his covenant with her shall 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 shall be answered by God's grace: For it were too fashous to the Reader to set down here the particular say of every one of them. And if ye had form your arguments out of them, I should have form my answer, by the grace of God, to every one of them. And thus much concerning your ground, and the proofs of it. Now I come to that which ye gather of it.    

SECTION IU. Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church, and the Reformed not true Churches?  
OF this we collect that our Church must be the only true Church, and not theirs, because ours hath never been interrupted, nor hath failed in any substantial point of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles days, and theirs hath done. To confirm this, I say, that M. John, nor no Minister in Scotland can be able to assign to us the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion: That is to say,  
1. The author who first began our Religion.  
2. The time when it was begun.  
3. The place where it began.  
4. The true Church who said against the same.  
5. The matter itself which was changed or begun.  
6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed.  
All these things we shall assign to their Religion, and that since Christ and his Apostles.  
1. The first author of their Religion, albeit not in all things, was Martin Luther, an Augustine Friar.  
2. He began his Religion in the year of God 1517.  
3. He began the same in Saxony in the country of Almanie.  
4. The Church of Rome, Italy, France, Spain, Scotland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Pole, a great part of Almanie, with the east and west Indies, which were the true Church, said against him.  
5. The heads of Religion which he first said against, were Pardons. He affirmed that man was only justified by Faith. He denied the Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice, etc.  
6. He departed himself from all the Christian Churches in Europe, in the Indies, and other places, and therefore he had no predecessors of his own Religion, as we read in the Apology of the English Protestants, that he and Zuinglius were the first that came to the knowledge of the Evangel, and therefore none immediately before them.  
Then seeing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediately, neither visible nor invisible, he and his could not be the Church of Christ: for it hath ever stood, and never failed, no not the space of one day universally, because our Saviour saith, I shall be with you every day to the consummation of the world.  

M. John Welsch his Reply.  
As to your collection, the form of it must be this. That Church only must be the true Church that hath never been interrupted, nor failed in any substantial head of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles. But say ye, yours is such, and ours not: Therefore your Church is the true Church, and ours not. The proposition I grant. But all the controversy lies 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, etc. And then ye attempt to assign all these circumstances of our Religion, upon the which ye conclude 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 vanguard of their host, and among the greatest of their strengths and bulwarks, for to uphold their ruinous Babel. So Hamilton and Hay, in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland, so Campion, so Duraeus Scotus against Whitaker in his defence, so your Rhemists upon the 28. of the Acts, and on 1. John 2. and so Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 5. Whereby it may be seen of what account this argument of yours is in the judgement of your Church.  
But to answer to your argument: first, I say, If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion since Christ and his Apostles, than 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 testify, what doctrine and Religion was in Christ's and his Apostles days. And so let it once be put in the balance of the Scripture, and tried 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 panel, and let it once have an assize 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 sufficeth if we can prove the first only, that is, the matter or doctrine itself 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, etc. 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 itself is so manifest, by comparing your doctrine with the written Word of God, that it cannot be denied. For will you say, that he who is deadly diseased, is whole and sound, because I cannot tell you the first article of time, the place, and first occasion of the disease? When it is manifest that a city is full of misorder and confusion, will ye say that ye will not believe it to be so, unless you know the first beginnings and progress of these misorders? If you saw a ruinous house, would ye say, Prove me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it, otherwise I will not believe it? Will ye deny that a ship could be drowned, unless it were told you all the circumstances of the change of the leck where through it drowned? If any found a man fallen in a pit, shall 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, heresy, and confusion, unless the first beginnings of these changes can be told you? We say therefore it is sufficient to prove the ruin 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 Jews in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine and manners from that estate 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 estate 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, etc. 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 Saviour and the Apostles, convicted them of a change, and yet they designed not the first authors, time, and place, etc. 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 heresy: For (as said is) they acknowledge not your Pope's supremacy, transubstantiation, etc. 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, than 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 shall 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 shall 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 Friars, that I would have thought it uncredible, unless I had read them, that either your own mouths should have so condemned yourselves, or else that the posterity afterward should have been so shameless as to have boasted of the purity of their Church and Religion. Therefore the Council of Trent hath proclaimed it to the world in writ, that the Church hath need to be reform 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, etc. such monstrous abominations first broke 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 shall 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 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 God's 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 husbandry, 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 foretell) should deceive all Nations, and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication? And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture, an iniquity, but a secret iniquity: 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, etc. not like a harlot, but a Queen. Your Kingdom 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 such a resemblance with the lamb, hath such cloaks 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 estate of their successors after them, together with their cruelty and tyranny, did so dazzle 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 mouths 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 heretic, 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 height, such was the ambition and falsehood of your Popes, that in the presence of a Council of 217. Bishops in Carthage, anno 430. where Augustin was present, they did allege 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 Legates; the which was espied and found out by the whole Council, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that Council he should have no prerogative over the Churches of afric, 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 ways 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 testify of your corruptions, doth also sufficiently witness unto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclude 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 satisfy your demand (suppose I hope the things already said, will satisfy 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 than 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 than 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 Rome began to decay, and the seat of it removed from thence, as the Fathers expounded it, Augustin, chrysostom, 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 Zion, who was not defiled with your idolatry, but followed the Lamb whithersoever he went, Rev. 11. and 12 and 13. and 14. These than are the true Church which spoke against your corruptions, who are like unto Eliahs' seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baal.  
What crave you more? The matter itself they said against? The Scripture, and ye will believe, will satisfy 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 idolatry and abomination, Rev. 17.18. That doctrine of Devils, in forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence of meat, etc. 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 Church, 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 idolatry. 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 satisfy this your desire, but that you must go unto the unpure fountains of men's 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 satisfy 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 enriched your treasures And Sylvester Prierias writing against Luther, saith, That the Roman Church and Pope is of greater authority than the Scriptures. O horrible blasphemies of the holy truth of God. Therefore we will go to the Histories, and see what they have testified of these circumstances. And although all things here be not expressed to the full, yet there is so much left uncorrupted and unscraped out (by the gracious providence of God, that would not want his witness in all ages) out of the Fathers, and your own Writers, that I hope will satisfy the consciences of all the modest and godly. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, lib. 1. storm. that the Apostles successors received the doctrine from them, as the sons from their fathers. But he subjoins, 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 Trajan's 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 tolerable, than 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 than 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 the conv. Pauli, Psal. 91. ser. 6. he saith, What remains now (speaking of the corruption of that Church of Rome) but that the man of sin be revealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modò diurnum, sed & meridianum; that is, a devilry not only in the day-tyde, but in the very noontyde. 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, than the writing of his complaints against the Church of Rome.  
Pope Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his Legates 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 Peter's 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 Trojan 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 Silvius 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, etc. 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, Friar 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 cannot but wonder at your shamelesness in opening of your mouth, and saying, That your Church had the truth in all things, and never failed nor was interrupted, against such a cloud of witnesses, whose testimonies ye dare not refuse. But I leave you to the lord The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord, Prov. 20 So your own mouths shall 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, etc. 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 heretics 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, etc.  
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 excommunicate 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 there, Polycarpus and sundry 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 murderer of his predecessor, Platina Sabellicus, Marianus Scotus, complained of by the Church of Ravenna in Italy, and resisted by sundry, as shall be proved afterwards.  
The first that appointed laws of fasting, was Montanus the heretic, anno 145. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. accounted heresy by Apolonius and Augustine, against the fasting of the Manicheans. The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministered the Communion under one kind, as the Papists do now: so forth of many other old condemned heresies which your Church hath renewed, as shall be proved afterward.  
The first that gave the rise to Transubstantiation, was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his enchantment, having first caused a cup of white wine to bear the colour of blood, made his followers believe that by his invocation over it, that grace which is above all things, had poured 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 of Images, was Hadrian in the 2. Council of Nice, against the express Scripture, after the example of Marcellina an heretic, 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 sundry, Sigebert. & H. Mutius. Let these examples serve as a taste to the reader.  
How strongly 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 strait 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 pedigree 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 yourself the better credit, you busy yourself in marking the circumstances of his preaching, as time, place, matter, opposition, etc. 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 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 soured 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 Lord's 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 bulls and pardons, of preach 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 lies 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 shall 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 honour 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, because they could not tell and interpret the King's dream. This is therefore the point which lies 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 inventor, 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 spoke 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 infinite mercy by his ministry, 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, etc. That ye call these the true Church that spoke against him, that lies in the weights and balance 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 and Clergy, and consumed by the rotten humours of your Idolatry. So then, it was not the true Church, that is, the called one's by the light of the Gospel (for they are the true Church that spoke against him) but only these that were infected and poisoned with your abominations, the which, I grant, did overspread these Nations, as it was foretell 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 shall 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 heresy 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, Fly 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 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 Saviour hath promised to be with it to the end of the world. But our Church was never before Martin Luther's days: therefore it is not the true Church of Christ.  
As to your proposition, if ye take failing for erring in matters of doctrine, than 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, than 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 Luther's days, I deny it. Let us see how ye prove it. There was none (say ye) before his days, 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 shall be made manifest by the grace of God) than I say whosoever they were from the beginning of the world to this day, visible or invisible, that professed the true Jesus, the true Saviour, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherein Religion stands, they are our predecessors, and are of our profession and Religion: so than 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 Christ's 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 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 controversy, 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 ministry, and by the ministry 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 departed from their society.  
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 Zion. 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 immediately before him, who was even known to the world, as I shall prove afterward.  
Your next proof is taken from a testimony of one of our own Writers, where ye allege that it is written of Martin 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 easy thing to them (meaning of your Church) to devise against us (meaning the English Protestants, as ye call them) these cursed speeches, 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 easy to you to spew out cursed speeches 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 yourselves writes. So then to conclude, seeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught, hath the warrant from Christ's 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 apostasy and defection, that Antichristian Kingdom that was fore-spoken of in the Scripture: Therefore I conclude, 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 alleges to be ours; that is, that our Religion was never said against, we say not so: for why all heretics, and others infected with false doctrine, have ever said against the same, almost at all times. For how soon that Christ our Saviour planted the truth, the Devil immediately 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 alleged 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 spoke 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 spoke 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 heretics, 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 alleging your objection, or else ye have altered the meaning of the same, that ye might the more easily answer to your own inventions, and gainsay 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 tried.   

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 God's grace he shall 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, than ye yourself 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 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 Catholic 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 Logic and Raison? Logic is not Rhetoric, and Physic is not Logic: 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 expressly set down in the Scripture. And whereas ye say Papistry 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 Papistry is that Antichristian Religion, as shall be made manifest, by God's grace: therefore it hath the express condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it, no ways will make it impossible to be proved. As for the next thing that I prove nothing but offers very fair. I answer, it was not my purpose then, but I hope ye shall 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 persuaded of the invincibleness of your argument, and my inability to answer. But what bring ye with you to persuade 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 Logic. 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, etc. 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 gainsaid 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 apostasy that the Scripture fore told should come, and in the height of your tyranny and Idolatry was gainsaid 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 shall do, by God's grace. Now you say this is no answer. But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your Religion (if it be verified) and invalidities your argument, that it do never stand up to underprop your Religion again? For that Religion which is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture, whose main foundations is gainsaid by the testimonies of sundry of the Fathers of the first 600. year, which is Antichristian, and which was gainsaid 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 Luther's 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 shall in other some points by God's grace. The which if it be verified, than I hope ye will not deny, but that your Religion hath neither antiquity, continuance, nor succession from Christ till Martin Luther's days. And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luther's days, which hath the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture, etc. This you cannot deny. But our Religion is such, as than I offered to prove, and now have done in some points, and shall do in other some points, by God's grace. Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented, etc. 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, than I say no more, but ye will answer it the sooner. And because ye form your own argument yourself in your answer to me, and I have answered to it else, therefore I will now insist no further upon it. And as for your lineal succession of Bishops, it will come in question afterward, therefore I omit it now.    

SECTION V Concerning the Judge of Controversies, namely whither GOD speaking in the Scripture be Judge of Controversies?  

Master 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 Saviour testifies himself, John 5.39. of the which opinion there is sundry Protestants, chief 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 yourselves. For what may all men think of the same? but that if ye were persuaded in your conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word, ye would never decline the judicatory of it: and the declining of the same, is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to yourselves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word. But wherefore say I that ye are privy to yourselves 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 Apostolic 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 supremacy of the Pope of Rome, the consecration of the water in baptism, the whole sacraments of orders, matrimony, penance, confirmation and extreme unction, the merits of works, the necessity 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 fasts, and the forty days 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 oil in Baptism; the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament, Communion under one kind, that the Lords Supper is a sacrifice, that it should be kept and adored, private Masses, Confession of sins to the Priests, satisfactions, pardons, Purgatory, 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 mouths 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 supremacy of your Popes, and the sacrifice of your Mass, and the rest) are unwritten traditions which have not the beginning, nor original, nor authority in the Lords written Word; and which cannot be defended by the same, as some of yourselves 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 yourselves have confessed) to be the author and beginner thereof. So what needs any further proof against their Religion? Out of their own mouths the falsehood of their Religion is convicted. This therefore was the true cause wherefore ye refused to have the controversies of Religion decided by the Scripture. And for this cause also hath your Church heaped up so many false calumnies, accusations, and blasphemies against the same, calling it obscure, 
a Hosius lib. 3. de authorit. & contra script. Andradius lib. 2. orthod. explic. Lindanus in Panoplia sua, lib. 3. cap. 6.  darksome, doubtsome 
b Bellarm. de verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 4.  not necessary, but only profitable, imperfect, 
c  pag. 521. defence. Apolog. & Lodovicus a canon.  a dead ink, a dumb and dead thing, 
d Pigius controv. 3. de Ecclesia.  dumb Judges, 
e Eckius.  a black Gospel, an inky Divinity, 
f Pigius hierarch. lib. 3. cap. 3.  a nose of wax that may be drawn every way, 
g Fox pag. 804.  containing in them divers erroneous and damnable opinions, 
h Hermannus a Papist.  which w●re of no greater authority than the fables of Asop, without the approbation of the Church, and by the 
i Pope Leo the 10. ex . defen. Apolog. pag. 273.  Pope himself, a fable of Christ. And for this cause also, did they hid 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 falsehood 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 shall overcome at the last.  
You grant it to be a witness, but yet you deal subtly, 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 College of Rheims, 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 authentic, which notwithstanding by the confession of some Papists, as Andradius, Pagnin, and Arias Montanus, it hath miss 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 shall 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 shall judge also in the latter day. Therefore the Apostle saith, That God shall judge the secrets of men's hearts by Jesus Christ, according to his Gospel. So the Gospel shall 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 judicatory of the same here, because in your conscience ye know, and your own mouths have confessed it, that ye are not able to justify your Religion thereby, yet nill ye will ye, ye shall 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 supreme 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 immediate 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 forms a spiritual judgement in their hearts to try and judge; for the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1. Cor. 2.15. And all this he works by the means of the Scripture: for it is the only means and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts. Thus I reason therefore: He only can be Judge in controversies of Religion, whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same, whose judgement is infallible true, who will not be partial, nor favour parties: and who is able to convict and persuade 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 holy Ghosts, which the Scripture bears not witness to: this ye say yourself; 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, etc. have not their authority from the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same, as your own Catholics (as ye call them) testifies: Therefore your Doctrine and Religion is not the holy Ghosts, and that by your own testimony. Now truly M. Gilbert, I fear ye lose your style, if you defend your Religion no better than 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 public sentence in controversies of Religion, because they are the Lords witnesses, messengers, and mouths to testify, proclaim, interpret and discern his truth from falsehood. 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 holy Ghost: so that all their decreets and determinations in the worship of God, and man his salvation, should only be received accordingly as they agree or descent 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 trial 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 controversy, whether he can err or not. And their Canon Law hath decreeted, That no man should rebuke him, suppose he should carry with him innumerable souls to hell. And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whither they be agreeable to the Scripture or not: but that they should be received as the express Word of God, and the Gospel, Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa, Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 18. & Rhemist. annotat. in 2. Thess. 2. v. 12. & Joannes Maria verractus editus anno 1561. & Hosius lib. de express. verb. Dei, pag. 97.  
But first, judge thou, Reader, in what suspicion they have their Religion in their own hearts: They have declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, and that not only as Judge, but in the authentic 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 authentic 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 trial, 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 party and Judge? For the chief controversy 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 controversy wherein it is called in question, whether he was the Messiah, or not, desired not to be the Judge: For he said, If I testify of myself (much more if I judge of myself) my testimony is not true, John 3.31. but referred this controversy to the Scripture, saying, Search the Scriptures, etc. John 5.32. And yet you that are but flesh and blood, dust and ashes, yea monsters and incarnate Devils (as your own Writers and Councils have testified of some of your Popes) who may err, and have been heretics (as some of your Popes have been, and that by your own testimonies) you will not only bear witness of yourselves, but also be Judges in the controversies of yourselves, rejecting the judgement of the holy Ghost in the Scripture. All men, saith the Apostle, are liars. How then shall I certainly know but they may lie? How shall my conscience rest in their judgement? Shall I have no better warrant for my salvation, than the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes, who are but men, and so may lie; who are party, 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 authority than the voice of God in his Scripture? For seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controversy, and the sense of the Scripture, is the Scripture itself: And your doctrine is, that I must embrace such and such interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controversy, and my conscience must rest in the same, without further trial, because he hath so decreed it. What is this, but not only to make him equal to the Lord? (For God only hath that privilege to be believed, because he so speaks; man's testimony so far only is to be credited, as it may be warranted by the Scripture:) but also to prefer his authority to the voice of God in his Scripture, seeing he is Judge of the same; and not that only, but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimony? And seeing ye will have them Judges, what is the cause that their Canons, Laws and determinations, are not as authentic 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 well Pastor as people, to lead them in all truth, in so far as may bring them to salvation. And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges: next, every one of the elect may err, notwithstanding of this promise, suppose not totally and finally, and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion.  
Secondly, you allege the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders. It is true in that controversy 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 every where: but first they were Apostles, and was infallibly governed by God's 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, etc. Act. 15.15. This controversy to make us to understand, if we will not be more than 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 God's 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 than 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 style them, not as the holy Ghost hath styled them there, so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is Elders, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is sacrificing Priests, as ye suppone.  
Your third reason is, the practice 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 heretics, 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, etc. 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 sovereign decision of these things which are called in controversy, out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God. And this we grant, and this we require. But, that Councils ought to determine 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 worthy of credit immediately before Luther, but that Church.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture. But what a wonder 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 Saviour 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 yourself 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 yourself 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 authority of the Roman or Papist Church. I grant indeed, that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and misery, 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 than the fables of Aesop, were not the testimony of the Church. And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certainty of all Religion, and of man his salvation, upon so small a thread as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy. What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion, which teaches that the certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture, and the Scripture itself, 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 authority of your Popes and Clergy to the voice of God himself? For what is the testimony of your Church, but the testimony of men? And is not the Scripture the testimony and voice of God himself? Do ye not therefore lift up the authority of your Church; that is, your Popes and Clergy, above the authority of God in his Word, which (as you say) that there is no other warrant of the Divinity of the Scripture, but only the testimony of your Church? But God be thanked in Christ Jesus, who hath delivered us from this blindness: for we have other warrants, whereupon the certainty of our salvation, and the Divinity of the Scripture depends, then by the testimony of the true Church, much less the testimony 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 immediately before Luther, but that of yours, which was worthy of credit. Whereunto I answer: first, that is false: for there was a true Church immediately before him which ye persecuted, as I have proved else where. Next, I say, your argument will not follow: there was no other Church immediately before him, etc. Ergo, we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God. For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament, and of the primitive Church in all ages, concerning both the Old and New Testament; which are not only other warrants then the testimonies of your Roman Church, but also worthy of more credit. Next, I say, we have many more principal, and more effectual warrants that the Scripture is of God, than the testimony of the Church, either past or present: As first, the testimony 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 Divinity of the Scripture, which Stapleton lib. 1. de authorit. script. cap. 1.6.7. denies 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 itself warranting and testifying of itself, 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 prophecies 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 sundry 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 small 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 Messiah, 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 testimony confirms the Epistles of Paul to be the written Word of God. Thirdly, the majesty of the doctrine which shines in it: the simplicity, purity, and heavenliness of the speech therein, which is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever: the ancientness and antiquity of them, as the Books of Moses, far ancienter than any other writing. The accomplishment of the Prophecies and Oracles in them, as they were foretell: their miracles and wonders whereof they testify: the testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defence 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 conclude this, seeing we have the testimony of God's Spirit, sealing up the truth of them in our hearts, and the testimony of the Scripture itself, testifying of its self so many manner of ways; and sundry other arguments out of the Scripture itself, and the testimony of the Church in all ages, all warranting to us the Divinity of the holy Scripture, I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgement of God, in blinding you so far, that ye have set it down in writ, that we have no other warrant of the holy Scripture, but the authority of your Church.    

SECTION VI Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
ANd albeit here it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God, because M. John hath promised to improve the same by the Word, which he is no ways able to perform: yet to satisfy the Christian Reader, and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our side, and with us, so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same. I will set down, God willing, some heads for examples cause, that that same doctrine which we teach and practise, is the same that our Saviour 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 Saviour 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 persuaded, wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tried by the same? And wherefore have some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certainty 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 authority in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same? And wherefore would your Roman Church have heaped 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 supreme and sovereign 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 cloak and pretence of the Scripture, ye keep them in your communion. And surely, 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 Aesop. For, the chief authority, and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you, as Bellarmin 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 tried 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 Pope's 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 expected the patience of God, saith S. Peter, in the days of No 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 baptised in Christ, have put on Christ, Galat 3.27. And Ananias said to S. Paul, And now what tarriest thou, rise up and be baptised, 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, than the Word of God.   

Master 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, we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our engrafting 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 itself, and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant) is damnable. But that it is so absolutely necessary to infants, that without it they cannot come to heaven; to wit, these whom he hath predestinate, 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 baptised. 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 God's secret election, suppose they die without Baptism, do not perish.  
secondly, if Baptism were absolutely necessary to salvation, than the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament. This cannot be denied 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 God's free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument.  
thirdly, if Circumcision was not absolutely necessary to salvation in the Old Testament, than Baptism is not absolutely necessary now, because Circumcision was as straight enjoined to them, as Baptism is enjoined to us, and Baptism is succeeded in the room of the same, but Circumcision is not absolutely necessary. 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 shall go to him, etc. 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 absolutely necessary, that salvation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptism is not so absolutely necessary to salvation, as ye suppose: for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament, than it was in the Old.  
fourthly, we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptised, and seeing the holy Ghost where he is, regenerats to eternal life: Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutely to Baptism  
fifthly, 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 baptised? 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 baptised, but their death preventing by God's 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 baptised, until their latter age; which they would never have done, if they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation, as ye do. And Ambrose doubts not to say, That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptism, suppose he wanted Baptism itself: the which he would never have said, if he had thought it absolutely 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 Saviour Christ for this cause, when he had said, he that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved: did of purpose in repeating the sentence, omit to say: He that is not baptised, but he that believeth not, shall be damned; for he saw that faith only might suffice to salvation, and without faith nothing can suffice. Justly then might your Pope's sentence and your own be said to be cruel, in our confession. But how prove ye this doctrine of yours to be Christ's? Ye cite John 3.2. where our Saviour saith, Except a man be born again, etc. 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 Saviour speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism: and that for these reasons.  
First, our Saviour speaks here generally of all men, and not of infants only, and therefore he saith, Except a man be born, etc. 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 baptised with water, and yet our Saviour said to him, This night thou shall be with me in paradise. And therefore our Saviour 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 Saviour in that place speaks of that new birth by the spirit and water, which is so absolutely necessary to the salvation of all men, that it admits no exception. This cannot be denied. But Bellarmin makes two exceptions against the absolute necessity of Baptism: one of the martyrdom, the other of true conversion and penance, whereof, saith he, either of them supplies the want of Baptism, lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 6 Therefore our Saviour 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 always meant the Sacrament of Baptism; but the purifying grace of Christ, which is called the water of life; so our Saviour 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 baptise 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 necessity, as ye suppose; for if martyrdom and penance may supply 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, than it is not so absolutely necessary that all these infants are damned that wants it.  
2. Our Saviour speaks as generally and absolutely, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John 6.53. which ye interpret of the other Sacrament: so that if your interpretation were true, the Eucharist should be as absolutely necessary to the salvation of infants, as you say Baptism is. But the first you will not grant. Therefore the other must also be false.  
3. If here ye would infer a necessity of Baptism, than I say at that same time it began to be necessary: for he saith not, He that shall not be born again, etc. but he that is not born, etc. But Bellarmin saith. lib. de bapt. cap. 5. It was not necessary while Christ's 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 Christ's Baptism which was ministered while he lived in the flesh, should have been as necessary as the Apostles Baptism which was ministered afterward But the first was not absolutely 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 baptised, but contemned the same: therefore this place imputes no absolute necessity of it.  
As for the rest of the places of Scripture which ye quote, they serve nothing to prove such an absolute necessity of Baptism, as ye suppose, but only sets down the effects of the same which are sealed up in the hearts of the believers by the holy Ghost, as the inward worker, and Baptism as the outward instrument, as our salvation through the death of Christ. 1. Pet. 3.20.21. Tit. 3.5. Mark 16.16. our union with Christ, Gal. 3.27. and with his death, Rom. 6 3.4. and remission of sins, regeneration, mortification of the old man, Acts 22.17. and 2.38. 1. Cor. 6.11. And therefore Circumcision, in whose room Baptism is succeeded, it is called the seal of righteousness which is by faith, Rom. 4. Take away therefore your exposition from these places, and there will no such absolute necessity 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 absolute necessity 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 descent from him in the necessity of the one, and that upon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we also descent from him in the other, having so many grounds and reasons out of the Word of God to the contrary, as hath been said? And this for the first point. Now let the Christian Reader judge upon whose side the Word of God is.    

SECTION VII. Wither a man by the help of the grace of GOD, may perfectly keep the Commandments?  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
SEcondly, our doctrine is, that a man 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, etc. Also, Take up my yoke upon you, etc. 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 than these we read that No, 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 poison 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 says, 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 God's Commandments in the faithful, and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it, and so it may be ye teach them. The rest of your brethren are more plain, in halfing it betwixt freewill, and the grace of God helping freewill, 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 the justifis. cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them, and they may absolutely fulfil the Law, and keep the whole Law; and that the works of the righteous are absolutely and simpliciter righteous, and proceeding of a perfect holiness, without all blemish of sin, and that they please God, not for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, covering their imperfections, and forgiving them, but for the excellency of the work itself. So this is their doctrine, Christian Reader. Now, as he hide his own, so hath he hid ours also. For our Confession of Faith saith, That our sanctification and obedience to God's 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 ourselves 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 God's sight, John 15.5. and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life, Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect, ever some darkness, some rebellion, some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us, so that we know but in a part, 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part, and our heart sanctified in part, from the which it cometh, that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do, and would do, as the Apostle saith, Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19. 20.21.22.23 24. Next, that all our righteousness, as the Prophet saith, is but as a menstruous cloth, Esai. 64.6. ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us: and so, that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and their imperfection to be pardoned. By the only strength therefore of God's 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 tried before the Lord in the balance 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 conclude with David, Psal. 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him, and whose iniquities are covered. This now is the very 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 freewill 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 becomes a bad defender of their Catholic faith, as ye style yourself. And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe, suppose ye lost that stile for ever. But if ye make freewill 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 ourselves we are not sufficient to think any thing as of ourselves, 2. Cor. 3 5. and that all the imaginations of man's heart, is only evil continually, Gen. 6 5. Where then is there any place left to freewill?  
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, than 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 fulfil this impossibility of the Law. And James calls the Law a yoke, which (saith he) neither we nor our fathers were able to bear, Acts 15.10 If they said, that they could not bear it, that is, perfectly obey it, who obtained a higher measure of grace then ever any since did, what shall 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 daily, 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 man's own doleful experience tells them of their manifold and continual sinning. What a damnable doctrine is this than 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 Saviour Christ have commanded him to keep the Commandments, if he would have life? I answer: Not because he was able to do it, but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it: For by the Law, as the Apostle saith, cometh the knowledge of sin, Rom. 7.7. And to cast down that presumption that he had of himself, that he had observed and kept the Law, that in conscience of sin, he might be brought to seek for life eternal in Christ Jesus only.  
And lest ye say that this is my exposition, therefore hear what the Apostle saith, Gal. 3.10.14. As many as are of the works of the Law, are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them: and that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident. Now this is spoken not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles 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, than 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, etc. 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 Saviour gave him this command, Keep the Commandments, etc. not because he was not able to keep them, but to bring him by the Law to a conscience of the breach of them.  
As for the rest of the Scriptures which ye bring in, they are easily answered, John 14.15 24. If ye love me, keep my Commandments, etc. And he that loves me not, keeps not my word, etc. 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 gins 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 shall 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 Saviour 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 liar, and the truth is not in us. And himself twice 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 Saviour said thrice, If thou love me, keep my laws, went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2.11 12. Therefore none is able perfectly to keep them.  
We see then there is a keeping of the Commandments, and a keeping of them in perfection The first common to all the faithful, suppose not in an equal measure. The second only possible to Adam ere he fell, and to the Saints in that Kingdom  
As for the 11 of Matthew, Take up my yoke &c for my yoke is sweet, and my burden light. And the 1 John 5.3. his commandments are not grievous. I answer: Our Saviour 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. etc. Gal 3.10. As for Philippians 4.13 where the Apostle saith, He is able to do all things by him that strengthens him. The Apostle speaks not here of his ability to perform the Law in that perfection which the Law requires: For he hath testified the contrary, both of himself, and of all others, as hath been said. But only this, that through him he is able to sustain all sorts of condition, both to abound and to be in scarcity, to be full and to be hungry. This is not my exposition, but the Apostle so expounds himself in the former verse: so that I wonder upon what show ye could quote this testimony.  
As for Philip. 2. it is true the Lord worketh in his own both to will and to do; but yet it follows not that they are able perfectly to obey the Law. For if that measure of grace had been wrought in any, it had been wrought in the Apostles, but not in them, as hath been shown, and that by their own testimony: therefore in none else.  
Next, what can be more clear for the overthrow of your , then is this place of Scripture? If the Lord work in us both to will and to perform, than we are not able to will of ourselves 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 God's 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 registered their walkings, and their own testimonies, will gainsay 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 myself 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 stricken dumb. Luke 1.20 David fell in adultery, murder, and provoked the Lords anger by numbering the people, 2. Sam. 12 and 24. and he saith of himself, My iniquities are more in number then the hairs of my head, Psal. 40.13 And in another place, If thou mark iniquity, O Lord, who can stand, Psal. 130.2. And enter not in judgement with thy servant, for no man living shall be righteous before thee, Psal. 143.2. Ezechias heart was lifted up, 2. Chron. 32.25 Josias hearkened 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 than 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 Gall 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 daily transgresses the law, fulfils not, nor is not able to fulfil the law (for to fulfil the law and transgress the law, are contrary) but your own doctrine is, that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins; and Vega (as hath been said) saith, that venial sins are against the law: Therefore if yourselves speak true, no man is able to fulfil the law. I conclude therefore, that this doctrine of yours is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, set down in the Scripture, and also contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers, and contrary to the doctrine of the most learned, and chief Doctors of your Roman Church. And this for the second point of your doctrine.    

SECTION VIII. Wither a man by his  may resist the will of GOD.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
THirdly, Our doctrine is, that man of his  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 stiffnecked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears, ye always resist the holy Ghost, as your fathers, yourselves 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 penance, 2. Pet. 3.9. And S. Paul hath, Our Saviour 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 than if God wills that all men should return, and yet all men doth not the same, whereof proceeds it but of their  which will not work with the will of God? Therefore our Saviour saith in sundry places, If thou wilt enter into life, keep my commands: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, Matth. 19.17. He that will follow me, let him deny himself, Luke 9.23.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for this third point of doctrine, I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it. For have you sold yourself 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 entered 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 calumny? But frost and falsehood (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  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 terms; and I hope by his grace, it shall be answered So I cannot wonder enough what ye mean to write and subscribe so manifest an untruth. Now surely, 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 yourself with lying and untruth for ever. I would pray thee, Christian Reader, if thou wilt not credit me, read our Confession thyself: and, I hope, thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscribing so manifest a calumny. This for the third point.    

SECTION IX. Concerning Transubstantiation, and Christ's real and substantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
Fourthly, Our doctrine is, that our Saviour 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 shall 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 shall 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 chalice of the New Testament in my blood, which shall 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 shall be delivered for you: and this chalice is the New Testament in my blood: and whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily he shall 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 chalice 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, etc. This makes nothing for your real presence. For first, our Saviour 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 Saviour 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 yourselves 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 Saviour Christ promises in the 54. verse. But your own doctrine is, that the reprobat eats and drinks Christ's 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, than 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 Saviour saith not only, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, but also, except ye drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And this reason was so effectual, that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors, as Jansenius and Tapperus, with sundry others, to expone this place, not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith. For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place, as not making for them, and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament: or else to confess that their Church hath erred, and through this error, hath been the cause of the damnation of many, in ministering 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 Saviour, 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, shall not hunger; and he that believes in me, shall 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, than 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 the Eucharist. cap. 5. And if ye will reply, that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament than Janfenius and Tapperus, two Papists, will answer you; That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers, to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament. So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation; for it speaks not of the Sacrament, but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins, and the purchasing to us of eternal life.  
The next place ye quote, is the words of the institution, as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Apostles rehearses them. Your argument is this. Christ calls the bread his flesh (and so Paul) and the wine his blood: therefore the bread is changed in his body, and the wine in his blood, the outward forms 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 already: (for to be already, and to be in a change, are contrary) as also it hath not the like form of speech 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 speech 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 forms 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 gainsaid by the Scripture. Secondly, because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith, and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it. Thirdly, it destroys the nature of the Sacrament. And last of all, is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution. My argument then is this: That interpretation and doctrine which is gainsaid by the plain testimony of the Scripture, which destroys the articles of our faith, and the fundamental points of our salvation, which hath many absurdities following upon it, which overthrows 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 denied but your interpretation of these words, This is my body, etc. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it, is such. Therefore it must be erroneous, etc. My assumption I prove thus.  
First, your interpretation is gainsaid 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, broke 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. etc. And as oft as ye eat this bread, etc. Whosoever shall eat this bread, etc. And let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, etc. And our Saviour saith, that after he had given the cup, and they had drunken of it, From henceforth shall I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you, etc. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament, contrary expressly to your interpretation.  
Secondly, That your interpretation destroys the Articles of our Faith, I prove it thus: If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, as ye expound the words: First, It will follow that either Christ ascerded not into heaven, because he remaineth in the earth in the Sacrament: and so one of the Articles of our Belief is falsified: Or else if ye say he ascended once but yet descends continually to be present in the Sacrament, than 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Secondly, It will follow that Christ's body is made of the bread: for if the substance of the bread be changed in the body of Christ, than it must follow that the bread is become the body of Christ, and Christ his body 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. the 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 Christ's flesh and body; and so here another article of our faith falsified, which saith, That Christ his body was made of the seed of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to us in all things, except sin.  
thirdly, 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 shall follow, if your exposition be true, in saying, That Christ's body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament, not only that there are two Christ's, one in heaven at the right hand of his Father visible, glorious and in one place: and another Christ in the earth invisible, circumscribed by no place: but also that there are as many Chri s as there are Sacraments in the earth, yea, as many Christ's 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 body, 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. didst 2. Canon. Nec Moses, testifies, that he eaten 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, etc. 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, creature 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. the Eucharist cap 24 Sacerdotes conficiunt corpus Christi ex pane, That the Priests makes Christ his body of bread. Now if there be no blasphemous absurdities, I know not what is blasphemy. Now choose ye whither ye will subscribe to all these absurdities, which you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy, is not able to eschew, if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forsake this interpretation of yours, as false, erroneous, and contrary both to the plain Scriptures of God, and the articles of our Faith, and the grounds of our salvation.  
As to the third: Your interpretation destroys the nature of all Sacraments, and makes the Supper of the Lord no Sacrament; for every Sacrament consists of an outward and visible sign, and of a spiritual thing signified by that sign, the which sign hath a resemblance with the thing signified. The sign is ever earthly, and the thing signified is heavenly, as shall 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. etc. In the Sanctuary there was an holy Place, and heaven, Heb. 9 24. In the wilderness there was a Rock yielding water, and Christ yielding 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 Christ's 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 Christ's flesh & blood feeding our spiritual life, 1. Cor. 10.16. 17. otherwise this Sacrament is against the nature of all other Sacraments, which is absurd to think, and should be no Sacrament at all, as Augustin saith, Epist. 23. If the Sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine destroys both the sign, and the resemblance which they should have with the things signified in the Supper; for there is no outward sign there which is an earthly substance, but only accidents of colour, 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 than 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, than 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 broke it. What did he break? If you say, it was his flesh or body, than 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 broke it, he gave it. What gave he but the thing which he broke? And what broke 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 Christ's 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, etc. 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 wellbeloved Son. So if these words should have wrought any change, they would not have been, This is my body, etc. 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 Christ's 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 than which ye receive, neither mortal nor glorified?  
Fifthly, the text saith, they who receives unworthily, receives their own damnation. But if Christ's flesh and blood were there present, as ye say, than all who received it should receive their salvation, because our Saviour saith, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath life everlasting, John 6 54. Now I conclude, seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture, and your doctrine of Transubstantiation which ye gather thereupon; first, is plainly gainsaid by the express testimonies of the Scripture; next, overthrows all the main foundations of our salvation, and articles of our Faith: thirdly, destroys the nature of a Sacrament, and maketh it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament, either of the Old or New Testament: and last of all, is contrary to the whole institution thereof, as I hope I have sufficiently proved: therefore of necessity it must be false and erroneous  
As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion: and the bread which we break, is it not, etc. 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 ourselves: 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 Christ's 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, than 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 if you say, they are turned in Christ's body, which the word Transubstantiation imports; then, I say, as oft as the Sacrament hath been ministrated, as oft hath there been some quantity of substance added to his body: and it shall still grow in greatness and quantity, as long as it shall be ministered: 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 mouths 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 colour, such a taste and smell, and there were not substance of bread and wine here. And I pray you, tell me what is this that rots then, and grows in worms in the bread, and sovers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their substance remaineth not, will you say Christ's flesh and blood rots and consumes and sovers? What is this but to make him mortal, yea to crucify him again? And if you will not say that, than either must you confess that their substance remains and is not changed, or else Christ's flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances which rots and sovers, or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances: and so ye shall not have one, but more 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 and Christ's 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 Goliath 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 than 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, etc. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture, to give the name of the things signified to the sign, as shall be seen afterward.   

M. Gilbert Brown.  
Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ, that he cannot be in two places at once, and with their figurs, signs, similitudes, 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 shall 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 yourself, 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 vinetree, 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 speeches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change here. Next, I say, your own Schoolmen 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 implies 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 Christ's body, both to be a true body, like to us in all things (to wit essential) except sin, as the Scripture saith, and to be in more places at once, which makes him to have not a true body like ours. For Augustin saith, ad Dardanum (speaking of Christ's 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) implies a contradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Christ's 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 alleged or pretended for this your doctrine, which is yea and nay, and implies a manifest contradiction. So this in very truth, is the invention of your own brain, which is alleged for your Transubstantiation, and wants the warrant, yea is gainsaid both by the written Word, and your own Schoolmen. Next, ye would have us to hold away our figurs, symbols, and similitudes: I answer: our own figurs we shall hold away: but these figurs, symbols, and signs, wherein our Saviour hath delivered his truth to us, we must and will acknowledge So then, obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture, than you who forbids us to acknowledge them: and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinite 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, than you would be reckoned in the number of the old heretics called Anthropomorphitae, who because 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 bodily: yea, you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door, and vinetree, 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 speeches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken, and the form of speech 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 speeches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively: but the phrase of speech in this Sacrament is to be taken literally. But first, what then will you say to this speech, 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 speeches, and to be understood figuratively: otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament, which is both contrary to the Scripture, and also absurd. For than he should have suffered twice; 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, etc. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy, understand such propositions otherwise then figuratively? 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 frequently used in the Scriptures of God, and especially in Sacraments, as also in this Sacrament? So nile 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 body cannot be spiritually eaten. Would you be so absurd and blasphemous, as to have Christ's body naturally eaten? For than his body must be naturally 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 Christ's body the food of the soul, or the food of the body? If you say it is the food of the body to fill the belly; 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 Saviour saith, John 6.35. than 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, 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 forbidden us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christ's 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. the 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 Saviour 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, the consecr didst 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 man's 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 shall 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 form, but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate, and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature: for nature itself is changed by blessing. He hath the same more amply in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
First, I answer, the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shall 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's natural body was delivered to the death for us: but yet it will not follow upon this, that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally: for his natural body was really delivered to death for us: and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten. You must coin a new Logic, M. Gilbert, ere you can make these two stick together: and the one necessarily to follow upon the other. For by that same reason you may as well conclude, 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 bodily 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 Christ's body corporally, for they eaten 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, etc. 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 signify the body of Christ, it is not changed in his body. And because of this holy use to signify 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, Shall not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements. In that same sense Ambrose saith, the nature of the elements is changed, in the which he saith, the form of them is changed, for he affirmeth both there. But ye will not say, I suppose, unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation, that Ambrose means; that the form of the elements is changed in substance, but only in use and signification; for you say the forms remains, therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature, the change of the substance of them, but only the change in the use of them, from a common use to a holy use. And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine, until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers. Therefore I will set them down here. Tertullian saith, contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. chrysostom 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 Saviour in the institution of the Sacrament interchanged 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 body. 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, the conseer didst 2. cap. Hoc est. The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, is called after a manner the body of Christ, while as it is but the Sacrament of his body. And the Gloss there saith, The heavenly bread, that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. I omit the rest which is exceeding many, and because if you be a right defender of the Catholic Faith, you will say with the rest of your Clergy, 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 than 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 Saviour saith, A Kingdom divided against itself, cannot stand; so the manifold divisions among yourselves concerning this transubstantiation, is a very sure argument of the falling, both of you and your doctrine. Some of you expounds this word, hoc, this 
(1) Bonaventure, Gerson contra Florentium, lib. 4.  of the bread. 
(2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu didst 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17  Some of Christ's body: 
(3) Innocent 3 de offic. miss. pag. 3 object. 14 & Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3.  and some calls it, an individuum vagum: 
(4) Durandus rational. 4  some saith, it signifieth nothing: 
(5) Holcot in 4. sent. quaest. 1,  and some saith, it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo, and terminus ad quem.  
Secondly, in the exposition of the word est, is: some for, it is: some for, it is changed. Thirdly, some 
(a) Thomas.  saith, the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing: some saith 
(b) The gloss of Gratian, and the extravag, de consecr. dist. 2 cap. Species &c firmit extr de summa Trinitate.  it passes in the body of Christ. Fourthly, some saith 
(c) C. non oportet, & ibi gloss. de consecrat. dist. 2. etc. Cum Martha para verum eleemos.  the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing: some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine: some saith it is 
(d) Thomas 3974 art. 8.  turned in Christ's vital humours: some saith, it is turned in the wine, and after in the blood: some saith 
(e) Durand. lib. 4. cap. 42.  they dare not define it. Fifthly, some saith, 
(f) Thomas Epist. 59 & 3. quaest. 79.  the worms that are bred of the Sacrament, comes of the quantity: other some saith 
(g) Durand. lib. 3. cap. 41.  they are bred of the substance. Sixthly, some saith, Christ 
(h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41.  consecrated by the word, he blessed: some by the 
(i) M. Gilbert.  words, This is my body, and the blessing together: some 
(k) Gloss. in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons. dist. 2.  will have the consecration to be made in heaven: and some frankly 
(l) Scotus in repor. dist. 8. qu. 2.  confesses, That they neither know the words, nor the number of them, whereby this consecration is made. And to omit six hundred the like, I will only touch these few: 
(m) Gloss. in l. tribus.  some saith, The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth: 
(n) Cajetan. tom. 2. cap. 2. & 3. & 5.  some saith, That it feeds: 
(o) Gloss. ibidem.  some saith, As soon as it is pressed with the teeth, the body of Christ is caught up to heaven. 
(p) Durand. rational. lib. 4.  But other some faith, It passeth from the teeth to the heart, and then the bodily presence ceases: 
(q) Bonavent. 4. dist. 13. art. 2. qu. 2.  and other some will have him go to the stomach, etc. 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 heretics would jest at it, and laugh us to scorn. Yet sundry others holds, as Alexander de Hales, part, quaest. 45. & Thomas Aquin, part 3. qu. 80. art. 3. & Antonius Archiepisc. part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly, but also Christ's body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught, and that brute beasts may eat Christ's body, & it may go into the belly of dogs and swine. O filthy mouths, & unclean spirits! what heretic, what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal; yea, so barbarous and brutish, as ye are? So not only are ye more gross than the Capernaits, who thought that saying hard: but also like the barbarous Cannibals, who eat the flesh of man. O blind leaders of the blind, shall mice, dogs and swine, eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ? Shall 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 conclude 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 yourselves concerning the same, therefore it is to be rejected as heretical, damnable and blasphemous, by all Christians. And this for the fourth point of your doctrine.    

SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice, which we call the blessed Mass, that our Saviour did at his latter Supper, and was 
(a) Levit. 2. per totum. & 6.20.  prefigured by the Law of Moses, and fore-spoken by the 
(b) Mal. 1.10. 11. Isai. 19.19.21. and 56.7.  Prophets. For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests, according to the order of 
(c) Genes. 14.18. Psal. 109.4. Heb. 7.3.17.  Melchisedec in this action, & according to the order of 
(d) Heb. 9.12.13.14.  Aaron upon the Cross, took 
(e) Matth. 26.26.27.  bread and wine, and having given 
(f) Luke 22.19.  thanks to his Father of heaven, 
(g) Mark 14.22.  blessed the same; by the which 
(h) 1. Cor. 10.16.  blessing, and heavenly words, he made them his body and blood, as I said before, and 
(i) 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) 1. Cor 10.16.  communicate. And when he had done the same, he commanded his Apostles, and by them the lawful Pastors of the Church till the world's end, to do the same, for the 
(l) Luke 22.19.  remembrance of him. And seeing that our Priests do the same, as our Saviour 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, shall be made manifest. And first concerning the word itself MASS, you are of such variety of opinions among your, selves concerning it, that 
(a) 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 
(b) Bulinger ibidem from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifies a secret sanctification, from the which comes mystery.  from the Greek, some 
(c) As Bellarmin ibidem, and sundry others from mitto, missio, or dimissio.  from the Latin: and 
(d) 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 
(e) 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 public 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 cries, 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 interceded, 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, stomach and belly of the Priest, for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest, & to be sent up to heaven, 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 daily 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 terms, 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 shall be made plain of it, by God's grace.  
The matter of our controversy therefore is: Wither Jesus Christ, God and man, his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass? as ye call it. And whither this your sacrifice be a propitiatory 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 Saviour, 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, one's 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 ourselves, 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 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 Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, for there he died, & there he shed his blood, and there he suffered the torments of God's 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, yourselves 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 divers ends, therefore they cannot be both one. Further, if they were both one, than it should follow, that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinite valour, so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valour. But Bellarmin saith, lib. 2. de missa, cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass, is but of a finite valour, and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinite valour. 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 foretell by the Prophets: It is as true as the former: for all the sacrifices which were foretell 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, Christ's on the cross, and our spiritual sacrifices: and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass: Therefore it is not foretell 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 Gentiles 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, than they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jews, 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 ways 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 prophecies in the Old Testament, will never prove it, seeing there is nothing either prefigured, or foretell in the Old Testament, but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled. Let us see therefore what you can allege for this your sacrifice in the New Testament. You say, that Christ the chief Priest (according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action, and according to the order of Aaron) upon the cross instituted it, Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world. Before I come to the institution, there are two things to be examined, which you have written here. The first, that you say, that Christ, according to the order of Aaron, did offer up himself upon the cross. Unto the which I answer: first, that you gainsay 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 affirms it, that it is not according to the order of Aaron, but also he affirms, 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 privileged to be printed, this should also have been certain to you, and so you should not have gainsaid it. You had need to beware of this, M. Gilbert, to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Masters of your Catholic faith; for by this doing, ye will both bewray yourselves that you have no unity and concord one with another, and also ye will bring yourself in suspicion with your head, that ye are not a defender of the Catholic faith, seeing you so openly contradict the masters 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 gainsay the plain Scriptures of God. Heb. 5.6.10. and 7.11. and also the learnedst of your Church, Bellar. lib. 1. de missa, cap. 6. For, suppose it be true, that this sacrifice of his upon the cross, did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron, and put an end unto them, according as he said, It is finished: Yet he offered up this sacrifice, not as he was a Priest according to Aaron, (for he was not a Priest according to his order at all) but as he was a Priest, according to the order of Melchisedeck: and therefore the Scripture joins 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 forms 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, etc. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation; but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors, saith he, which is not to sacrifice. And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with, after the slaughter of these Kings. And the Apostle, Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ, he doth not so much as give any inkling of this: For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ. First, that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest, so was Christ. Next, as Melchisedeck was without father and mother, beginning and ending, the Scripture not mentioning of it, so was Christ. Thirdly, as Melchisedeck was greater than Aaron, and had a more excellent Priesthood than the Levitical Priesthood, so was Christ's. 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 yourself wiser than the holy Ghost in his Epistle. But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written, and to search no further than 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 forms remaining. For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck, than 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 Christ's 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 chief 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, than 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 joined with his death, and shedding of his blood, and must have the like virtue and effect to redeem us, and so two absurdities will follow. The one, that Christ not only should twice 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 Catholic 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 than blasphemous: and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be, which carries with it such a blasphemy. 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 Christ's, 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 hang: 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, etc. So than 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 allege 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 twice: 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 penmen of the holy Ghost, who say only he gave it to his Disciples as a Sacrament, and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a sacrifice. Do you think the Lord will never take an account of you for such a manifest lie of the Son of God, of his Scripture, of his Apostles, and holy Writers who writ it, they all saying, He gave it to his Disciples; and you affirming beside that giving to them, that he gave it, that is, offered it up for them? O sinful man! Who will venture the salvation of his soul upon so small a thread; yea, upon so impudent a lie, as ye make of the Son of God. O repent, or else you shall one day feel the fierceness of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your soul and carcase 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 than 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 jointly 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 expressly said, that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain speaking. Now your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express warrant out of the institution of Christ, if you will believe him, whose controversies are allowed by the Pope to be printed. But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further trial, & therefore you regarded not what you writ. You have stolen yourself 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 recompense 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 shall eat of this bread, etc. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten. And our Saviour saith, Verily, verily, from henceforth shall 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 Christ's 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 vinetree. I go forward. And when he had done this, ye say, He commanded 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 propitiatory 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 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 Saviour 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 Saviour 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 broke 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 men's faith: but your Priests gives a sacrifice to redeem men's souls. Fifthly, Christ gave it to be eaten, your Priests 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 shall 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 cloth and unclothe, and every garment carrying a great mystery. The Priest saying Mass, must have his head and beard shaved, and upon his head a circle of hair, which they call a crown; imitating the Priests of the Gentiles 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 expressly 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 relics 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, Christ in the Supper spoke 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. Fourteen, Christ first broke 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 shall 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 Countrymen any more. But to conclude 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 remembered 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 mouths of every true Christian, for so great a salvation, purchased so 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 Juggler's tricks, to feed the eyes of the poor people, which neither the people, nor yet many of yourselves do understand. In the Supper we are also admonished of our spiritual conjunction with our neighbour, 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 signify 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 signify this conjunction and communion, either with Christ our Head, or among ourselves, 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 strengthened in that spiritual life, and confirmed in the hope of that glory. But 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 ourselves, 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 Juggler's 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 Christ's 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 Saviour 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 Caesarea; but the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ. And he alleges the Canon Law, De cons. didst. 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 mouths, 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 showed 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 shall 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 divers 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 trial of the touchstone.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for the five chief things wherein ye say the institution 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 shall be proved hereafter: and seeing the most part of your Priests are admitted without the due trial 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 Saviour, 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 God's 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 publicly, 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 yourself, 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 penman of God's Spirit, or Paul, who said, I have received of the Lord, that which also I have delivered unto you, 1. Cor. 11.23. that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament, a principal point thereof: but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving, or else they have omitted a principal point thereof, for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing, but only of thanksgiving: therefore it is one with thanksgiving.  
Secondly, I say, either the whole three Evangelists, and the Apostle Paul, in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper, omits a chief thing: to wit, the blessing of the cup (which I suppose ye will not say) or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving: for the Apostles Paul & Luke makes no mention at all of blessing, but only of thanksgiving: and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark, makes no mention of the blessing of the cup: but saith, that after, or also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, etc. 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 signify 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 Catholics 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 Catholics, they are both one here.  
And whereas you say, that both in the Greek and Latin, they signify divers things. I answer: Indeed it is true that sometimes they signify divers 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 signify two distinct actions, I have proved before, they are both one.  
And last of all, I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration, this is my body which is broken for you, etc. 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 communion. And as for your hover and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and chalice, 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 crumbs, your first thortering, and then lifting up of your arms, your joining and disjoining of thumb and forefinger, and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities, which you use in blessing of the elements, they have neither command, nor example of Christ's institution and action, and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God.  
Now as to the fourth, giving, or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father, by the faithful: We confess a giving to his Disciples, which you call afterward a communicating. But for another giving, that is (as you expone it) an offering up of his body and blood to his Father, we utterly deny it, as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution, but contrary to the same, and Antichristian: and therefore we utterly abhor it, and detest it, as an invention of your own, as Antichristian, as idolatry, as abomination, as that which derogates from that blessed & only one sacrifice, whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross, never to be offered up again, as the Scripture testifies, Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 12. & 24. That this offering up is not expressly 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 requisite 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 Christ's flesh and blood in your sacrifice, and the corporal eating and drinking of it, which is Capernaitical and more than carnal, contrary to the Scripture, contrary the nature of a Sacrament, contrary the truth of Christ his humanity, and contrary the Articles of our Faith, of his ascension, sitting at his right hand, and there remaining, till his returning in the last day: all which your sacrifice of the Mass, and transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth: Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ, according to the Scripture.  
I might end here, but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass most heavenly, and the principal part of the worship of God. and we account it a most abominable idolatry: therefore I will set down some arguments against the same; whereby, if you will, you may perceive the abomination of it.  
First, I say, all lawful sacrifices have the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrant the institution of them to be of God. But your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express testimony of the Scripture, whereby it may be made manifest that it is instituted of God: therefore it is not lawful, What now will you say to this? The proposition you cannot deny, for our Saviour saith, In vain worship ye me teaching for doctrine men's commandments, Matth. 15.9. And Jeremy reproves the Jews, 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 yourselves:) 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 expressly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice, Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa, cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion, Petrus a Soto, in his book against Brentius, Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae, Papists of great name, have reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass among the traditions, which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures. So then by your own confession, the sacrifice of the Mass hath not express Scripture to warrant it: yea, it is a tradition, which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And I would ask this question of you: What can be the cause wherefore the typical sacrifices, and all the rites and ceremonies thereof, is so expressly set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament (which you will not deny) and this sacrifice of yours, which ye account more excellent than all these, not to have been expressly 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 than the Old Testament? which is absurd to say. Shall 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 thyself, 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 thyself, 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 than the Apostles are? Whither should we then think and speak as they spoke and thought, or as ye would have us? They never spoke of your sacrifice of the Mass, and bring one instance, if ye can: therefore neither should we. We will believe them rather than you.  
Thirdly, that doctrine which is expressly gainsaid by the Scripture, must be false: This you cannot deny. But this your doctrine concerning the often and daily offering up of Jesus Christ his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass, is expressly gainsaid 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 daily ministering, 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 entered into the very heaven, to appear now in the sight of God for us; not that he should offer himself often, etc. 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 say 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 satisfy for our sins, (and therefore ye call it a propitiatory sacrifice) or else to apply that 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 satisfy 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 Saviour 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 yourselves 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 virtue of his once offering up upon the cross, is infinite and everlasting, to sanctify 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 satisfy for our sins, he must die again, and suffer again. For what is it to satisfy God, but to pay to God that which we owe? And what owe we unto him for our sins, but death: for death is the stipend of sin? So that to satisfy God for our sins, is to die for our sins: & therefore we say, Christ hath once satisfied for our sins, because he hath once paid 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 paid, over again: (which is blasphemy) or else Christ needs not to be offered up in your Mass, to satisfy for our sins. And so your sacrifice of the Mass avails not for to satisfy for our sins.  
Let us come to the next: If ye will say, He is offered up in the Mass for to apply the virtue of the death of Christ unto us, (which your Church also says.) First, I say, Christ is applied 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 applies 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 applied to us. Next, I say, if your sacrifice serves but to apply the virtue of Christ his satisfaction unto us: than it is manifest, the satisfaction is already made: For first, the salve must be made, before it can be applied. So your Church here errs, which saith, Your sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory 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 virtue of his death may be made effectual in us, than also should he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin, born again, die again, and rise again; that the virtue of his incarnation, birth, death, and resurrection, should be applied unto us: for will you say● That he must be sacrificed again to apply the virtue of his sacrifice upon the cross unto us? and what reason then can ye pretend for you wherefore he should not be incarnate again, die again, and rise again, that the virtue of these may be applied 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, than it is not the sacrifice itself: 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 virtue of his death is truly applied unto us: and yet ye will confess that Christ is not sacrificed in Baptism. Wherefore then may not the virtue of his death and sacrifice be applied 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 more 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 God's 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 applies 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 than 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, than 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 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 yourselves 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 propitiatory sacrifice ceases: but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ, as the Scripture testifieth, Heb. 1.3. and yourselves 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 yourselves 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 endure: but he (speaking of Christ) because he abides for ever, hath an everlasting Priesthood, which cannot pass from one to another. So Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament. Now if it be true which you say, that Christ is offered up in your Mass, and that by your Mass-Priests, then are there more Priests of the New Testament than 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 ministry he offereth up himself to God. But, first, was not the Priests of the Old Testament 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 alleges, will not only serve to exclude the Priests of the Old Testament, that was but secundary Priests also: but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever, of the propitiatory 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 signify Christ his sacrifice to come, as theirs did: then that is false, for he is sacrificed already. But if you say, to signify and represent his sacrifice already done: then I say, what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose? For the Word and Sacraments doth represent him sufficiently: and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice. And if you say it represents his sacrifice: then I say, it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the cross, which you will be loath to grant: For your Church saith, that it is one with that in substance. And I say further, if your will say with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. That this place of the Apostle only excluds absolutely the multiplication of Priests, in the same dignity and power with Christ: that then they exclude yours also. For if you offer up the same sacrifice which he offered up, than 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 expressly gainsaid 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 ministry of secondary Priests, so should he be offered up in your Mass without the ministry of the same, or else it is not one with that. So your Mass-Priests are no ways to be called secondary Priests to Christ, except in that respect that Judas with the band of men of war, and hie-Priests, were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking, death, and crucifying: even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ daily in your Mass, so far as in you lies: and in this respect keep ye your style of Mass-Priests.  
And because they have a common distinction in their mouths, 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 than 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 than 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 spoke of another sacrifice: and therefore your doctrine is vain, that would have another sacrifice, than 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, than 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 profane 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 conclude 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 satisfy 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 virtue of it endures for ever; and it cannot, nor should not be reiterate. 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 storm. who was near the Apostles days saith, We sacrifice not at all unto God, meaning with a real and external sacrifice, but we glorify 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 perfume 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 contrite 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 propitiatory sacrifice? And as for the sacrifice of Christians, he saith, They are their prayers and supplications. It was a common reproach wherewith the Christians were charged by the Pagans three hundred years after Christ, that they had no altars; unto the which their common answer was, That their altars were a holy soul, not corruptible altars, but immortal altars. If then the Christians had no material altars the first three hundred years after Christ, as Clemens Alexandrius lib. 7. Strom. Origen ibid. contra Celsum. Minutius Foelix lib. 2. & 4. and Arnobius, do testify: 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 cruse, & spirit. 3. & in Matth. hom. 83. & ad Heb. hom. 26 & hom. 17 & hom. 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. contra Julianum, & ad Hebraeos, homil. 11. Ambrose ad Heb● cap. 10. & add Theod. Epist. 28. & in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 12. Hieronymus in Isaiam, cap. 1. & in Psal. 26 & 49 & 50. Augustinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon. cap. 2. & de Trinitate, lib. 4 cap. 1. & 14. & in Psal. 49. & de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. & 6 Idem de tempore. I would desire M. Gilbert to read the same. And if he will believe them, I am sure he will leave off to be a Mass-Priest any longer: for they all agree in this, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross hath accomplished all the sacrifices of the Old Law: and that the virtue of it is everlasting, and therefore should not be reiterate: and that the sacrifice of Christians are not propitiatory, 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 immediately, but there is a twilight 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 smoke 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 Saviour 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 Christ's sacrifice once made, to a daily commemoration or remembrance of his suffering. Haymo such like, reckoning out the sacrifices of Christians, he calls there, The praises of the believers, the penitence of sinners, the tears of supplications, their prayers and alms, Haymo in cap. 5. Ose. & in cap. 2. Abac. & Malac. 1. Theophilact who lived in the 900. year after Christ, he saith, in Joan. cap 81. That there is but one sacrifice, and not many; because Christ hath offered up himself once. And he saith in another place, ab Heb. cap. 10. Christ hath offered up himself once, a sufficient sacrifice for ever, and we have need of no other sacrifice, to wit, propitiatory. 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 Christ's 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 divers degrees, and by the concurrence of many causes.    

SECTION XI. Concerning the Degrees and Means whereby the Sacrifice of the Mass crap in. First, I will set down the estate of the public worship of God in the primitive Church, the first three hundred or four hundred years after Christ, and then the means and degrees whereby this abominable Sacrifice crap in.  
FIrst, it is manifest that in the primitive Church, the Communion or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was ministered ever week once, upon the Lord's day: and in some place it was ministered every day, as appears by these Authors, Justin Martyr in Apolog. 2. & Tertull. apolog. Aug. de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Quotidie. And therefore Ambrose who lived in the three hundred age, exhorteth to a daily receiving of it, Ambros. lib. 5 cap. 4. the sacrament. Next, from the Communion was excluded● first these who were not sufficiently instructed in the grounds of Christianity, who were called Catechumeni; that is, catechised and instructed by questions and answers. Next, these who had not ended out their repentance● and satisfaction to the Church, who were called Poenitentes, that is, penitents. And thirdly, these who were possessed with an evil spirit, who were called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All these, after that the first prayer, the reading of the Scripture, the sermon, and the rehearsing of the Creed (at the which they were present) were ended, they were commanded by the Deacon to retire themselves, and to departed out of the Assembly or Congregation, that place might be given to the faithful who was to communicate, in these words, Ite missa est: that is, Go your way, depart. And from this first came the word Mass in the Church of God: and this Bellarmin confesses, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 1. that the word in Latin is called missio, or dimissio, or missa: and in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For the Pagans used that same word after their sacrifice was ended, in Apule, l. 11. the metamorph. And the abuse easily growing in the frequent using of this word, it came to pass by time, that all the worship of God, as the first prayers, the singing of the Psalms, the reading of the Scripture, the preaching of the Word, the rehearsing of the Symbol, which was performed in the Assembly before the dimission of these who were catechised, was called Missa Catechumenorum; As Bellarm. confesses, lib. 1. de missa, cap. 1. And the rest of the worship of God which was done after their departure, to the demission of the faithful, as the celebration of the Supper, etc. was called, Missa Fidelium, Conc. Valent. cap. 1. Bellarm. ibidem. Alcuinus de officijs Eccles. cap. de celebratione Missa. So then this word Mass which the Church of Rome ascribes now unto their pretended sacrifice, came first from the demission, or skailing of the people (as they call it) from the Lord's service, and was never heard of in the Church of Christ, nor read of in any Author Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for the space of 400. years almost after Christ. And Jerome who lived in the year 422. and was an Elder in Rome, who writ so many volumes, made no mention of this word Mass at all. For that Commentary of the Proverbes which is ascribed unto him, where mention is made of the Mass, is not his. See Marianus Victorius Reat, in praefat. in 8 tom operum Hier. For beside other things there, mention is made of Gregory, who lived almost 200. years after him. And Ambrose makes mention of it only once, S. Augustin twice or thrice, for all the volumes which they writ, if these book be theirs. For Erasmus in his censures upon the sermons de Tempore, saith, that many of them are found under the names of others Authors, & savours little either of Augustine's learning or phrase. See James Gillotius in praefat. ad Ambros. And that neither of them in the exponing of the matter of the Sacrament, which they handled most largely, the one in six books, and the other most largely and frequently, and in the foresaid places, they used it in a far other sense, than it is taken now in the Church of Rome: for by this word they neither understood a Sacrament, nor a sacrifice, as the Church of Rome doth. Ambrose takes it for the whole service which was proper to the faithful, lib 5 epist. 33. And Augustin in one place, for the demission of these who were catechised. In serm 237 de tempor. & in the other two places, for the whole service, as well of the Catechumeni, in serm. de temp. 251. & 91 as of the faithful. So rarely was it used by the lights of that age, and in a far other sense then the Church of Rome takes it now. But what a strange change hath fallen in this word Mass, the abuse growing by time more & more? First, from a commandment to the people to departed, Ite missa est, and that in evil Latin: For, Ite missio, or dimissio est, it passed to signify the service of God, and from thence to signify a sacrifice, and from thence to signify that opus operatum, that work wrought of that abominable sacrifice of the Mass for the quick and the dead: so that now in end, it holds that place in the Roman Church, that Minerva's image, which (as was supposed fell out of heaven in a temple, in the city of Troy) did hold among them: so that, as they thought, it was their only protection and forteress; and as long as they kept it, they were in no danger to have been overcome by the Grecians their enemies. So doth the Papistical Church think of this their Mass: and this for the second point of the form of the public worship of God in the primitive Church.  
Thirdly, after the dimission of the Catechumeni, the faithful who was commanded to remain and communicate, they did offer up of their goods, and first fruits unto God, before they did communicate: which (for the most part) was of bread and wine, or of their first fruits of corns and raisins, whereof so much was taken, as did serve for bread and wine to the communicants. And the rest that remained, was either eaten in common among the faithful, whereof also some was sent unto them who were sick, or absent, in a testimony of their communion with them: (from whence sprung that abuse and idolatry in the Church of Rome, in carrying of the Sacrament, which they call, the Lord God, to the sick) or else was distributed unto the poor. And when the Church waxed rich, as it did after the time of Constantin, the oblations abounded, and a part thereof was also employed unto the maintenance of the Ministry, as Jerome witnesses, saying, Clerici de altari vivunt: altari servientes, altaris oblatione sustentantur. The Clergy lives of the Altar, and are sustained by the oblations thereof. The which begat avarice in them: and their avarice brought in the sacrifice of the Mass, as we shall see afterward. Now these oblations which were given by the faithful, for the sustentation of the Ministry, for the relief of the poor, and furnishing materials to the Communion, was called after the custom of the Old Law, sacrifices, Phil. 4. Heb. 13. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Cypr. de Eleemosyna. So the Apostle Paul, Ireneus & Cyprian calls them. And Paulinus epist. de Gazophyla, pag. 349. calls the place where these offerings was presented, a Table. And these was presented unto the Minister, who by prayer did consecrat them unto God, Justin Mart. apolog. 2. as is manifest by the prayers set down in the Liturgies: Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus: that is, Of thy own, we offer thy own things unto thee. And, Has oblationes famulorum, famularúmque tuarum benignus assume, quas singuli obtulerunt: that is, Mercifully receive these oblations of thy servants, which every one of them have offered up to thee. And sundry other prayers of the Mass, which can no ways be spoken of the sacrifice of the Son of God, without blasphemy, as shall be seen afterward.  
And this was the estate of the Church three or four hundred years after Christ. But the love of God decaying, and the hearts of men and women waxing cold in the worship of God the people did not communicate so oft. And therefore we read of the complaints of the Fathers, of the rarity of the communicants, and of their vehement exhortations to the people to communicate every day; or at least every Sabbath, Ambros. lib. 5. cap. 4. de sacram. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Ephes. August. Epist. 129. But these exhortations did not profit, and therefore there was Canons and Laws made, to bind the people to communicate, at the least every Sabbath, otherwise to be thrust out at the Church doors, de consecratione, distinct. 1. cap. Episcopus, & didst 2. cap. Peracta, & cap. Hi qui intrant. And also Civil Laws for that same effect, Carol. Magnus lib. 1. cap. 138. 182. 167. But these Laws did gain but little: for whether it was the obstinacy of the people, or that they were not pressed unto it by their Pastors, they did wax more and more negligent in communicating. And therefore Laws were made, that if not oftener, at the least thrice in the year the people should communicate, to wit, at Pasch, at Christs-time, and at Pentecost, otherwise not to be reputed as Christians, Distinct. 2. cap. Seculares, & cap. Si non, & cap. Scis homo, lib. 2. cap. 45. ad 3.38. But for all this the people did not communicate, for the most part: So that in end a Law was made, that at the lest once in the year they should communicate; to wit, at Pasch, Extra de poenit. & remiss. cap. Omnis. The which custom is yet kept in the Church of Rome. So by these degrees the Communion was lost in the celebration of the Supper among the people. First, from a daily Communion in some places, to once in the week: and from thence, to thrice in the year, and from thence to once in the year: so that ordinarily there did none communicate but the Ministry and Clergy. But in process of time this corruption overtook them also: and therefore Laws, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, was made, to constrain them to communicate: and that at the least two or three should communicate with the Priest, De consec. didst 1. cap. Hoc quoque, & cap. Omnes fideles, the foot steps whereof yet remains in the Abbacy of Clugny, where the Deacon and the Sub-deacon communicats yet with the Priest And of this came the distribution of the bread of the Sacrament in three pieces, according to the number of the communicants, which is yet used in the Church of Rome, suppose they have drawn it now to signify a mystery: and these three at the last was brought to one, and this one to the Clerk that rang the bell. And at the last, some of the Priests themselves did abstain from communicating: and therefore laws was made, as well Ecclesiastical, de consec. didst 2. cap. Velatum est, as Civil, Carol. Magn. lib. 5. cap. 93. & lib. 6. cap. 118. & addi. 2. cap. 7. to constrain them to communicate at all times, after the consecration. So that by these degrees the Communion in the Sacrament, was lost also among the Ministry: first, from an ordinary communion which they used, it passed to three or four, and from the three to one, and from this one to the Clerk that rang the bell: and ofttimes to the Priest himself alone.  
And this losing of the Communion in the celebration of the Supper, first among the people, next among the Clergy, was the first step to their pretended sacrifice. Now when the people did communicate, there was so much bread and wine, in a great quantity brought to the Table, to be consecrat by prayer, as might serve them; then as the number of the communicants decayed, so was the bread and wine proportionably diminished.  
And as it came to this at the last, that none did communicate but the Priest and his Clerk, and oftentimes none but the Priest only: so no more bread and wine was brought to the Table, to be consecrat, but that that served him. And so from many breads it came to one: and from a great bread to so small a bread, that it might be parted in three: and in end it is come to the quantity of a denier, as Durandus a Papist saith. And such like of the wine, from many great vessels, to small pottels, from many cups, to one: and from a great cup to a small. And this was the second step to their pretended sacrifice. Thirdly, from the people's negligence in communicating, proceeded their negligence in bringing their oblations: for these two were joined together, their communicating and their offerings, a part whereof was taken for the maintenance of the Clergy. But the Priests they would not want their offerings, and therefore they procured civil laws to be made, to constrain the people to bring their offerings. Therefore Charles the Great made a law, Carolus Magnus lib. 7. cap. 94. & lib. 6. That the people might be admonished to communicate, and to bring their offerings every Sabbath: for the one ceasing, the other ceased also: and the Priest did demand the one, under the pretext of the other.  
And here was the third step, the avarice of the Priests. But while as neither Civil nor Ecclesiastical Laws could prevail with the people to make them to communicate, and to bring their offerings, they devised this damnable doctrine, and taught it to the people, That not only the Lords Supper was a Sacrament, and so was profitable only to them that did comunicat; but also it was a sacrifice to God, and therefore was profitable for all them that were beholders of it, and by the merit thereof they might obtain mercy and grace: yea, that it was not only meritorious to the beholders, but also to all these for whom the Priest said it, as well dead as living, absent, as present, not only for the soul, but also for all other necessities, as well of beasts, as of men, so being they brought their offerings also to the Priest the which they ●aught be meritorious, both for them and theirs. For to keep the people therefore in some devotion; as we say, & for to move them to bring their offerings unto the Priests, this doctrine of Christ's Sacrament, that it was a most meritorious sacrifice: and of the people's oblations, that they were profitable for them and theirs, was first invented by the avaricious Clergy, and taught to the people. And therefore Charles the Great in his Laws, enjoined to the Priests to make the people to understand distinctly the force of the Mass, how far it was profitable both for them and theirs, both for the living and the dead. And to the people. That they should bring their offerings continually unto the Priest, and that because their offerings to the Priest was profitable, both to themselves, and also to these that appertained to them. Now as for the Priest's part, they needed not laws to urge them to teach this doctrine: For they were carried, as it were, with the chariots of their avarice to the performance of the same, for otherwise their Masses would have been left desolate. And from thence came this their doctrine, that the Mass served to appease God's wrath, to obtain remission of sins, Gabriel Biel lect. 85 in expos. Canon. & in 4. sent▪ didst 12. qu. 3. redemption of souls, and all spiritual grace and salvation. And that it served for all other necessities, as well of man, as of beast, as well for the dead, as for the living, as well for the absent, as for the present, Missal. c. in canone, & Pap. Innocent. 3. tract, de missa, & Thomas de Aquin. & Eckius de missa, lib. 1. cap. 10. Concil. Trident. sess. 6. Canon. 2. And from hence came this threefold force which, they ●scribe unto their Mass: the one most general for all; another more special for him that saith it; and the third after a midway, which was in the hands of the Priest, to apply it to what person, or persons, dead or living it pleaseth him, equally or unequally: and that God the Father dispenseth the fruits thereof according to the determination of the Priest, Gabriel Biel lect. 26. And from this did spring their treasures and riches, through the abundance of the people's oblations: and from this came also the rich Donations, prebend's, Colleges, and Lands, as may be seen by the common form of the if donations in their Charters: I offer to God all the things which are contained in this Charter, for the remission of my own sins, and of my parents, to maintain the service of God in sacrifices and Masses. As the Scribes and Pharisees therefore taught the people, Matth. 15.5.6. that by offering a gift, albeit they honoured not their father and mother, yet they should be free, and have profit, abrogating the Commandments of God through their traditions: so did the Priests teach the people, that suppose they neglected the commandment of God in communicating in the Sacrament; yet by their presence at the sacrifice, and by their gifts that they offered unto them, they should be free from that sin, and should have profit, not only to themselves, but also to all that appertained unto them. And to content the people that they should not be offended that they were deprived of the Communion, and received nothing for their offerings, but a bare sight, and hearing of the Priest, eating and drinking all himself alone, they invented their holy bread, which they distributed unto the people every Sabbath: and the kissing of the Pax, that is, the covering of the chalice, to supply the want of the Communion, whereby they might think that they were not altogether frustrate of the same.  
And as for the people, because they received not the love of the truth (for no exhortation or admonition, no Laws Ecclesiastical nor Civil, could make them to reverence the Lords institution, in receiving the sweet pledges of their salvation, as the Lord had commanded) therefore the Lord gave them over, as it was foretell, to strong delusions, that they might believe lies. And beside this just judgement of God, as this doctrine was most profitable to the Priests, so was it most agreeable to their corruption, and therefore was easily embraced and believed. For what was more easy to practise, then to hear and see a Mass, and to bring their offering unto the Priest? This required no examination of themselves before: no mortification of their sin: no sad and heavy hearts, with fear and trembling to come to the same, as the Communion did; but only their eyes to see, and ears to hear, suppose they neither knew nor understood what was said or done in the same. And yet what was so profitable as it was, which was able to obtain remission of sins, and redemption of souls, to appease God's wrath, and to obtain all grace, and to help for all necessities, both for the living and dead, present and absent, man and beast, as they affirmed? So this was not the straight way to salvation: for who was not able to practise this doctrine? that is, to see and hear a Mass. And yet our Saviour saith, The way is straight that leads to eternal life, and many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able, Matth. 7.13. From this sprang the abundance of their oblations, that they spared neither silver nor gold, houses, lands, nor heritage's: For what would not a man give to get salvation so easily both to himself and to others? So it was no wonder suppose the Priests were earnest in beating in the ears of the people such a profitable doctrine for themselves: For it was a gold mine unto them. And suppose the people (having forsaken the love of the truth, and being given over of God to believe such strong delusions, for the contempt of his ordinance) embraced such a plausible doctrine, which brought heaven to them and theirs; so easily as they supponed: and by these degrees the pretended sacrifice of the Mass was not a little promoved. And yet these abuses crap not in while after Gregory the Great, who lived in the 600. year after Christ, suppose a great part of these abuses is ascribed to him.  
Hitherto now hath this sacrifice been confusedly conceived, and all things almost prepared for her birth. From these now followeth other corruptions, which did ripen this monstrous birth.  
As first, where the Priest was wont to bless and cons●crat by prayer, so much bread & wine as might serve the whole people who did communicate in the primitive Church: the communion of the people in this Sacrament being lost, as we heard before, and the Priest himself alone, or at the least, two or three with him only communicating: the oblations of the people which was not only of bread, and wine, and water, according to the express Canons of the Church, de consecrat. didst 2 cap. Non oportet, & cap. In sacramento. But (corruption growing with the riches of the Church) also of gold, silver, of sheep and oxen, as we read in the time of Gregory, in Dialog. These oblations, I say, was not brought unto the altar to be consecrated by prayers to God, but only so much bread and wine as might serve the Priest only, and which at last (the abuse growing) he began to make himself, and to bring unto the Sacrament.  
Upon the which followed other two abuses. The first, that the stile of (offering) and (sacrifice) in the Sacrament was taken from the people's action of offering & their oblations, for the which cause especially the Sacrament was called a sacrifice: & therefore the prayer in the Canon was not in Gregory's time, pro quibus tibi offerimus: for the which we offer unto thee: but, qui tibi offerunt, who do offer to thee. And their oblation was called sacrifices, as is manifest by the ordinance of Pope Gelasius, where it is ordained that the sacrifices which the people should offer up in the Mass, should be distribute in four parts. This stile (I say) of offering and sacrifice, was taken from them, and ascribed only to the Priest's action: and his action was called the sacrifice. And this was no little step to their pretended sacrifice.  
The next which did put even some life and breath in it, was the applying of all the prayers which was used to be said and made in the sanctification of the oblations of the people, to the sanctification of that small round bread, and portion of wine which was reserved for the Sacrament, and appointed for the Priest, and the few that was to communicate with him. So that here was a manifest change, wherein they passed from the oblations of the gifts, which was presented to God by the people, and offered to him in the Sacrament of the Supper, which were called sacrifices, as we have proved it before; to a sacrifice of a round bread, and a little cup of wine, which the Priest only, or at the least with other two or three, eat and drink in the same; and consequently from a sacrifice of the fruits of the earth offered to God by the people, to a sacrifice of the eternal Son of God, which the Priest supponed he offered up to God in the same. So by this means it received, as it were, some life and breath.  
This alteration is so manifest, that the prayers in their own Canon of the Mass and Liturgies, will prouve the same: Precamur te, saith the Canon, ut accepta habeas & benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; that is, We pray thee, thou wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these holy and unspotted sacrifices. And again, Remember of them, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus; that is, These for whom we offer unto thee, or who doth offer unto thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves, and all theirs. And again, Supra quae sereno & propitio vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera Abelis, Abrahae, Melchisedech, etc. that is, That thou wouldst vouchsafe to look upon them with a  and merciful countenance, as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the gifts of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedeck, etc. And again, Jube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altar tuum; that is, Command them to be carried by the hands of thy angel unto thine high altar in the sight of thy Majesty. And again, Tua de tuis; that is, We offer of thy own, thy own to thee. I would ask you, M. Gilbert, dare ye in your conscience say, that these prayers were made of the eternal Son of God, whom ye pretend to offer up in your Masses? For can either the words themselves be understood of him without great absurdity? Or can they be applied to him without horrible blasphemy? And may not every one see, that they were conceived and made of the gifts and sacrifices of praise, which the people did offer up to God in the Sacrament? And they speak here in the plural number of many, and the sacrifice of the Son of God is but one.  
Next, they are called gifts presents, thy own, gifts of thy own, & sacrifices of praises, which cannot be spoken of the real sacrifice of the Son of God, which is a propitiatory sacrifice, & are not called gifts, presents, and sacrifices of praises of the people. Thirdly, they say, Remember them who offers unto thee their gifts, for themselves and theirs, which cannot be understood of any, but of the people that offered their offerings of their fruits unto the Lord. For you will not say that the people offers up the Son of God, but only the Priest. And what Christian heart can think that these prayers can be applied to him without horrible blasphemy: as to dust and ashes to interceded by prayer to God the Father for his beloved Son, to pray him to accept in his favour, to bless and sanctify his own beloved Son, who is the fountain of all blessing and holiness, and in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells: and to look upon him with a merciful and  countenance, and to deign to vouchsafe to accept of him, in whom and with whom he is well pleased: who is his Father's daily delight and joy, and to accept of him, as he did of the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedeck; comparing that blessed sacrifice of himself, with the sacrifices of the fruits of the earth, and beasts of the field, as theirs was: without the which neither their sacrifices nor persons would ever have pleased God: and to pray to God the Father, to command the Angels (in whom, as Job saith, he found no purity) to carry his own eternal Son up to heaven in his presence; as though he were not as able now to ascend from thence to heaven, if he were there, being glorified, without the help of Angels, as he did after his resurrection.  
Now let any Christian heart judge whither these prayers can be conceived without blasphemy of the eternal Son of God, or not And after the consecration they have this prayer in their Ganon, By whom thou creates, sanctifies, quickens, blesses, and gives to us all these good things; which can no ways be applied unto the sacrifice of Christ, unless they will have him a creature daily made, blessed and quickened in their Mass: but unto the gifts and presents of the people, which they offered up to God in the Sacrament. And in the Liturgy which they ascribe to Clement, the prayer is, Pro dono oblato; that is, for the gift which is offered up, that it would please God to receive it in his altar, through the intercession of his Christ, in a sweet smelling savour, Clemens lib. 3. cap. 17. which no ways can be applied unto the sacrifice of the Son of God. For here they are manifestly distinguished, the gift offered, and the intercession of Christ, for the which they desire God to accept of the gift offered. So here is a most notorious corruption, wherein they apply all the prayers, which were first conceived and made of the gifts and presents of the people, which they offered up to God in the Sacrament, to the pretended sacrifice of the Son of God. And from the offerings of the people which was many, they pass to an oblation which was offered: For a Sacrament of praise, to a Sacrament which the Priest consumeth all himself: from a Sacrament to confirm us of our salvation in Christ, to a propitiatory sacrifice of the Son of God, for the redemption of souls: and from a commemoration of the death of Christ in the Sacrament, to a real immolation and offering of him up again, and that not for the living only, but for the dead also.  
By these degrees than hath this monstrous sacrifice been conceived, form, received life, and brought forth into the world. Now many other things did concur to the strengthening of her, and the rooting of her in the hearts and consciences of men: as first, the word sacrifice, which was frequently used by the Fathers of the primitive Church, taken from the Old Testament, and the typical sacrifices there, which they ascribed unto the Sacrament of the Supper, calling it a sacrifice. And that first because it was celebrated with thanksgiving, which is called the sacrifice of praise. Next, because they sacrificed themselves in a holy, lively, and acceptable sacrifice to God in the same, Rom. 12.1.2 3. Heb. 13 15.16 Thirdly, because of their offering and alms which they offered in the Sacrament, which are called sacrifices wherewith God is pleased. And last of all, because it was a commemoration of that once offered up sacrifice of the Son of God, the virtue whereof is eternal and sufficient.  
The next, was the universal ignorance, both of Pastors and people, through the barbarous Nations of the Goths, Huns, and Vandals, which spoiled and wasted the Empire of the West, more than an hundred years full, whereby all learning (almost) was buried: and the lights and torches of the Church being extinguished, their successors being born and brought up under that barbarity, in that common and public ignorance, they were so far from chase away that darkness, that they rather increased the same, being given altogether to seculare and worldly affairs, as the laws of Charles the Great do testify: commanding them that they should abstain from seculare affairs, from the Court, from wars, from salconry, from lechery from games.  
Thirdly, the corruption of languages which entered in with these barbarous Nations at that same time, through the mixture of people of sundry languages: Whereby first, the language became barbarous: next, not universally understood. And certainly were not this, Satan could not have prevailed so much, in causing this poison of this monstrous sacrifice to be so universally drunken out by the people. For if they had understood the language, these words which they daily heard in their service, Sursum corda, lift up your hearts: And show forth the death of the Son of man, and confess his resurrection till his coming. These words might easily have kept them in this knowledge, that Christ was above, and they should not seek him bodily in the Sacrament, because he was not there really present, but was to come: and that the Sacrament was not a real offering of the Son of God again, but a showing forth of his death, until his second coming.  
But two doctrines especially, which by process of time also entered in the Church of God, brought this pretended sacrifice of their Mass to her full perfection and strength, the one was the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament, by the words spoken, or rather muttered by the Priest, was changed in the body and blood of Christ. From time this was taught the people, than what followed but all adoration and worship to be given to the Sacrament, where Christ is really present. Then how could it be but a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living, seeing it was that selfsame body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, which was offered up upon the cross for the sins of the world? The next was that of Purgatory; for seeing, say they, that there is a fire of Purgatory after this life, where through men must pass to heaven: and seeing in these flames their sins must be purged, therefore a remedy must be fore-seen: and where is there a remedy to be found, but in the sacrifice of the Mass, where the Son of God is offered up, that will relieve our souls after we are departed? These will help the souls of our parents and friends that are there already. Upon the which was founded the Masses and sacrifices for the dead: and from thence came the most part of the donation of lands to the Churches, to have Masses said for their souls.  
So then, to conclude, the loss of the Communion in the Sacrament of the Supper: Next, the sanctification of the oblations of the people, which at last was turned to that which the Priest consumed himself alone: Thirdly, the avarice of the Priests which bred their damnable doctrine, that the Supper was not only a Sacrament, but a sacrifice, etc. Fourthly, the applying of the prayers conceived of the gifts of the people, unto the round host and chalice, which the Priest consumed: Fifthly, the abusing of the word sacrifice, which the Fathers and Church used: Sixthly, the public and universal negligence and ignorance of Pastor and people: Seventhly, the confusion of languages: And last of all, their damnable doctrine of Transubstantiation and Purgatory: These were the degrees by the which their abominable sacrifice hath been created, nowrished, entertained and perfected in that measure and strength: that at the last it took such deep root in the hearts of all men almost, that nothing could root it out, except only the power of the Lords Spirit by the voice of his Word. And yet this abuse was perceived by sundry, whom the Lord stirred up, as Arnold de Villanova, anno 1200. and Albigenses and Waldenses in France, who taught, That the sacrifice of the Mass was a manifest abuse: and that the Masses both for the living and the dead, was directly contrary the institution of our Lord. And some of their own Doctors in their writings doth contradict this propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, as the Master of Sentences, distinct. 12. lib. 4. de consecrat. and Thomas of Aquin, in summa part. 3. quaest. 83. & 73. Lyranus in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 10. affirming, That Christ once died for our sins, and that once oblation is sufficient for all our sins, and that it cannot be reiterate: and that the Sacrament is an ordinary memorial and representation of that only one sacrifice which was offered up upon the cross: the which doctrine of theirs cannot stand with their daily immolation, and real oblations of the Son of God in their Mass.  
And that nothing may be lacking to the manifesting of it, we will show also the Authors and times of the entering in of the ceremonies of the same. The mixing of water with the wine in the chalice, is ascribed to Pope Alexander the first, de consecrat. didst 2. Can. in Sacram. oblat. anno 111. he also put to this clause to the Mass, Qui pridie quam pateretur. Secondly, Sanct. sanct sanct. Dom. Deus Sabaoth, is put to by Pope Syricius the first anno 121. Thirdly, Gloria in excelsis, is put to by Pope Telesphore the first, anno 139 Fourthly, the singing of the Creed after the Gospel, put to by Pope Mark the first (and according to some, by Pope Julius the first) anno 335. Fifthly, Pope Zepherin ordained that the wine should be put in glasses: and Urban the first, ordained that the vessels should be of gold, or silver, or at the least of tin, anno 213. Sixthly, Pope Felix the first, ordained to celebrat Masses in the names of the Martyrs, above their graves and relics, anno 267. Seventhly, the offerture of the Mass is ascribed to Eutychian the first, anno 270. Eightly, the Kyrieeleison to Sylvester the first, anno 314. Ninthly, the celebration of Masses in linen clothes to Eusebius, and him also. Tenthly, the standing up at the reading of the Gospel, to Anastasius the first, anno 401. Eleventhly, the blessing of the Pax. to Innocentius the first, anno 405 dist. 2. cap. Pacem Twelfthly, the Antiphones. the Introits, and the Graduals▪ to Celestin the first, anno 427. Thirteenthly, Orate pro me fratres, & Deo gratias, & sanctum sacrificium, to Leo the first, anno 444. Fourteen, the ninefold repetition of Kyrieeleyson, and the singing of Hallelujah, to Gregory the first, anno 593. Fifteenthly, the singing of Agnus. Dei thrice, to Sergius the first, anno 688. Sixteenthly, the incense and offerture restored by Leo the third, anno 800. Seventeenthly, their Transubstantiation invented by Lanfrancus, an Italien, anno 1036. decreed in the Council of Lateran in substance, anno 1059. And made the 13. Article of Faith by Innocent the third, anno 1215. Decret. tit. 1. de summa Trinit. & fide, cap. Firmiter credimus. I omit the rest, as their Canon compiled by one named Scholasticus, as Gregory witnesses, lib. 2. & 7. & 9 and fundry other ceremonies. So that between the first and last inventors and authors of their Mass, it is more than a thousand years. And thus much touching that abominable sacrifice of the Mass, which is not the Lords ordinance, but the invention of the Popes, and Clergy of Rome.  

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.    

SECTION XII. Of the manifold abuses of the Mass.  

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 half (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 of your Mass by the Scripture, seeing the Mass itself 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 refers 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 refers 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 writ so boldly of them. Shall 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, than 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 yourself, or let it fall on them.  
But because ye account this Mass of yours most heavenly: and ye vaunt, that ye only have in your Church that heavenly action: and because it is the chiefest point of your service and worship, which ye give to God in your Church: and also because ye so impudently affirm, that the ceremonies thereof hath their warrant out of the Scripture: Therefore I will discover here, as shortly as I can, the abominations, absurdities, blasphemies, idolatries, vain, idle superstitions, Jewish and Ethnic 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 virtuous woman, that many women have done virtuously, 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 idolatry, abominations, and blasphemies, surmounteth them all: so that the like of it hath never been before it, nor never shall 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 virtue of that one sacrifice: and that it hath spoiled Christ Jesus of his Priesthood, and communicated it unto others: beside these intolerable abuses, it abounds and overflows with other intolerable abominations.  
As first, their altars in their Mass, whereon they think they sacrifice the Son of God, and therefore in the beginning of their Mass, the Priest saith, And I will go in into the altar of God: whereby they renew either Judaisme or Paganism: for their material altars was a part of the Ceremonial law of the Jews, which was abolished by the death of Christ: and Numa Pompilius 700 years before Christ, ordained that the Ethnic 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 metal, 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 oil and chrism, with a sprinkling of water, mixed of wine and salt, of cyphers 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 Clerk do it, that he be degraded, and if one of the Laics do it, that he be excommunicate? 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 power a little oil upon a stone? That the Bishop compass the altar seven times, singing the 51. Psalm. Thou shalt wash me with hyssop, etc. profaning the truth of God. And there to bury the relics of some Saints put in a little shrine, with three grains of incense: that God for their cause may hear the prayers, and accept of the sacrifice offered up upon that altar: And then anointing the table of the altar with oil, and singing, Jacob erected up a stone, etc. 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 relics 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 chalice? 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 shall be said to you, Who required all these things at your hands? And wherefore also transgress ye your own law, in having more altars than is necessary, seeing by it ye are commanded by express terms, that superfluous altars be destroyed? Canon. Eccles. vel altaria. To conclude 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 entering 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 second is, in the prayer that is set down in the latter end of it, saying, I pray thee, blessed Mary, & all the he Saints, and she 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 honour 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 he Saints and she Saints, God give you mercy. First, this agrees not with their private Masses, where the Priest and the Clerk only are present: For how can the Priest speak truly, Amen, brethren and sisters, since none is present but the Clerk 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 communicate unto the Virgin Mary, and the merits of all the he Saints and she 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 join such helpers to the Son of God, who is a perfect Saviour? To join 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 abundance 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 join with him the help of the sign of the cross. Therefore in their Breviary they say, Keep us, Lord, with thy peace, etc. 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 relics 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 relics of the Saints in such account, that they have made a law, that it shall not be lawful to celebrat any Mass, but upon such altars where the relics of some Saints are, De consecrat. didst 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 relics of Saints more precious and worthy, than his blood is? yea, and what relics, I pray you, for the most part? Not of Saints, but of harlots and brigands: yea, they have so multiplied their relics, that they have made some of them to have more heads than one, to have more legs and arms than 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 relics, 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. cruse. And that which is yet worse, they honour them, adores them, and prays unto them: the which is so manifest by the ordinary practice of their Church, that it needeth no probation.  
Unto this we may join the fifth abuse, their images upon the hosts of their Mass, and the rest of their Idols and Images, which they call the Books of the Laics, wherewith they fill their Temples and Chapels: which they honour, 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 Sinai, in horror and fear▪ so that the Mountain shook, and Moses himself feared: Thou shalt make thee not graven Image to worship it. And contrary the 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 host upon the altar: Receive, holy Father, this immaculate 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 chalice 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 Christ's 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 virtue which the Priest prays for, that it may chase away the Devil, make whole every disease: which hath no more virtue than their exorcisms and adjurations, which the Priest makes in Baptism, and in their other services, by their holy water, by their lighted candles, their oils, anointings, and other like ceremonies. And in this ceremony, they either Judaize: for the Jews used this ceremony of incense under the Law, to figure the sweet savour 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 custom of the old Roman idolaters. For we read more than 700. years before Christ, that they used incense in their sacrifices and other services, which they did to their Idols, Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. Some say, that Leo the third joined 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 honour of others then to God; to wit, to the honour of the Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, which is horrible blasphemy, to give that which is God's glory to his creatures. And therefore they have a Mass of our Lady, a Mass of S. Antony, a Mass of S. Michael, etc. Now if the Mass be one with the Lord his Supper (as they say it is) than it is properly a memorial of his death, and it is instituted only to the glory of God, and not to the honour of any creature: therefore our Saviour saith, Do this in remembrance of me, and not of his Saints.  
The ninth abuse (passing by their monstrous Transubstantiation, whereof I have spoken in another place) is their round host, taken from the use of the old Roman idolaters 700. years before Christ, who had little round bread which was consecrated to the honour 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 Christ's 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 Priest's intention? So who can worship in faith that God of theirs, seeing they cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest, upon the which this change depends? and that which is done without faith is sin. Secondly, their own doctrine is, that the intention of the Priest suffices not, unless it be according to the institution of Christ, Bonaventura in compend. sacr. Theolog. lib. 6. Hugo de S. Victor, Gerardus Lorichius. Now sundry of their own learned Doctors saith, that their private Masses, where there is no public 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 private 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 chalice: if the bread be made of other thing than flower: if the water surmount the wine: if the wine be sour: 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 Friars hanged in Sevil in Spain, who had secretly by night murdered their Provincial. The day following, to avoid all suspicion of the murder, 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 repent him of this his abominable life, and if he 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 more 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 than 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▪ if thou be there, I adore thee: and so by this subtlety, 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 controversy 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 laic 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 shall see what estimation they have themselves of that breaden God of theirs, by some example's 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 burned 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 chalice by his Sub-deacon. Such like the Archbishop of York, poisoned in the chalice. Such like Henry the seventh, poisoned by a Dominican Friar in the Sacrament. They use it for an Harvenger, sending it one or more days journey before, with the basest sort of the people. The Dominican Friars of the town Auxerra in France in the year 1536. did burn it, being vomit out by a Friar that said Mass. And the Franciscans de alia Villa, burned the Cow which had eaten up the Sacrament out of the Priest's 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 host 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 host 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 rabble 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 shall give a reckoning to God. And thus much for the tenth abuse of their idolatrous Mass.  
The eleventh abuse is, that in your communions: First, contrary the institution of Christ, ye give not the bread to the hands of the people to take, but puts it in theirs mouths, as though their mouths were holier than 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. didst 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 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. the mist. 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 sanctify 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 interceded 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, than Jesus Christ is? This cannot be denied. But I assume that the Priest vaunts that in his Mass he is more acceptable to God, than Jesus Christ is: Therefore the Priest is a horrible blasphemer. 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 sanctify and accept of his Son which he offers up: Therefore the Priest vaunts that he is more acceptable to God in the Mass, than Jesus Christ is: for God regards more the person that offers up, than 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 than 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 infinite 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 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 Christ's 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 heaven 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 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 than the men of war did to him upon the cross: for they broke 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 host 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 itself.  
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 enclosing of Christ's 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 patiented, Behold, my friend, God your Creator, which I have brought unto you: Ordinance of Pope Urban, anno 1564. What blasphemy 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 patiented, that cannot bring himself to the patiented 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. didst 2. cap. 3. Gradibus. So ye both fight against the Scripture, and your own Canon Law.  
The twentieth abuse, is their manifold styles 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 honour 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. 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 divers, 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 small, be they rich, by they poor, and which serves for all times. For as our Saviour 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 testify, 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 falsely allege: Yea, it doth testify 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 concur in the work of our faith, the Father giving his Son by his holy 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 styled 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 virtue 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 honour of the Virgin Mary, to Angels, and Saints, is manifest idolatry: For the Supper was not instituted in the honour of any creature, but only to the honour 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 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 Saviour 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 Pope's 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, etc. 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 jugglers 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 honoured 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 wife's 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, he or she, to obtain of them, or by their merit, or intercession, health in sickness, etc. and such like things, which are only in God's hands to bestow: For it is he only that sends health and sickness, fair weather and foul weather, and so forth. Next, the Lord's Supper was not instituted to be a charm for such diseases of man or beast, or for the fire, pest, tempest, etc. but for the remembrance of Christ's 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 poison with some good food, that it may be the less suspected: Or rather as the Magiciens and Charmers doth, who mixes with their devilish practices, parcels of the Scriptures of God; and makes those to serve for their devilish purposes, which was appointed to God's honour. 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 idolatry may be less suspected by the simple. Next, what warrant have they to prefer the Gospel (as they call it) to the Epistles, in standing up at the reading of the Gospel, and sitting at the reading of the Epistles, seeing they are both inspired of God, and they both contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ? as the Apostle testifies, Rom. 1.1. and 2.16. 1. Cor. 4.15. Thirdly, the Gospel and Epistles were appointed not to be sung and chanted in the Church (as they do) but to be read and interpreted: for the Psalms and other Hymns in the Scripture are ordained for that use. Fourthly, seeing the Scripture which is read and sung in your Mass, is read and sung in an unknown language, as all the rest of your Mass is done; to what purpose doth it serve? And what is it but a mocking of God, and abusing of the poor people?  
The twenty and two abuse, is their wax candles which they have burning in the time of their Masses, in the fair day light, mocking as it were thereby, both God the Author of all light, and the light of the Sun. And to what purpose can they serve to burn in the day light when the Sun is shining, but to bear witness against them in the great Day, that in the midst of the noonday they groped in darkness, and that they have put out the light of the Gospel, that should have shined in their hearts? What, shall 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 Mitre, a broidered coat, a girdle, a breastplate, 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 coloured 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 host, Exod 29.27. so you lift up the whole host: as they sounded the trumpets at their sacrifices, Num. 10.10. so you ring your bells. And what shall 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 Priest's 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, 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 the music of your Organs where it may be had, and your threefold salutation of the Priest, Dominus vobiscum, which can have no use in the private Masses, where the Priest is himself alone together with the Clerk? So that in truth it is more than 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, than the worship of God. But I see it is fulfilled in them which was foretell, 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 itself, so falsehood destroys itself: A Kingdom divided against itself (as our Saviour 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 daily 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 satisfy 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, 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 selfsame effects, to wit, the appeasing of God his wrath, Lect. 85. in explic. Canon. & in 4. s●nt. didst 12 qu. 2. If it then appease God his wrath, and be offered for the redemption of souls, than it must both merit properly, and satisfy properly. 3. Some of you affirms, That the sacrifice of the cross, is more excellent than the sacrifice of the Mass, Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, fol. 626. and the virtue 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 than the other? 4. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4 saith, That the value of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite, and therefore it is oft repeated. But Caietan a Cardinal saith, That the virtue, quantity, and effect of it, is infinite, 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, than 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 daily truly crucified in the Mass 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 divers 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 denies 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. didst 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 building, and not the house of the Lord.  
To conclude 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 Milan, ex Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 8. Therefore they sing after the consecration, It is not bread, but God and man my Saviour: And yet they say, That this Creator both gins 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, creature 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 shall their Church be cleared from abominable idolatry, that worships that which they call God, Creator and Saviour: 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! woe be to their souls that worship God which made not heaven and earth, and causeth others to do the same! And how shall their Mass-Priests be cleared from sacrilegious blasphemy, which vaunts that in their Mass they daily create their Creator, and that of bread and wine; and so makes themselves Gods, and more than Gods: For God created but creatures, but they (as they suppone) create the Creator. 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 form by the Priest: Therefore of all Idolaters they must be the most blasphemous and abominable. And thus much for the Mass.    

SECTION XIII. Concerning Confession and Absolution by the Priest.  

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 shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall 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, etc. Matth. 6.9. and 16.19. and 18.18. with sundry other places conform to the same. And this is denied by the Protestants.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for the fifth point of your doctrine, that the lawful 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 God's Witnesses, Ministers and Ambassadors, yea, and Judges too: (For the Apostle saith, We judge them that are within) to testify and to declare, to judge and give out judgement according to God's Word; not only by the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments joined therewith: but also by the censures and discipline, in excommunicating the obstinate impenitent, and absolving the penitent. If, I say, your doctrine be this, than 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 absolute 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 vanish, as the blast of wind extinguishes the fire, and scatters the cloud, as Bellarmin saith, Controu. 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 Ministry that declares, testifies, and confirms it. For the Apostle saith, He hath committed to us the word and ministry 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, 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 thyself. 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 absolute 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.    

SECTION XIV. Of Extreme Unction, and whither it be a Sacrament?  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
SIxthly, our doctrine is, to make the Priests of the Church to anoint the sick with oil, in the Name of our Lord, and to pray over him, because it is the doctrine of the Apostles, as we have 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 oil in the Name of our Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and our Lord shall lift him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him 
* James 4.15. August. tom. 4. super Levit. quaest. 84. . And because we find here an external form, which is the anointing with oil, 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 itself.   

M. John Welsch his Reply.  
As to your doctrine of anointing of the sick with oil, and that not by every man, but by a Priest; not in all sicknesses, but in the extremity of death: not with every oil, but with oil consecrated by the Bishop: (which Bellarmin makes essential to this Sacrament, cap. 7. the 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, etc. 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 relics 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 alleged 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 ceremony 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 body: and also by that place of Mark 6.13. where it is written, that the Apostles anointed many sick with oil, 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, etc. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Church of God, wherefore will you superstitiously use the ceremony? 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 ceremony.  
Secondly, by this argument ye may as well make all the rest of the ceremonies (which our Saviour 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 joined with it, anointing of the eyes of the blind with clay, John 9.6. washing in the pool of Siloam, etc. 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 joined with them, why do ye use this ceremony 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, etc. 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 oil, not mentioning a syllable of consecration, blessing of it by the Bishop, and that ninefold salutation that ye give unto it, Hail, O holy oil, 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 shall save the sick: and you attribute 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. the sacr. & Alphonsus de Castro, de haeresibus. two archpapists affirms, that in the 6. of Mark, & 5. of James, the selfsame 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 selfsame unction is meaned.  
Fifthly, I say, all the Sacraments the Lord hath instituted, are public and not private: but this Sacrament of yours is privately ministered: therefore not a true Sacrament.  
Sixthly, all the Sacraments of the New Testament should be ministered by them who have the preaching of the Gospel concredited unto them; and not by private 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 oil, 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 ceremony 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, shall save the sick. And whereas ye say that we make him a Mediciner only for the body in this, and not for the soul: we answer: That this ceremony, as sundry others, was only annexed to the extraordinary gift of healing of the body, and was not seals of grace. And yet with the health of the body, the healing of the soul was oftentimes joined, as our Saviour saith to the paralytic man: Thy sins are forgiven thee, take up thy bed and walk, Matth 9 28. Now whither these be our vain subterfuges, or clear grounds out of the Scripture, let the Reader judge. And whereas ye call us new men: let them be new and most recent▪ whose doctrine is most new. But as hath, and shall be proved by God's grace, our doctrine is not new, but Jesus Christ's in his Old and New Testament, and yours devised since. Therefore this title of novelty most justly belongs unto you. This for the sixth point of your doctrine.    

SECTION XV. Concerning Imposition of hands, and whither it be a Sacrament?  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
SEventhly, our doctrine is, that when our Priests (which are the only lawful Ministers now adays) 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 prophecy, 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 come. 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 Timothy here, and others: and is profitable both to put the Pastors in mind of his calling, that he is separated of God for the discharge of the same, and also the people that they embrace him as one sent of God to them; therefore we both acknowledge it, and practise it. But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inseparably joined 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 joined 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 testify 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 joined 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 trial and examination so straight 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 trial and examination? And wherefore is Timothy so straight 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 testify the calling of God to them. For if it were true that ye say, that the gift of the holy Ghost were joined with the imposition of hands inseparably, than the Apostle should rather have commanded Timothy, 2 Tim. 5.22. to lay his hands upon many, in respect of the need that the Church stood in of all men, rather than to have discharged him. And as for the place of Paul which ye cite here, Despise not the gift, etc. 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 prophecy, which is given thee by prophecy, whereby it was revealed to the Church of the ability of this man. And so if there be any prophecies that go of you in your Clergy, that the holy Ghost is given to you, than ye may claim unto the same: but I think ye will not say that such like prophecies 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 God's 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 than you should have innumerable Sacraments: For prayer, alms-deeds, and the ordination of Magistrates, and many others, have external forms, and have promises of grace joined 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 joined with the element, and then it is a Sacrament. Secondly, they must have their express warrant and institution from 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 Ministry 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, than 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 Scholars 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 Ministry can be a Sacrament, seeing a Bishop is above the rest 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, Subdeacons, Exorcists, Lectors, Doorkeepers, 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 sow 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 joined 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 Magistrate, 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 that Baptism and the Supper is called Sacraments. So you play yourself, 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 yourselves 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 signify their proper calling, in the whole New Testament.    

SECTION XVI. Concerning Matrimony, and whither it be a Sacrament?  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
EIghtly, our doctrine is, that Matrimony is a bond undissoluble, because our Saviour saith, That which God hath joined 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 shall be called an 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 joined 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 Pope's 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 writ of it had not been more plain than 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. Tried sess. 24. Can. 8. Bellarm. lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. (express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, He that shall demit his wife, except for fornication, etc.) he makes her to commit adultery. As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery, or Nunnery. 2. For heresy. 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 board (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 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, than the bond may be loosed, by their own doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as shall 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 terms 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 God's 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, expressly 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 Saviour expressly sets down in the former two places, otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture, which is blasphemy to think, and our Saviour 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 expressly 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 Catholic, ye think that they cannot err. Cajetanus a Cardinal, in comment. Matth. 19 Ambrose 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 Council Triburiense, ibidem cap. Si quis, and another Canon saith, That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage, so that the party innocent may marry 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 Saviour, yet he permits a man to marry 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 Saviour 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 heresy, the party Catholic is free to marry again, cap. laudabilem 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 marriage may be broken, and the innocent party divorced may marry another. Your Religion of Matrimony therefore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christ's, but also to your own Canons, Councils, Doctors, and Popes. Let them therefore condemn your cruel judgement 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 heretics: but also Latins, Greeks, and Catholics.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
Ninthly, with S. Paul, Eph. 5.23. we make it a Sacrament, as sundry of the learned Protestants do, as Zuinglius, lib. de vera & falsa rel. cap. de matrimonio. Melancthon, in locis aeditis 1552. & 1558. and chief 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 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 joined with it. So mutually one error upholds another. Upon the which, I reason: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery than 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.  
secondly, 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 baptise thee, etc. and in the Supper, This is my body, etc. 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 forbidden all your Clergy from the same? And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament, which is instituted of God, to give remission of sins to you, and to make you acceptable to God? as your doctrine saith, Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive yourself of that thing which may place you in God's favour, 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 God's ordinance, and honourable among all men.  
Fourthly, I say, if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise, and the marriage of all the Patriarches, 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 beginning, that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ, and his Church: but the first you grant yourselves 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, etc. 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, than it should be more excellent than 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 quote, where the Apostle saith, This is a great mystery, speaking of the mutual duties 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 subjoins, 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 shall 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 oh 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 denies 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 writ, 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 improperly, and more amply, as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon. So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ, neither among ourselves But in very deed, you are they who are at discord both with Christ, and among yourselves. For beside this that Bellarmin and Innocentius, calls the marriage of the Gentiles 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 yourselves. These are not now shows of disorders and contradictions, but they are so true and manifest, that Bellarmin your chief campion, hath confessed them, de sacram. matrim. lib. 1. Judge thou now, Christian Reader, whither is it we or they that is at variance among ourselves. And this for the ninth point of your doctrine.    

SECTION XVII. Concerning Merit of Good Works.  

M. Gilbert Brown.  
ELeventhly, our doctrine is, that a man in the estate 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 Gen. 15.1. 2. Kings 15.7. Eccles. 16.15. and 10.31. Psal. 118.112. Prov. 11.18. Sap. 5.16. and ●10. 17. Isai. 3.10. Jer. 31.16.  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 shall be a reward for your work. And in the Book Ecclesiasticus, All mercy shall make place to every one, according to the merit of his works. With many more in the Old Testament, than I am able to let down here. But some of them I have noted. And our Saviour saith, 
b Matth. 5.12. John 5.29. Matth. 10.42. and 16.1. and 16.27. and 25.34. and 20. Mark 9.41. Luke 6.35.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven. And again, They that have done good things, shall come forth to the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement. And whosoever shall 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 shall not lose his reward. And 
c 1. Cor. 3.8.14. and 9.17.18. Eph. 6.8.  S Paul saith, Every one shall receive his own reward, according to his labour. And 
d 2. John 8. Rev. 22.12.  S John saith, Look to yourselves, 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 to reward all our good deeds, yet this promise is not without a cause; that is, to them that will labour 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 do, as I have noted before in the book called Ecclesiasticus, the 16. chapter.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for your doctrine of merits of works, wherein you say, That a man in the estate of grace doth merit eternal life and glory, and that as well in respect of the work itself, as of the covenant and promise made unto it. So Bellarmin lib. 5. the justific. cap. 17. yea, that the works are in virtue equal, and of as great valour 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 itself, 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. the justif. cap. 19 And M. Reynold saith, pag. 105. That good works and evil are laid in different balance: 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 shall not be greater than our good works have deserved. What blasphemy is this your doctrine? And surely if in any one point of your doctrine you show yourselves to be men, who not only knows not the holiness of God, the unspeakableness of that other life, the perfection and infinite virtue of Christ's merits, the perfection of his Law, and man's 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 itself, 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 owe already, cannot merit properly a reward: For will you say, that for the paying of that which you owe already, you deserve a reward? 3. There must be a proportion and equality between the work wrought, and the reward itself: For if the work be less, and the reward greater, then that which is more than 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 another's, and the power our own whereby it is done, and not another's, 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 menstruous 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 virtue of our creation and redemption, and his other blessings already bestowed; yea, they oblige us to more than we are ever able to pay, according to that saying of our Saviour, 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 infinite degrees surpassing the work: and therefore the Apostle saith, The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shall 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 Antoniuses, 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 shall be recompensed? Rom. 11.35. The Lord is all-sufficient in himself, and so needs none of your labours, and so our works cannot oblige him. And therefore Augustin saith, serm. 16. de verbis Apostoli: God is made a debtor 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 fulfil the Law, and seeing all that we can do, is but our duty, and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works, and that the Lord is debtor to no man, and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only; therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life. Hear further what the Fathers say in this point. Augustin saith, in manuali, c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit, my refuge, salvation, life and resurrection: my merit is the compassion of the Lord, I shall not be void of a merit, so long as the Lord of mercies shall 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 owe 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 than 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 God's mercy. I omit the rest for shortness.  
Now to your testimonies, and reason to prove your merit of works, which you shamefuly abuse, bringing forth Scripture to cloak 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 shall they be tried, and every man shall 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 mere grace crowneth his own works in us: and that not for the excellency of the work itself, but of mercy freely for his Christ's sake, as both I have proved, and the Fathers have testified. So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose. For the controversy betwixt us, is not whither there is a reward promised, and whither it shall be rendered accordingly to the same, for that we grant: but whither this reward is of merit or of grace. The Apostle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans, The wages of sin is death: but everlasting life is the free gift of God. And in the 8 of the Romans, it is called, an inheritance. Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ, and they heirs of it through him, than 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. Psalms, 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 testify 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 hypocrites, 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 hypocrisy from hypocrites, the promises are made to works. 2. The promise is made to works to stir us up to the doing of them: for we would be faint in doing good, if we knew not that the Lord would reward them. It is true he hath promised no reward to them who work not, because they in whom Christ dwells, 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 God's only mercy and free grace: and swells them up with a vain confidence of themselves, and binds as it were, their hearts and mouths, that they cannot with all their heart render the whole praise of their salvation to Gods only free grace.    

SECTION XVIII. Concerning Works of Supererogation.  

M. Gilbert Brown.  
TWelftly, we have other works that are called works of Supererogation, which are works of greater perfection, and are not set down to us as the commands of God (without the which we cannot be saved) but as divine counsels adjoined 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 joins his virgin in matrimony doth well, and he that joins not doth better. Therefore virginity is a work of supererogation: for albeit matrimony be good, yet the other is better: and this was a counsel that S. Paul gave, and no command. Such like Paul wrought a work of supererogation, when he preached the Evangel gratis, where he might have taken justly for his labours, 1. Cor. 7.40. and 9.14.15.23.17.18.19. Christ our Saviour speaks of the same works in the parable of the Samaritan, Luke 10.35. where he promised to the ostler to recompense him what ever he did supererogat upon the wounded man more than 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, than it is no more by works, otherwise grace were no more grace: and if it were of works, than 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 blasphemy: 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 than God hath commanded, which ye call works of greater perfection than 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 straighter, and more high kind of life, then either the Law of God or man hath prescribed. And that a man may love God with a greater and more perfect love, then is commanded him in the Law, lib. 2. cap. 13. & 6. yea, that a man may love God with a greater love, than 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 satisfy for our sins: and that men may communicate 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 communicate 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 myself to have believed that ever they durst have professed such damnable and devilish doctrine, if I had not read it myself 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 myself. But if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit together. The Lord deliver his own from such damnable doctrine, which of necessity must bring damnation upon the believers and professors of it.  
To answer you then; first, if we be not able to perform all the duties which God requires of us in his law, than we are not able to do works of supererogation, which is more than 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 than 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 not 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 choice, to do, or not to do, as though the Lord had not commanded us to glorify 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 than 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, than 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 than 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, than none can augment their glory 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 communicate to others. Bellarm. lib. 2. the 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, etc. 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 fulfil the Law, than was he not able to do more than 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 Saviour 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 hypocrisy. 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 their revenues which they have, wherein they surmount the Princes of the world, and so augment their glory in heaven, and be perfect? But shall others believe and obey this doctrine of yours, when the greatest Patrons of it believes and obeys it not? O hypocrites! 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 glorify God to the uttermost of his power, and God is most glorified by the single life of these, especially in the time of persecution, 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 avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife, etc. And if they cannot abstain, let them marry, etc. And whereas ye say that Virginity is better than 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 shall not a Sacrament which gives remission of sins, be better than an indifferent action, 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, verse 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 spoilt other Churches, as he saith himself, and took wages from them. And also the Church of Philippi did communicate unto him twice, 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 God's law to ware more upon his neighbour in his extremity then two penny worth? Hath not the Law said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself? 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 than the Law required of him, that he never thought of himself that he had fully obeyed the Law. And therefore how often prays he in that Psalm, that the Lord would open his eyes to understand the Law, and give him grace to perform the same, Psal. 119.12.17.18.27. And in other Psalms he saith, My sins are more than 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 more duties than ever we are able to do: (For when we have done all which is commanded us, yet we are but unprofitable servants:) you would be so far from defending these your works of supererogation, that ye would abhor and detest this doctrine.    

SECTION XIX. Concerning Christ's descending into Hell.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
THirteenthly, our doctrine is, that Christ our Saviour (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, losing 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 touchstone bears 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 controversy 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 Father's 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 itself, 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 than 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 than 300. years after the days of the Apostles. For Augustin lived in the 400. years, and the Nicene Creed was more than 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, than the four Evangelists, which are the sworn penmen 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 yourselves cannot deny. Therefore it cannot be that he locally descended into hell.  
Secondly, the Scripture makes it plain that Christ's 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 Godhead; 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 Saviour calls Abraham's bosom, where Lazarus was: betwixt the which and hell, the Scripture testifies there is a great gulf, Luke 16.23. therefore he descended not locally into hell.  
Fourthly, some of your own learned Doctors have seen this error of yours, and have gone from it, as Durandus by name, who affirms, in 3. distinct. 22. quaest. 3. That Christ's soul descended not to hell in substance, but in virtue, and proves it by reasons.  
And last of all, you are at such variance among yourselves concerning this point, that some of you affirms, That Christ's 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 yourselves, 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 risen 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 Christ's 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 31. verse most plainly: He knowing this before, speaking of David, spoke 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 itself, 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 conclude this, neither in these points, M. Gilbert, nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us, is your doctrine agreeable to Christ's doctrine and his Apostles, as hath been (I hope) proved sufficiently. You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armour, and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine, and uphold of yours, than ye have done: otherwise your shots will be but as shots of paper, and your bulwarks but of intempered mortar, 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.    

SECTION XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery, and the Reformed Religion.  

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 chief 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 Magistrate, etc. except such things were expressly 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 impossible 〈◊〉 or not, let this my answer be a trial thereof. You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible: but what have ye for you? You say, because the difference chief that we differ from you, is in denying and abhorring. What a raisin 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 falsehood is denied and abhorred? What new Logic or Divinity is this? I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner, if yourself 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 Bordeaux, 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, etc. 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 yourself will not deny, and Bellarmin confesseth, in his Preface before the Controversies, and in his Preface the 〈◊〉 Pontifice, that you differ from us in the main and ●●●●tantial points of Religion; therefore of necessity we 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 shall 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 gainsay the Scriptures of God, impairs 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 Highpriest, 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 Bordeaux, whereof we spoke 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 expressly contained in the Word of God: but their general Confession, or their negative faith, is not expressly 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 allege 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 expressly 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 Country; 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 King's Majesty to suspend his acts against us, that we may be as free to speak our mind as he, he shall have a proof hereof. If not, let him prove the same by writ, and he shall have an answer by God's 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 Majesty's acts against you, that is not in our hands: and for all the good ye could do, you have but too much liberty. And if you speak no better for your Religion than 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 yourself 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 yourself, 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 than 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 than this, or else ye will lose more than 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 stars 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 shall 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 controversy betwixt the Roman Church and us, wherein we descent, but I shall 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 controversy, one, or more, and he shall have the proof of this.    

SECTION XXI. Concerning Justification by Faith.  

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. chrysostom, 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 expressly 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 heresy in the very time of the Apostles.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for this calumny of yours, the trial 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, etc. 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, Doctor's 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, taketh 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 Christ's 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 than fire is without heat: and yet neither are our works, nor the work of Faith itself, the meritorious cause of our salvation; but only Christ's death and righteousness: Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith, the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christ's righteousness, but only Faith itself. This then is our doctrine, which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture, that he must be exceeding blind that seethe it not.  
The places to confirm the same, are these, Rom. 3.28. We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, then hath he wherein to rejoice, but not with God. Ephes. 2.9. By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: 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 expressly 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 shall have eternal life. And Luke 8.48. Thy faith hath saved thee, etc. 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 shall justify 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 Saviour saith to Jairus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Only believe, and she shall be saved. Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God. And lest ye should say, this was not a justifying Faith. I answer: This Faith which Jairus had, was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had: but her Faith not only healed her body, but her soul also, Luke 8.48. which Bellarmin grants, lib. 1. de justif. cap. 17. pag. 84. & our Saviour testifieth, saying, Thy faith hath saved thee, etc. 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 justify? For if it suffice for the greater work, much more for the less.  
Thirdly, the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace, and not to works, and so oppones them, that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification. We are justified (saith he) freely by grace, and not by works, Rom. 3.24. And to him that worketh the reward is imputed, not according to grace, but to debt: but to him who worketh not, but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness, Rom. 4.4. And in another place, If it be of grace, it is no more of works, or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works, it is no more grace, or else work were no more work, Rom. 11.6. Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace, and grace (if the Apostle be true) cannot stand with works: therefore our Justification is not by works, or else it were not of grace: and so not at all: and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned. I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture. Now to the Fathers, because ye say it cannot be proved by them, they speak as plainly as we do. Origen hath these words, in epist. ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith, that the justification of faith only sufficeth (solius fidei) so that he that believeth only is justified, suppose no work be fulfilled of him. Hilarius, Canon. 8. in Matth. saith, For only faith justifieth: fides enim sola justificat. Basilius in homil. de humil. saith, This is a perfect rejoicing in God, when a man vaunts 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 thrice, 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. chrysostom 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 justify? 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 virtuous soever ye report the ancient righteous to have been, yet their virtue 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 its self the virtue of justifying. Bernard serm. 22. in Cantic. in the 1200. age, saith, Man being justified by faith only, shall 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 feigned here aught 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 untruths and lies again: for by this ye will both discredit yourself 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 controversy. 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 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 pillars, 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 practice 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, writeth, 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 than 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 there were any who had fulfilled it. But the Apostle concludes 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, etc. 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 separate from true faith, so no man can attain to salvation without them: because where ever Christ dwells by true Faith, not only he justifies them, but also sanctifies them, and makes them fruitful in good works. The which we grant, and therefore do urge the same continually, knowing for a truth, that without holiness no man shall see God, Heb. 12.14. and that the axe is laid to the root of the tree, and that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn 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 controversy 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 concludes the whole matter saying, How far therefore are they deceived, who promise to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith. The which error we condemn also with you: For we acknowledge the necessity of good works, as the fruits of a living Faith; but not as the efficient, formal, or instrumental cause of our justification.    

SECTION XXII. Concerning the Authority of the Fathers.  

M. Gilbert Brown.  
FUrther, I say, since the difference chief in Religion betwixt us and them, is about the understanding of the Word of God, 
* Not we, M. Gilbert, but one of the chief pillars of your own Church, Cajetan a Cardinal (which was sent in Germany against Luther) the Pope's Legate, who saith in plain words, That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, doth gather insufficient arguments, to prove Christ to be the Son of God: that the 2. and 3. Epistle of John is not Canonical Scripture: that the Epistle of Judas is Apocrypha: that the last chapter of Mark is not of sound authority: that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John, is not authentical: and of S. James Epistle, that the salutation of it is profane.  albeit they deny a great part of the same to us; what is the cause that they will not abide the trial of the ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years, seeing that they were of his Religion, as he affirms? If he be as good as his word, the matter will be soon ended. And if our Religion be not sound consonant to theirs in all things (wherein they differ from us) we shall 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, etc. Now you say, that the difference chief 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 descent from your brethren (as I have proved in sundry points before) seeing ye descent from yourself. 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 controversy between us, are but unwritten traditions, which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture, and cannot be defended by the same. And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years: we receive their monuments and writings gladly: but yet so, that we put a difference between them, and the writings of the holy Ghost in the Scripture. For as I have proved sufficiently before, as I hope, that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative, to be the supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion, and no other; and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture, is by the Scripture itself: 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 itself. And as for the Father's expositions, as they may not be Judge (as hath been said) because they may err, and have erred, as hath been proved, and yourselves will not deny: and they descent 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 twice baptised 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 people's souls do doubt and waver. Let none believe you nor us, we are all contentious men; Judges must be sought for: If Christians they cannot be given on both sides; for truth is hindered 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 controversy, 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 yield to have it opened and read: The Judge doth hearken, the Counsellors be silent, the Crier biddeth peace: All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard. He lieth void of life and feeling and his words prevail. Christ sitteth in heaven, and is his Testament gainsaid? 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 us to ascribe more to the interpretation of the Fathers, than 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 tied 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, than 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 spoke not Oracles, when they exponed the Scriptures, but might therein be deceived, Defence. 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 miss the meaning of the holy Ghost. And he concludes 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 pillars 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 tied 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 yourself hath written it, that there be very few points of controversy between us, wherein I will not get some testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years, proving with us against them (meaning your Church.) And I desired any man to set me down any weighty point of controversy, one or more, 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. Wither 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 than 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 yourselves. I look therefore, M. Gilbert, that ye shall be as good as your word, and that the matter shall 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 falsehood for ever more upon you, or else keep your word and your writ which ye have subscribed here, and reform these points of your Religion. As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have taken away a great part from the Scripture. I know you mean the Apocrypha, which bears not the mark and stamp of God's 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  language, which was known then to the Jews; nor yet received as Canonical by the Church of the Jews, which your 
(a) Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 10.  Church will not deny. Nor yet acknowledged Canonical by the testimonies of sundry 
(b) Melito lib. 4. cap. 26. Euseb. Origen. lib. 6. cap. 25. Euseb. Athan. in synop. Hilar. in prolog. explan. Psalm. Cyrill. in 4. catechis. Ruffinus in expos. symboli. Hieron. in prologo galeato.  Fathers, 
(c) Synod. Laodicen. Canon. 59 confirmed by the Council Trullan.  Councils, and of your 
(d) Greg. Mag. in comment. in Jobum, lib. 19 cap. 16. Hugo. Cardinalis in prolog. Josuae. Cajetan Cardinal. in fine comment. Hester. Arias Montanus, who was present at the Council of Trent, in aeditione quadam Hebraicorum Bibliorum interlinearium interpretationum.  selves, also Papists of great name: some rejecting all, some more, some fewer: containing also many things repugnant to the truth of God set down in the Canonical Scripture. Last of all, wanting that majesty of God's 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 denied 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 selfsame, 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, than the plea is won. But if I prove the second also, than 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 shall 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 leisure to 
(a) I proved all that was required at my hands.  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) I desire no credit without warrant, as your Popes and your Church do of her disciples.  credence of us, except he bring his warrant, and ye shall be 
(c) M. Gilbert is once beguiled, for this is performed.  sure that he is never able to perform his say.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
This my Reply, I hope, satisfies for answer to this section.    

SECTION XXIII. Concerning the Visibility of the Church, and whither the Visible Church may make defection?  

Master John Welsch.  
THirdly, I answer: The Spirit of God foretells that when the Antichrist shall come, the defection shall be universal, and all Nations shall 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 shall be an universal defection, it is altogether repugnant to the Word of God, as I have showed before, in proving the Church always to continue. For the same place where I believe he alleges 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 shall be persecute by the Antichrist, & such that is written in the book of life, shall not make defection, than it shall not be an universal defection. 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 shall not be universal. And where he saith, that all Nations shall be drunken 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, shall 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 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 spoke 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 prophecy 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. didst 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 shall be a revolting of Kings, People, and Provinces, and the public intercourse of the faithful with the Church of Rome shall cease: And that the daily sacrifice shall 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 shall be Monarch of the whole world. Therefore this Kingdom by your own confession shall be universal: and seeing his Kingdom is an apostasy or defection; for as many as shall obey him, shall make defection from the faith: therefore by the doctrine of your own Church, it must be an universal defection. And the Scripture saith expressly, That he shall make all, both small and great, etc. to receive a mark on their right hand, and on their foreheads: and that no man may buy or sell, etc. 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 shall 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 Catholic, 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 prophesy, that in Abraham all the Nations shall be blessed, Gal. 3.8. and yet for all this, there were and is, millions of the Gentiles 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 exemed 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 Bible's corrupted and augmented: this is your sin, M. Gilbert, whereof one day ye shall 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 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 didst. 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 College of Rheims. 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 aught 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 spoke it in the future time, yet it is a prophecy 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 subjoined, Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath, etc. and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her: and the marchands of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance 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 Idolatry: And yet however it be, this proves that universal defection, of the which I spoke.   

Master John Welsch.  
And the Church of God shall 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 alleging the word falsely. For the text of S. John hath but this (for he notes no place, because he knows it may not abide a trial) 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 days. Here there is no word that she shall 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 lie secret, than it must follow that the whore of Babylon's 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 scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. This word (desert) signifies more properly to be secret or invisible, than the word (wilderness.) It is true appearantly, that if this woman signify the Church of Christ, that in the time of the Antichrist she shall be redacted to a small number, as it were in a wilderness, and shall 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 Catholic that expones it so. And such like, this time shall be but short, that is, for 1260. days, as the text saith, which is but three years and an half. And if M. John's 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 cried out with admiration, that I have abused the Scripture, etc. Now tell me, M. Gilbert, whither is it because these same words are not found in the Scripture, or because the doctrine itself cannot be warranted by the same? If the former, than I say you are but a quarrel about words. And all the doctrine which ye have set down in this your answer, is not set down in so many terms in the Scripture, and yet ye will have it to be the doctrine of God's Spirit (suppose it be not so.) So it sufficeth that this which I said be warranted by the Scripture, suppose the same terms be not found. If the other, than I say, beside other places of Scripture, this same place which ye quote here confirms the same. For know ye not that the wilderness is a place of refuge and secrecy, from the tyranny of their pursuers? And they that fly to the same, they fly 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 shall fly in the wilderness from the face of the dragon, and that for her safety, and there be fed. etc. Is it not then manifest that she shall be secret and lurk then, and not be so open and visible as she was before? And if this be an abuse of the Scripture, than not only yourself hath abused it, but also sundry of your own Church, as the Rhemists, Bellarmin and Sanderus. For yourself saith, That in the time of the Antichrist, she shall be redacted in a small number, as it were in a wilderness, and shall 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 estate 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 flourishing estate as it is now. And the Rhemists annot. in 2. Thess. say, That in the time of the Antichrist, this great defection or revolt shall be of Kingdoms, People, and Provinces, from the open external obedience and communion with the Church of Rome. So that their communion with her shall be in heart, and the practice thereof in secret, and he shall abolish the public exercise of all Religions, true or false, save that which is done to himself: So that the Mass, they say, shall 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 shall stay all public exercise of Religion, and he shall make open warfare with the whole Church, and shall endeavour to destroy the universal estate of the whole Christian Commonwealth, and shall shut up the door of Sacraments, and shall suffer no man any more to enter in the Church of Christ, and shall be Monarch of the whole world. Now if this be true, whether shall 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 gainsay the thing that I writ, cares not to involve yourself in a contradiction, not only to the truth, but also to your own Catholics. Either therefore wonder at your own Catholics, who have spoken as much and more in this point than I did, and at yourself 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 yourself 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 spirit, 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 carrying 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 properly to be hid and invisible than 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 fancy 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 selfsame word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in both these places, which signifieth desert or wilderness. But where have you been when ye did imagine this difference? Appearantly ye have been dreaming in some wilderness, or else wand'ring in the wilderness of your own blind imaginations. As for the exposition of your true Catholics, we count not much of them. Always these whom ye call your true Catholics Bellarmin, the Rhemists, and Sanderus, have been plain in this matter, and have spoken more in this point than we do. And as for the time of this her secrecy 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 prophecies, 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 small number whereunto she shall 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, etc. 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 Revelation, in the Epistle to Smyrna, where it is said, They shall have tribulation for the space of ten days; 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 Hierarchy 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 height at an instant, and brought not in 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 shall preach in sackcloth, that is, under persecution, all that time, and at the last they shall be put to death for the testimony 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 than 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 shall give to us two witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260. days clad with sackcloth, Rev. 11.3. But this can no ways agree with this purpose of his. For why there shall be but two of these: and there is more than two hundred Ministers in Scotland. And these two shall prophesy, but our Ministers are no Prophets, (albeit they foretell things oftentimes that is not true) & all the prophecies, if they prophesy at any time, is of evil, and not of good. These two shall prophesy but three years and an half: but our Ministers have prophesied these 38. years, if preaching be prophesying. And these two shall be clad in sackcloth; but our Ministers, chief 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 than 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 spoke nothing beside that which Moses and the Prophet's foretell 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 Apostasy 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 Pope's supremacy, which is the foundation of all: therefore you and your Church flies to unwritten traditions, and feigned 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 Peter's 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 feigned 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 ways in S. John: therefore ye conclude 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 Logic schools again, to 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 ways found in S. John: Ergo, I have found a new revelation. But what if the sense be found? What if the selfsame 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 yourself 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 shall preach in the time of the Antichrist, suppose they expound them of Elias and Enoch, and that they shall 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 yourself 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 labours, 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 prophecies of God, and exponing them literally; which according to the use of prophecies, and especially these which are set down in this Revelation, and all the circumstances of this text, aught 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 mouths, and destroys their enemies, Rev. 11.4.5.6. etc. 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, etc. 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 prophecy of the other, and the other to be the accomplishing of the prophecy. 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 qualify any thing by the Law. For by the Law, Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall 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 shall preach against the Antichrist. And whereas you say, that we foretell ofttimes things that is not true: this is your calumny and lie, M. Gilbert, and so ought to have no credit. And the prophecies of the Ministers of this land against your Antichristian Kingdom, ye have found by experience, that they have been too true. And their prophecies are truer than the prophecies of one of your Pope's Hildebrand, who openly in the pulpit on the second holy day in Easter week, in the presence of divers Bishops, and Cardinals, and of the people and Senate 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 prophecy 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 prophesy 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 spoke with against the Lord's Prophet. And what good can be spoken of your Babel, since the Lord hath foretell the ruin of it, & in part hath been accomplished? And some of your own number, as Hildegardis, Bridget, Catherine de Sens, have foretell 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 dolour and in mourning; whereby is signified the sorrow and dolour that should arise to the true Ministers of Christ through the persecution of the Antichrist & his members, & their idolatry and abominations. The which hath been so clearly fulfilled in the Preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his days, 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 yourself, and your Clergy, and your Head the Pope, with his triple Crown, with all the rabble of his Prelates, Abbots, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. 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.  
His clothes be made of precious stones, his gorgeous Mitre dight  
With jewels rare, with glistering gold, and with 
1 A precious stone, called a Carbuncle, of the which kind one that fell out of the Pope's Mitre by a mischance at his coronation, was worth 6000. crowns, Platin. in vita Clementis 5.  Pyropus bright.  
O very Trojan trulls, no Troyans.  
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 overseers of the Church of Christ, seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Prelates▪ according as it was prophesied of you, Rev. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modesty? 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 neighbours, but ye oversee yourself. 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 in the exposition of this Revelation of S. John (for all their grounds & proofs is upon prophecies and dark speakings.) Young Merchiston in his book upon the Revelation, chap. 11. verse 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 men's traditions, and coloured 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 signify 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 wholesome doctrine to preach to the poor people, some one way, and some another, according to the invention of their own brains, without any proofs.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As for these divers expositions which ye mark in us, that have so stirred up your affections, that ye cry out, God knows whether this be wholesome doctrine to teach the poor people, or not. I answer; That these divers expositions of ours, are all agreeable to the analogy of faith, as yourself will not deny: and therefore cannot be called unwholesome doctrine. Otherwise, not only the Fathers, but also your own Doctors, and Bishops, and Popes, have delivered unwholesome doctrine, by your reason; for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture diversely: which is so manifest, that I need not prove it, and yourself also hath delivered unwholesome doctrine here: for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving, for two contrary things, and yet Bellarmin saith, that some Catholics take them both for one. And what shall I say of your divers 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 in the main points of your Religion; some holding one thing, and some another, as partly hath, and partly shall be marked, are manifold? And if divers expositions of a place of Scripture be unwholesome doctrine, as ye say, then surely this point of your Catholic doctrine, which teaches, that the Scripture hath a  sense, and that it may be five divers ways exponed, must be unwholesome doctrine, and then ye lose more than you can win by this. Beware, M. Gilbert, that by this dealing ye bring not yourself in suspicion that ye are forsaking your Catholic Faith: For this is a point of it, as Bellarmin reports, lib. 3. the 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 prophecies and dark say. First, you injure the holy Ghost in calling his prophecies 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 than manifest, that not only prophecies, 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 shall be put to death, etc. Here is two things to be noted. First, that the Church shall not be invisible in the time of Antichrist: for if the Pastors of the Church be invisible, how shall they be taken, and put to death? If the Antichrist and his members shall 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. For these are M. john's own words. And S. John saith, That the beast shall 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 lie three days 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 shall come to pass to none of them in our days, 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 shall slay the two Witnesses of God, Rev. 11.7. and that he shall make war with the Saints, and overcome them, Rev. 11.12.13.15.17. so is it likewise prophesied, that his cruelty shall not always continue; but at the last, The Lord shall take his Kingdom in his own hand, and the Gospel shall be preached to them that dwell upon the earth, and Babel that great city shall 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 more 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 of Germany, that cruel persecution of Queen Mary, and bloody Inquisition of Spain in the Low Countries, 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 testify what heart ye bear to the Ministers of Scotland, if your power were according to your malice: But fulfil ye the measure of your fathers, that the blood of all the righteous may come upon you. As for the Prophecy 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 carcases 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 carrions 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 prophecies, 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 yourself will not deny, for the likeness between them: Sodom, for her filthiness and uncleanness: Egypt and Babylon, for her tyranny 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 Pilate, our Lord was crucified, for the false challenge of treason against the Emperor, which was falsely 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 herself 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 herself 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 lie 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 Pope's authority, in England, Scotland, France, the Low Countries, etc. and whose bodies have been cast out, and whose bodies have been ignominiously handled they have lain in the streets of that great City. And as all the rest of this Prophecy is to be understood spiritually: so is this, reviving and ascending 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 shall slay, shall be raised up again in their own persons (which yet shall be at the last day in the general resurrection:) but that the Lord shall raise up other Witnesses, endued with that same Spirit which they were endued with, preaching the same truth, and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist, as that Prophecy in the 3. of Malachi, of the sending of Elias before the coming of Christ, was fulfilled as our Saviour 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 virtue and spirit of Elias. So this Prophecy 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 virtue 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 daily raises up in all countries', 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 prophecies, 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 daily consumption and final abolition, 2. Thess. 2.8. Rev. 18.2.21. and 19.20. we know assuredly shall 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, 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) shall not come to pass, yet I fear you long to see that day upon the Ministers of Scotland, which your brethren rejoiced 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 Catholic. 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 favourers 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 Saviour saith, Matth. 24.36. yet his conjecture thereof is in greater modesty and sobriety, than 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: than not only the year, but the very day thereof may be known of them that live in those days. For the Scripture saith, He shall 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 shall 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 estate of the Church of God and his 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 flourishing estate as it is now.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
But what if all these say of his be false, what shall 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. John's own invention, and the Word shall 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 say of mine concerning the largeness of the dominion of Antichrist, the estate of the Church of God, and his true Pastors all that time, be false: than 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 prophecies 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 Vicar 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 foretell 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 Monarchy and Supremacy 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 afric, 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 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 Pope's 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 Silvius 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 Monarchy and Superiority of the Pope over all General Councils is disallowed. And suppose the Churches of France and Germany did honour them, and gave them some preeminence, both of honour 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 Monarchy of his, but misliked it, and hated the same: yea, France made laws against it, in Conventu Bituricensi. Now these are such whom yourselves do hold for Catholics, and yet they acknowledged not the Monarchy of your Pope. The Churches of Graecia, and of Asia in the East, Chalcon. conc. de reb. Turc. lib. 1. & 6. 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 Silvius hist. Bohem. cap. 32. Provence, Sleydan. comment. lib. 16. Piedmont, 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 Pope's Supremacy. So that if his Supremacy were to be put to trial by the judgement and will of men, so many thousands of Pastors, Doctors, Synods, Councils, Universities and Churches, through all ages, in all countries', of all sorts and estates, may suffice to put the Pope from his Supremacy: So that I think you may blush, M. Gilbert, that hath so boldly written; that he hath been always acknowledged by the visible Church to be the visible Head of the Church, seeing his Monarchy 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 trial of it, and seeing it is not written in the book of life: therefore I conclude, that his Supremacy is not a citizen of that new Jerusalem, but a child of Babel; and therefore they are blessed that shall 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 height. If the true Church opponed its self to the Antichristian Church, than it was visible and known: and if it was known when the Pope's Kingdom was at the highest, much more when it was low: and so it was always known by M. John's self.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
Whether oppugn ye your own imagination, M. Gilbert, here, or that which I writ? If the first, than you are foolish who fight against yourself, as ye do indeed. If the second, than 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 flourishing estate, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church here, their effectual calling, their faith, love, hope, and inward graces: their union with Christ their Head, their spiritual armour, weapons and warfare, and their Head Christ Jesus, and their whole glory is inward and invisible, and they shall 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 outwardly, as they are men, and sometimes in respect of their outward ministry: yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholic Church; that is, in so far as they are chosen, and sanctified, etc. 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 estate: sometimes outwardly glorious, sometimes more obscure: sometimes openly known, and seen by all: sometimes known and 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 small 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 heresy, which overspread, as it were, the whole world. The which also our Saviour foretell should come to pass: When the Son of man (saith he) shall come, shall 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. 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 yourself also, who confessed that the Church of Christ should be redacted to a small 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 flourishing, as they were before; but redacted to a small number, more obscure and more latent: partly through that universal defection, and partly through that extreme 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 height. 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 itself.   

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 fly to the wilderness, is to be invisible, as M. John saith. Now young Merchiston hath, that this invisibility endured 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 foresaid.   

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 fly 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 openly 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 adversary in this point. But to go forward to the rest of your argument: you say, that by me there was sundry that oppugned the Pope, and his Clergy, 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 small handful: partly through the pest of his damnable doctrine, partly through his extreme persecution, so that they were compelled to lurk and hid 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 invisibility, it hath relation to the beginning, and growth, and height of your Antichristian Kingdom: For as it grew, the Church was more and more obscured: and when it was at the height, the Church was in her eclipse: and as it hath decayed now since, she hath accordingly spread herself 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 shall be proved hereafter) was the first step to that Antichristian Kingdom. Next, the loving of preeminence in the Ministry 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 kithed in Pope Victor, who did take upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of Asia, for a light dissension 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 excommunicate 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 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 easy: till at the last, they first got the primacy of honour; 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 shall 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 heresy: 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 height, 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 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 Saviour, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 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 brevity's cause, saving some here at the end. Moreover, our Saviour commands us to complain to the Church if our brother offend us: and also we ought to join ourselves 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 join 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 always 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 add 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. add Donatistas'.   

M. John Welsch his Reply.  
As for the 18. Psalms, 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 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 Catholic 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 foretell, and your Church acknowledges. As for the 5. of Matthew, 15.16. there, not the Catholic 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 do cannot be hid. As for Isai. 2.3. and 60.20. and 61.9. and Dan. 2.35. and Mich. 4.12. they prophesy of the greatness and clearness of the Church of Christ in the time of the Messiah, and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the world, and of the stability and perpetuity of Christ's Kingdom. But yet it follows not but both the Catholic Church is invisible, as I said before, and that the visible Churches may be obscured and darkened, as it was foretell, in the time of the Antichrist. As for the 18. of Matthew, 17. Go tell the Church, etc. 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 heresy, or through extreme persecution, or through both together, as it was foretell in the time of the Antichrist, and hath been fulfilled by your Church. As for the true Church, unto whom we should join ourselves. I answer: We can have no salvation unless we join ourselves first to the Catholic 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 join ourselves 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 Mary's 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 ofttimes 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, chrysostom and Jerome, which ye quote here, they speak either of the perpetuity and eternity of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, nor yet against the obscure estate and small handful of the Church of Christ, whereunto she should be brought in the days of the Antichrist, as was foretell by the Scripture, and fulfilled in your Papistical Kingdom. For we grant that in their days the Churches of Christ was frequent and glorious, but yet they did not ay remain in that estate. 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 small handful, as hath been said.    

SECTION XXIV. Where our Religion was before Luther? Or a Catalogue of them who professed our Religion in the midst of Popery.  

Master John Welsch.  
Last of all, I will set you down the names of these worthy men, that in the midst of Popery spoke 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 height, anno 1158. Gerardus and Dulcimus Navarrensis, 
M John hath not the right diet of these his holy Fathers. Answer. If it was so, as you writ 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 falsely alleged 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 men's wives have been made common to your Popes, and your Clergy, in horrible adulteries.  Waldus, a citizen of Lions in France, with a great number, taught that same doctrine which we teach now, condemned the Mass to be wicked, the Pope 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 Country of Alsatia, whereof many were noblemen, 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 afric, who do not acknowledge the supremacy of your Pope, are more than 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 Country of Swevia, there were many Preachers that taught freely against the Pope, and affirmed, he, and his Clergy were heretics and simoniacs, 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 heretic, 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 applied to the Pope and his Clergy, and so taught them to be the Antichrist, and the whore of Babel, anno 1290. Laurence an Englishman, 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 spoke against the Pope, I will but note their persons, Robert Grosshed, John Gryllis, a p●eaching Friar, 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, Mathias Parisiensis, Nilus' Archbishop of Thessalonica, John Wicleff, and the Lord Cobham, and sundry others.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
M. John hath set down here a number of 
(a) It is false.  obscure and infamous persons, for the most part justly 
(b) And this also.  condemned for heresies, without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he alleges: and all 
(c) 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 than 300. years before them.  two hundred years before Calvin began their Religion, or thereabout. Of the which I contend not, whether they spoke against the Pope or not. For all heretics from the beginning have barked against the Pope: But our contention is, whether such heads of Religion, as they denied, were heresies or not, which as yet M. John hath not 
(d) But these heads is proven, that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Rome Babel: they are not heretics, 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 heretics 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 smoke of that Antichristian darkness of yours did overspread all, as it was foretell 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, etc. 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 herdsmen, Amos 1.2. and his Apostles who were fishermen, 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 glutton, and therefore they must receive their pain with h●m in the life to come. But why do you call these obscure whom I named here? Are not some of them Friars, 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 Noblemen; 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 Pope's Monarchy. As King Philip le Bell of France, the Prelates of France joining with him in his Dominions, about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third, King of England, despised the Pope's 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 heretics 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 heretics, whom ye call so: and surely if murderers, heretics, adulterers, Sodomites open bargainers with the Devil, and the vile monsters of the earth, is to be called obscure, infamous and heretics, than your Popes are to be called so; who of all men that ever the earth hath born, have been the vilest monsters and heretics, 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 heretics 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 Countrymen, 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 enforced to grant the contrary, that infinite numbers have taught the same doctrine before him. The truth is too strong for you, M Gilbert, that compels you to grant the thing that ye would wish with all your heart the people never knew it. But comfort yourself, M. Gilbert, for the truth will be victorious at the last, and your darkness daily 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 heretics 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 justify them, who not only have taught it, but also sufficiently did prove it, and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist, and his Church Babel. But with them, they have the Son of God, and the Apostles, Paul and John heretics: 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 heresy 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 heresy or not? that is, be against the Scripture or not: the which if you would do, than 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 tried by the Scriptures, which of them is heresy: and consequently, whether ye or we be heretics? And therefore you ever refuse to let your doctrine be tried by the Scripture, but run to your pretended antiquity, and successions, Councils, and lying miracles, and many other vain startingholes, 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 trial 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 height, 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 heresy: 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 heresy, will you contend any more then? Shall the plea cease then? Will you ever slander our Religion of novelty, in saying, Martin Luther was the first that began it, and we had none who professed before him. But you will say, This you have not proved. It is true, I had not proved it then: but now I hope I have proved it sufficiently, that your Popes are the Antichrist, and your Rome, Babel; which was one of the principal heads of the doctrine which ye taught, and sundry others also. Disprove you it, if you can, M. Gilbert.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
But he saith, They preached the same Religion that he preaches, etc. Let M. John name any of these his Doctors, that he will abide at in Religion, and I shall 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 heretics, 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 Country, 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 Country, 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 dwelled 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 heresy so long, as he hath done with us, etc. So God dwelled in no place without error and heresy the space of thirty years, while now in Scotland.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
But you say, they descent from us in some things, and is not of our Religion in all things. Whereunto I answer: That suppose this were true, yet it will not follow but that they are of our Religion, seeing they and we do agree in the main foundations thereof. For we have learned to call them brethren; which do hold the foundation, as the Apostle saith, suppose they have built hay, straw, or timber upon the same. Otherwise, if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure us, if you will have none to be accounted of your Religion, but these only that profess with you in all things, as your Church doth now: than not only (by your reason) shall 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 yourselves: but also sundry points of your Religion have been brought in after these days, being unknown in the former ages, as yourselves will not deny, and I have proved in some heads, in the other part concerning the Mass. Yea, you shall want all the Fathers, by this reason of yours. For there is not one of them but they have their own errors, which ye yourselves 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 shall 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 heretics, 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. 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. the purge. cap. 4. Michael Bajazet, 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 yourself, if ye be measured by this measure, is not a right Papist, because you descent from many of them in many things, as hath been proved before. And certainly (M. Gilbert) if this reason of yours hold forth, you shall 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 Catholic 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 wives, and all other things common, which is your calumny of them, and not their practice, 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 heretics. But you and your Church who have condemned them for the truth of God, and have renewed old condemned heresies, as shall be proved afterward. And we have renewed no heresy 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 Country; 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 days, 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 the popple was soon sown among the good seed, and the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles days) 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 heresy or schism, as we never read it did in any Nation in the earth, in such purity without heresy and schism for such a long space. And yet it follows not but it hath dwelled in sundry Churches in such purity before, suppose not so long together, which you omit in your conclusion. Doth it follow by his testimony, 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 than that space, suppose mixed either with some heresies or schisms. So you must coin a new Logic (M Gilbert) before ye can confirm your proposition by his testimony.   

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 immediately 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 Saviour 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 Monarchy 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 days, 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 immediately, 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 Prelates did molest them what they could, yet they and their favourers in short time grew to such strength and multitude, that by the year 1422. (which was an hundred years immediately before Luther) Henry Chichesley the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote 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 immediately before Luther) that they were able not only to defend themselves by force of arms against the tyranny 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 Italy, 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 immediately 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 frequency and purity, and that by reason partly of the smoke of that bottemless pit, that is, of your doctrine, which darkened both the Sun and the air, Rev. 9.2. that is, both teachers and people: and partly by your extreme persecution, whereby ye made war with the Saints of God, and overcame them, Rev 13 7. But your smoke will vanish away at the last, and the clear light of the Lord shall shine more and more, maugre all your hearts.    

SECTION XXV. That the Reformed Churches have not renewed old condemned Heresies.  

Master Gilbert Brown.  
BUt that M. John shall 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 heretic denied 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. writ.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
Now are we, by God's grace, come unto your last calumny, in affirming that we renew old condemned heresies. This is indeed, M. Gilbert, a heavy challenge, if it were true: but it is but like the rest of your calumnies; yea, it hath less appearance of truth, than any thing which ye have spoken against us. A liar, M. Gilbert, shall not enter in that heavenly city, but his portion shall be in that lake that burn with fire and brimstone, Rev. 19.20 & 22.15. And he that slandereth his neighbour (much more than he who slandereth the truth of God) shall not rest in the Lords holy mountain, Psal. 15 3. But to come to the first, Novatus intruded himself in another man's 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 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 man's 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 heresy 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 heretics: but Theodoretus in his Book de fabulis Judaeorum, and the Ecclesiastical History, reckon him not among heretics: and he was not condemned for an heretic in any Council: that therefore which he taught according to the Scripture, we embrace. 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 justify? But you are like to 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 calumny.   

M. Gilbert Brown.  
4. Simon Magus, Martion and Manichaeus, denied that man had freewill, as Augustin. haeres 46. Jerome, and Epiphanius haeres 42. make mention.  
5. Jovinianus affirmed that Priest's 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 denied 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 relics of Martyrs.  
Julian the Apostate was of the same opinion, as Cyrillus contra Julian. declares. The same Julian despised the image of Christ and his Saints, as the foresaid Cyrillus lib. 9 contra Julian. makes mention.   

Master John Welsch his Reply.  
As to this fourth heresy, 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 calumny.  
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 estate 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 contain. And generally we dare prefer the honest marriage of Christians, before the proud and feigned virginity of many Monastical votaries, as Augustin in Psal. 99 saith, Lowly and humble marriage, is better than proud and haughty virginity. As to the second point, he affirmed indeed that the choice of meats and fasting was not merit, and this is no heresy. But if this be heresy, than the doctrine of the Scripture is heresy: 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 heresy, than it is an old heresy: 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 heretic 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 relics of Martyrs: if he despised these, than he erred: for we both teach and practise, that the bodies of the Saints should be honourably buried, and we do not despise them. But if he taught that they should not be worshipped, than I say he is not an heretic in this, but you are heretics and idolaters, who express contrary the Commandment of God, do worship the creature: Matth 4.10. Deut. 6 13. And Vigilantius was no heretic, 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 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 julian's calumny against them. But if he had lived in your days, he might justly have objected it unto you.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
7. Valentinus the heretic, denied the very body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, as Irenaeus saith, lib 4 cap. 34.  
8. Simon Magus, Martion, 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 doctrine of the most learned of the Protestants, as Melancthon, Calvin, Beza in lib. de praedest. contra Calv. sycophant. and others.  
9 The Novatians denied penance, as S. Augustin haeres. 38. affirms.  
10. The Manichees denied 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. didst 3. ne quis. Ignatius ad Philip. de cons●crat. distinct. 3. jejunium.  
13. The Pepusians and Collyridians', denied holy Orders, and made it no Sacrament, as S. Augustin haeres. 4.24. and Epiphanius haeres 44.79. write.  
14. The Pelagians denied 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 chrysostom 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 God's Word, or not; the which I have proved sufficiently before in the fourth point of doctrine: and so the denying of it, is no heresy. But yet it appears not by this testimony of Irenaeus, which ye cite here, that he taught such doctrine.  
As for the 8. heresy, 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 heresy, that is a calumny to ascribe it to us. For Novatus denied that there was any place of repentance to these, who after they were baptised, 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 heresy, their doctrine was, as Augustin saith there, That Baptism served nothing for salvation to any: and that none who followed their sect, should be baptised: 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 baptised: 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 tied to certain and prefixed days, as your Church doth: and we think it no heresy to fast on the Lord's day, more than other days: 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 Lord's day, is not like ours: for they fasted on the Lord's day, because they believed not that Christ was a true man, as Leo in that same place testifies which you will not say yourself that we do; for we acknowledge him to be a true man.  
As for the 13. heresy of the Pepusians and Collyridians', their doctrine was that women might be Bishops and Elders, and might use these public functions, as these places which ye have quoted, testify: which is not our doctrine, but rather yours, who permit women to baptise in case of necessity. That they denied Orders to be a Sacrament, there is no such thing to be found in these places which ye quote here.  
As for the 14. heresy of the Pelagians, if they denied 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, than they erred, and our doctrine and practice condemn this: but if they denied the absolute 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 heresy 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 heresy 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 baptised. And surely this heresy rather agrees to you, who teach, that Mary was not born in original sin, and therefore she needed not to be baptised.  
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 chrysostom defended, and these of the primitive Church. Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 2. de indulgentijs. For first, they were bound to no prescript form of diet, apparel, or any thing else, by solemn vows of wilful poverty, and perpetual continency, as yours are. Next, the former Monks remained in the order of private men and laics, 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 than private 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 heretics, as testify the ancient Fathers: and therefore this is a true argument. What ever was heresy in old times, is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics, 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 heretics, as testify the ancient Fathers. Therefore they are heresies yet, and the defenders thereof heretics.   

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 ourselves 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 heresy in old times, is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics. I answer: If ye define heresy to be an error obstinately 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 heresy, than I deny it; for sundry 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 heretics, as testify the ancient Fathers. I answer: That some of these are heresies indeed, and we abhor and condemn them more than ye; and some of these as falsely 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 heretics. And where you say, many other like. I answer: It is true they are like, for they are both calumnies, and horrible untruths, and lies, as these have been; whereof one day ye shall 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 yourself. For certainly in this you do as thiefs 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 thiefs, common thiefs. Even so do you: for these crimes whereof ye are guilty yourselves, you falsely charge us with.    

SECTION XXVI. That the Church of Rome hath renewed and maintaineth old condemned Heresies.  
THat all men may see, that not we, but the Church of Rome hath renewed, and doth maintain old condemned Heresies, I shall not do as you have done to us; that is, either to lay to your charge such heresies as ye maintain not, or such things to be heresies which are not heresies indeed, which ye did to us: But in this I will deal sincerely with you, feigning nothing neither of them, nor of you.  
1. Simonianis worshipped the Image of Simon and Selene, whose heresy they followed, Ederus in Baby. pag. 5. so do your religious Orders worship the Image of these who were first authors of their Orders.  
2. The Basilidians worshipped Images, Irenaeus lib. cap. 23. and used invocations, so do you.  
3. Carpocras had some painted Images in great estimation, both of others, as also of Christ, Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 3.24. So do the Papists paint Christ, and say, that his form was painted by Luke the Evangelist.  
4. The old Idolaters did excuse their Idolatry, that they did not worship the Images, but the thing represented by the Image, August. in Psal. 113. in con. 2. & Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 2. So do you excuse your Idolatry.  
5. It was the custom of the old Idolaters, to afflict and whip their own bodies, that they might please their own Gods, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 21. So do some of you now.  
6. It was their custom also to light candles at noon day, in the time of their service, Iren. lib. 6. cap. 2. So do you.  
7. Basilidians and Carpocratians kept secret their doctrine, counting all other men dogs and swine, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 23. Epiph. haeres. 24. So do you keep secret your mysteries from the common people, and will not suffer the Scriptures to be read of all; lest (say ye) precious pearls be cast before swine.  
8. Marcosij they spoke some Hebrew words in Baptism, to astonish and affray the hearers, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. But you are worse, who in all your service, speak nothing but an unknown language; and that (say you) to make their mysteries to be had in greater reverence.  
9 The Heracleonits' anointed their dead with oil, balm and water superstitiously, August. de haeres. cap. 16. Epiph. haeres. 36. and so do you.  
10. Martion and the Pepuzian heretics, permitted women to baptise, Epiph. haeres. 42. au. ad quod vult. cap. 27. So do you.  
11. The ossenes taught, that it was not needful that prayers should be made in a known language, Epiph. haeres. 19 ante Christum. So do you: and therefore your prayers are in Latin.  
12. The Messalians affirmed Baptism only to serve for the washing away of the sins going before it, Theodoret. divin, decret, cap. de Bapt. So do you.  
13. The Tatians, and sundry other heretics, affirmed marriage impure, Epiph. haeres. 46 So doth your Pope Siricius in their Priests, Gratianus Epist. 82. cap. Proposuisti.  
14. The Manichees damned marriage in their elect and perfect, but suffered it in the rest, August. Epist. 74. So do the Papists in their Priests and religious men, they damn it; but they do tolerat it in the laics: and yet the Spirit of God calls it, A doctrine of Devils to forbid marriage, 1. Timothy 4.1.2.3.  
15. The Manichees they had the Communion under one kind. So doth the Papistical Church. The Council of Constance so decreed it, against the Scriptures, with these heretics. Such like their Fasting and your Fasting is alike: For they made choice of meats, and abstained from flesh; but yet used their delicates, and so do you.  
16. The Manichees affirmed there was two beginnings; so doth Augustinus Steuchus a Papist, in sua Cosinopoea, in principio Genes. where he saith, That the crystallin heaven is coeternal with God. The which if it be true, then certainly it is God: For that which is without beginning is God, and so there are two Gods. If Calvin, or any of us had written such, how would heaven and earth have been filled with cries against us?  
17. Montanus an heretic, received the whole Scripture, but yet he denied that it contained all doctrine needful to salvation, Epiph. haeres. 48. So doth the Papists. And from this error springs their traditions, their ceremonies infinite in number, partly Jewish, partly Ethnic.  
18. This Montanus was the first who prescribed certain laws of fasting, the Scripture appointing no such thing. Apollo. apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. So doth the Papists, their fastings are upon their prefixed and set days.  
19 Montanus taught, that small faults was to be suffered: for after this life neither was the souls to be delivered from the prison, till they had paid the utmost farthing, Tertull. de anima, in fine. So doth the Papists also.  
20. Such like the doctrine of the Montanists was, that Abraham's bosom was beside Hell, or in the uppermost part of Hell.  
21. That the Patriarcks before the coming of Christ, were in Hell.  
22. That only the Martyr's souls go immediately to Paradise.  
23. That prayers and oblations should be made for the dead.  
24. That extreme unction should be given after Baptism.  
25. That the sign of the Cross should be used, as testifieth Tertullian in lib. de animo, & de coron. milit. All which your Church hath renewed.  
26. Helcesaitae made two Christ's: one above, another beneath: So doth your Church make two Christ's; one in heaven, having a true natural body with his own essential properties, in a certain place, visible: another in earth, made of the bread and wine, with all the essential properties of a true body, invisible, in the Sacrament.  
27. Sampsaei kept the dust of the feet, and the spittle of two women which they worshipped as Goddesses, which they affirmed did serve to cure diseases, and which they used as amulets. Epiph haeres. 53. & haeres. 19 ante Christum. So doth your Papistical Church keep the relics of Saints, worship them, and carry them about, as serving either to preserve, or to recover health. The like also was the superstition of the Ossens.  
28. Cathari gloried in the merit of their works, and affirmed that they were made righteous with an inherent righteousness, Isid. etymol. cap. 8. de haeres. Christ. The Papistical Church in this heresy goeth beyond them: for both they glory of their works, and affirm that we are justified with an inherent righteousness.  
29. The heretics called Angelici, and also the Caini, they worshipped Angels, Aug. ad quod vult, cap. 39 Epiph. haeres 38. So do the Papists.  
30. The heretics called Apostolici, admitted none in their number, but those who vowed wilful poverty and chastity, August. de haeres. cap. 40. Epiph. haeres. 61. So the Papists admit none to their religious Orders, but such who vow both.  
31. There were some heretics who went , August. ex Philastrio quorundam, cap. 68 So do the Franciscan Friars, and those who are called Co●digeri.  
32. The Donatists denied that the true preaching of the Word was a note of the pure Church: and therefore Augustin in sundry places, calls them back to the Scriptures. So doth your Church.  
33. The Collyridians' worshipped Mary, and therefore they are called Idolaters by Epiphanius haeres. 74. So do the Papists.  
34. Armenij worshipped the Cross of our Lord, and therefore they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, worshippers of the Cross, Epiph. in Panoplia. So do the Papists.  
35. The Pelagians affirmed Adam would have died, suppose he had not sinned. So doth Augustinus Steuchus, a Papist of great name, in his Annotations upon the 2 of Genesis. He saith, Death is natural, and sin is not the cause of it: and the infants and Adam would have died, suppose they had not sinned.  
36. Also, they affirmed that after the fall, there was left in man a freedom to will good: and so doth the Papists; suppose they differ in this, that the Papists join grace to be a preveener and worker with freewill.  
37. The Pelagians affirmed, that the Gentiles might by Philosophy have known God, and been saved. So Andradius a Papist, lib. 3. orthod. explic. So Catharinus a Papist, who was present at the Council of Trent, affirms in his Commentary upon 1. Tim. 4. That some unfaithful men may be saved. Which is as much to say, as some may be saved who know not God, nor Christ: Which is horrible, and more than Pelagian.  
38. Also, they affirmed that a man may fulfil the Law, and be perfectly righteous. So do all the Papists.  
39 They affirm that infants want original sin. So doth Pighius a Papist, in his Book of Controversies, in the controversy of original sin, That in them that are baptised, original sin is taken away. And he writes also, That Mary was born without original sin. And Thomas of Aquin writes, That Mary had the fullness of all grace, In 3. part summae, quaest. 27. art. 7. Which is to equal her with God. For only in him the fullness of all dwelleth. And many other heresies of the Pelagians have the Papists renewed.  
40. A kind of heretics, called Anomi, taught, that the obedience to the Law was not needful. So do the Papists. First, in affirming, That concupiscence without consent is not sin, and is not forbidden in the Law. Secondly, some of them say, as Sylvester Prierias; It is honesty (saith he) but not of necessity, that God should be loved above all things. And so Molanus another Papist affirmeth, the theolog. pract. tract. 3. cap. 16. concl. 1. num. 11. The same Molanus also saith; That it is not commanded of God that we should pray for our enemies in special, cap. 8. concl. 3. num. 19 And yet the Scripture saith most plainly; Pray for them which persecute you. And in another place, he affirms, That it is not commanded that we should salute our enemies with a friendly and loving heart, cap. 16. concls. 3. And also he saith, That he who doth not tell to him who is ignorant, his manifest defect, is not unrighteous, Tract. 2. cap. 20. conclus. 2. And again he saith, He who gives counsel to do a less evil to eschew a greater, sins not, Cap. 23. conclus. 5. Such like contrare the second Command, they universally teach, That the worship of Images, is no break of it. And they call the Cross, Their only hope. What horrible blasphemy is this? And Torrensis a Papist, objected to Catharinus another Papist, in his book de residentia cont. Catarrh. That he denied the Law of Moses to be God's Law, and the precepts of Paul to be Christ's precepts. Mother also I might bring, but these will suffice. Now of these things, I may most justly conclude, That your Religion hath renewed many of the old condemned heresies. And as you made one argument, so I will make another. What ever was heresy in old times, is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics: this you cannot deny, because it is your own proposition: but these former heads which I have set down (wherein I have used no calumny, as ye have done) was heresies in old times, and the defenders thereof heretics, as witness the ancient Fathers: therefore they are heresies yet, and the defenders thereof heretics. And so by your own argument, many points of your Religion, are old condemned heresies, and yourselves heretics who do defend them.   

SECTION XXVII. Concerning Antichrist.  

Master John's Conclusion.  
ONe thing which I hope will cut off all controversy, I offer to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist. And if this be true, than all men that profess him, secretly or openly, as it is said in the Rev. 14.10. shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.  
Master John Welsch, Preacher of Christ's Gospel at Kirkubright.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
If this controversy of ours shall not be cut away while M. John prove the Pope to be the Antichrist, certainly it will endure 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 privately obey the Pope, and reverence him as the Vicar 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 Gilbert Brown Priest, and defender of the Catholic Faith.   

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 infinite 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 threatening of yours, M. Gilbert, wherein ye say, that all those who will not openly and privately obey the Pope, etc. must drink of the wine of the wrath of God. If it may be believed, then how doth this stand first with your Pope's 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 Jesuits, and seminary 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 Countrymen, who do not openly avow Papistry, but have subscribed and communicate 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 threatening of yours be true, then beside the many infinite 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 privately as Christ's Vicar 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, infinite 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 Apostasy and abomination soretold in the Scripture, Rev. 17. 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 forehead or hand, that is, openly or privately, professes obedience unto him, shall (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 shall be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and before the Lamb. And the smoke of his torment shall ascend for evermore: and they shall 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 enlarge my heart to understand and embrace 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 heresy, 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 shall communicate, is excluded from the merits of Christ, and shall be partaker of her plagues, and finally shall be damned.    

SECTION XXVIII. That the Pope is Antichrist.  

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 Saviour show unto the Jews, that albeit he came in the name of his Father, yet they would not receive him. If another (saith he) shall 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 shall receive. Now it is out of all controversy, 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 Vicar 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 selfsame Antichrist that the Scripture foretell should come. Thou wouldst know (Christian Reader) of what weight this controversy 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 shall not prevail, Rhemist. annot. upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him, in his Preface before the controversy of the Pope's supremacy, The foundation which upholds the house of God: the Pastor which feeds his flock: the Emperor which governs his host: the Sun which gives light to the stars; 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 stars, that is, the Ministry, must be darkened, and the body must lie still without motion. And he applies these Prophecies, 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 Zion, upon the which the whole Church is built: and that proved stone, against the which the gates of Hell hath never, nor never shall prevail: and that corner stone, which joins both Jew and Gentil, as two walls together in a Christian Church: and that precious stone, from whence the infinite 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 itself, 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 shall fall, shall be broken: and on whom it shall fall, it shall 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 Pope's supremacy is called in controversy, 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 selfsame Antichrist which the Scripture hath foretell, 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 stars, the foundation of the house of God, and a mortal God among men. Unto us he is God's 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 controversy is.  
Let us see then how he defends him from being the Antichrist, and then you shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall receive him as their Messiah, which they look for? If you be not of their mind, then beside that you descent from the doctrine of your own Church, it is not probable that the Jews would receive him, if they thought not he were their Messiah. And if ye be of their mind, than I say, the Jews will receive none as their Messiah, but these who are born of the Tribe of Juda, and the family of David in Bethlehem, and who shall 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 Messiah 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 Messiah 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 shall come of the Tribe of Dan: if then he shall come of the Tribe of Dan (as they say) the Jews will never receive him as their Messiah, because they know their Messiah which they look for, shall come of the Tribe of Juda. Therefore if Sanderus and the Rhemists speak true, the Jews shall 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 foretelleth, Rom. 11.24. and the Rhemists grant it, annot. upon that chapter. Upon the which, I ask you (M. Gilbert) whether shall they receive the Antichrist, before or after their conversion? If you say, after: then I say, after they have embraced the true Messiah and the Gospel, how can it be that they will look for another Messiah, and receive the Antichrist as their Saviour. 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 shall be sent to them, and they shall receive him, because they received not Christ Jesus: of force than it cannot be after their conversion. For the cause, to wit, their hardness of heart, and refusal of the true Messiah 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 than 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, than your Church doth. (For Bellarmin puts but 45. days 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 likelihood is there that ever they shall be converted to Christ, which is against both the Scripture, and your own doctrine? For seeing the Jews are to receive him as their Messiah, 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, etc.) shall not this drive them further from Christ, and harden their hearts more than ever it was before? And seeing he shall reign but three years and an half, and they cannot embrace the true Saviour, 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 shall come immediately, or at the least 45. days after (as Bellarmin saith:) how can it be possible that they shall 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 shall never receive the Antichrist. So then to conclude this point, as the Messiah which the poor blinded Jews look for, will never come, the true Messiah 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 labour to cover, that he should not be seen.  
But how prove ye that the Jews will receive the Antichrist? Because our Saviour saith to the Jews, If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. I grant indeed our Saviour 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 shall 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. Pont. cap. 12. rejects Augustins opinion concerning the generation of the Antichrist, that he shall come of the Tribe of Dan, because it cannot (saith he) be proved by the Scripture: shall 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 yourselves. Your first reason than 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 shall 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 shall come in his own name, who truly shall have no divine virtue, but shall 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 shall come in his own name, that he is not truly sent of God, neither hath God's 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, falsely vaunting so: in his own name, because God sends him not; but he intrudes himself without a lawful calling. Now to answer you then, I say, the Pope comes in the Name of Christ, as his Vicar: I grant, he and his Clergy so vaunt; but falsely. 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 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 denies 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 servants & 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 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 conclude, 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 conclude, 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 foretell 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 venture 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 shall 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 noblemen? 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 the Pope, but thou plays the tyrant: we feel under the habit of a Pastor, a wolf; the stile belies the parent. Thou vaunts thyself 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 Saviour, thou art the least of all ministers of the Temple of God; but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruin: whatsoever likes thee, is lawful, Aventinus lib. 4. annalium. This was evil in those days, but there are worse since. And what now, Reader, shall 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 ministry, 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 Ministry 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, shall be proved afterward in the third mark of the Antichrist. So that Aventinus saith of the Pope, He who is the servant of servants, is the Lord of Lords, and he desires to beas though he were God. He speaks great things, as if he were God. He changeth the laws, establisheth his own. He reaves, he spoils, he deceives, he slays: that man of perdition, whom men use to call Antichrist (speaking of the Pope) in whose forehead 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 style him the servant of servants, seeing he hath lifted up himself so far above both God and man? So then to conclude this, as Goliath 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 shall be proved by their own doctrine and practice, 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 shall be but one, the son of perdition, 2. Thess. 2.3. Now then, if there shall be but one chief Antichrist, whether is this present Pope he, or some other before him? For every man knows that there have been more than 230. Popes, as all the Writers of their lives testify. 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 shall 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 ways be understood, but of the forerunners 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 lies all the controversy. 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 yourself, 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, shall 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 selfsame 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 shall be but one. How would ye have cried out, if I had fathered such a falsehood 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 shall be but one singular person. I fear ye take pleasure to deceive the simple with such silly reasons. Our Saviour 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 shall 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 overseer, etc. Here are the same phrases of speech: 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 Saviour, 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 Saviour saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Upon this rock I will build my Church: he speaks here in the singular number, with the same article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Apostle speaks of, in describing the Antichrist. Now let me use this same argument against your Popes, that they are not this rock upon the which the Church is built, as you say, as you have used here to prove that he is not the Antichrist. This rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church, is but one singular person, because our Saviour 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 shall destroy him with his presence. 2. Thess. 2.8. And your doctrine is, that he shall not come while the end of the world. Now what a monstrous man will you make him, whose spirit was in the days 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 persuade 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 days, that is ● 1500. years since, and he shall 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 shall do? For the Scripture saith, He shall resemble the Lamb with horns: He shall speak like the Dragon: He shall do all the power of the former Beast. He shall make all men to worship the beasts image: He shall make all, both rich and small, etc. to receive his mark, etc. so that no man shall buy or sell, but he that hath his mark, etc. so that all Nations shall be drunken with the wine of her fornication, Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is, that he shall build the Temple of Jerusalem, which the Turks have now in possession: that he shall destroy Rome: that he shall abolish all Religion, and all the outward ceremonies thereof: that he shall 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 shall we think that a miserable Jew by the help of their scattered people, being an enemy to God, and all good men, shall be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks, against whom all the power of Christendom hath not prevailed: & not only to overcome them, but also to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth, and to restore the city of Jerusalem, and build the Temple again from the foundation, and abolish all Religion, both true and false, except his own: (For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichrist) and that in so short a time as three years and an half, as you ascribe unto him? Who will believe you, M. Gilbert? Will any Turk, Christian, or Jew himself believe, that any one man, suppose his age were never so long, and his person never so strong, can be able to accomplish and perform so many, and so wonderful things, as your own doctrine affirms shall be done by the Antichrist? So this doctrine of yours, that the Antichrist shall 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 Lion, a Bear, a Leopard, etc. and yet by them was not signified one certain person, but a succession of Kings in the selfsame Kingdom: and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast, to signify 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 jointly with their head, is called the Antichrist: an heretical Church, which is called Babylon. Nonnulli non ipsum Principem, sed universum quodammodo corpus ejus, id est, ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem, simul cum suo Principe, hoc loco Antichristum intelligi volunt: Homil. 10. in Apoc. & homil. 13. & de civitate Dei, lib. 18. cap. 2. & lib. 20. cap. 19 Gregory a Pope, saith, in moralibus, lib. 33. cap. 26 The beast is a multitude of them who preach the Antichrist. And Thomas a Papist saith, The beast (which is the Antichrist) is a body: and so not a singular person. And the ordinar Gloss saith, The head and the body together, make the Antichrist. And Hugo a Cardinal, calls him, an university, or commonality. So not only the Scripture and reason, but also the testimonies of these Fathers, and some of yourselves concur all in this, that the Antichrist is not a singular person, but a body, an estate, a succession. So, I hope, the Reader hath seen nothing, either by Scripture, or by reason alleged by M. Gilbert, wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichrist.   

Master Gilbert Brown.  
Thirdly, S. Paul saith, He shall be an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, etc. 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 prophecies, but manifest say 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 raisin. The Antichrist shall be an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God. I grant that. But the Pope is not an adversary, etc. This I deny: the which if you prove, then shall 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 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, than 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 styles 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 foretell, 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 poison 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 stead of salvation, & the Antichrist under the Name of Christ. So than if ye will believe either the Scripture, or these testimonies of the Fathers, neither the styles, 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 shall 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 deceivable 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 hid 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 God's 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 glorify me, 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 file him.  
Indeed, I will neither deny the hypocrisy 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 hypocrisy 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 yourself is of that selfsame 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 yourself believes not to be true, I therefore read it, and read it over 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 Catholic Faith, as you say you are: but also it may be they suspect you of heresy, 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 yourself, seeing you are so earnest with others to read the same. Bellarmin that great defender of your Catholic Faith, was more wise than 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 conclude 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 yourself 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 Catholic 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 you be it. Now this is all that you have said for the defence of your Pope, which are but as fig leaves, which cannot hid 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 foretell 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 prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Saviour to come, doth agree, and of whom the New Testament testifieth that they are accomplished: so he must be that Antichrist which the Scripture foretell 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 forerunners of that great defection, which was foretell 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 and Head of that defection and apostasy, which the Scripture fore-shew and foretell 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 extols himself above all, etc. 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 prophecies, as you say, but by plain say. 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, Favourers, Friars, Friends, and themselves, do sufficiently testify. 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 shall 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 first or second Table, which they have not violated in the highest degree? 1. Whoremongers. 2. Adulterers. 3. Sodomites. 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. Poisoners of Emperors, Senators, Cardinals, yea of their own parents and sisters. 19 Helpers of the Turks. 20. Drunkards. 21. Simoniacs. 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, Friars, 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 wooden Crucifix, to be the true blood of the Son of God, and caused a solemn festival day to be made to the honour 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 persuaded 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, sat in the Papal seat of Rome two years and six months, that all might understand that that prophesy of the great whore that sat 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 Pope's 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 carcase 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 laics, cuts off two of his fingers, and casts them into Tiber, 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 lain eight years in the grave, degrades it from the Pontifical honour, cuts off the three fingers which Stephanus the 6. had left, and with them casts his carcase in the river Tiber, and abrogats his acts, and ordained anew them which was ordained by Formosus, which 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. the imper. But he by the means of Marosia, his harlot's 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 communicate: 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 threefold incest, one with two sisters, another with his father's concubine, the third with 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, than 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 virtue 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 Enchanters 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 and body afterward, obtains the same. He had a copperhead in secret, which always 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 rejoicing at that, and never being purposed to go to Jerusalem, yet not being ware of the Devil his subtlety, 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 writ) 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 Christ's Vicars, or the Devil's 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 Magic, 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 satisfy his filthiness. He by these his devilish arts obtains the Popedom, and makes his former companions Magicians, his most familiar counsellors. 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 rend in pieces, and by heresies, under the colour 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. buys 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 poisoned 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 through forgetfulness: and remembering himself, he sends two of his most faithful servants about it, charging them straight 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 shall 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 God's 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 Crown with this verse, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Rodolpho. He loosed all his subjects from their oath of obedience to him, and forbade 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 , three days, in linen clothes, and all that time could not get access to this proud Antichrist: who answered, that his Holiness was not at leisure. 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 wars among many. Of whom also Cardinal Benno writes, That seeing the Devil could not get Christ subverted by the Pagans, he laboured 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 Sultan, 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, etc. Thou shalt walk upon the serpent, and the cokatrice, and thou shalt tramp down the lion 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 replied, Both to me, and to Peter.  
Boniface the 8. that threeformed beast, of whom the common Proverb is, that he entered in like a Fox, rang like a Lion, and died like a Dog: He most craftily deceived his predecessor Celestin, by causing one to speak to him for many nights through a whistle, as though it had been the voice of an Angel: Celestin, Celestin, renounce: for the burden is greater than 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, spoiling them both of their live, offices, and their heritage's. He wasted and spoilt the places where they were reset, so that they were compelled some of them to dwell in the woods, flying his cruelty. Some did venture upon the cruel hearted Pirates, 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 Ash-wednesday, upon his knees, bore 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 God's face while after the resurrection. and sent Friars to preach it. He was declared by the people of Rome (as Marius saith) to be an heretic, a Tyrant in the Church, and a perturber of the public peace of Christians.  
Benedict the 12. he bought from her other brother Gerardus with great gifts, a sister of Franciscus Petrarcha, to commit villainy 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 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 excommunicate one another: they sent infamous libels one to another, wherein they called other mutually Heretics, Schismatics, Antichrists, Tyrants, Thiefs, Traitors, 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 heretics, schismatics, and Antichrists, etc. 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 tyrannised 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 than 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 incarnate Devils, and in malice and wickedness, is worse than 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 roasted in a furnace, and being roasted 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 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 poisoned, threatened 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. Peter's mantle, and I will put it upon him who shall 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 poisoned his predecessor Alexander: that he was an Heretic, a Simoniack, a Liar, an Hypocrite, a Murderer, a Dicer, and Adulterer, a Sodomit, and what not? This also was laid to his charge, that he denied 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 Pope's 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 months 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 troops of harlots, gaining thereby great sums of money: for every harlot of Rome every week paid 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, etc. That is; While he was living, he mocked God: and dying, he believed there was not 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 pressed to do nothing without first he had asked the advice 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 traitor also, for two hundred thousand Ducats, which he received from the Turk, he poisons 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 son's Prince of Sicily, 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 herself, to commit Sodomitry with his own bastard son Zanathensis. (O horrible impiety!) He commanded to poison some of the Senators of Rome, and of his own Cardinals, who were at a banquet 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 poisoned, and so perisheth. His Epitaph saith, Famae contemptor honestae, etc. Contemner of honesty, and all wickedness itself. 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 honourable lineage, 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 wars, he cast Peter's keys in Tiber, with this voice, Saint Peter's keys help not, let Paul's 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, etc. That is, A defiler of maidens, a banisher of honesty and chastity; a honourer of all unclean persons; the infamy of the world; the decay of the Empire; a contemner of God; a man of wickedness; a public enemy; a false and 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 honourable parentage, and deflored her under the hope of marriage, of whom he begat Petrus Aloysius, that vile Sodomit. He poisoned his mother and sister, that he might enjoy all the heritage himself. He committed incest with another of his sisters, and afterward poisoned her, because she loved others more than 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 poisoned 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 tribute and toll every month, 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 villainy, Cardinal, and admitted him to his domestic 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 miss his dish of bacon which was not set at the table, at the command of his Physician, he braced forth in this blasphemy: Bring me my dish, all dispetto de Dio: that is, In despite of God. Again, when he miss a dish of a cold peacock, which he had commanded to keep to him, having other new roasted 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 replied; If God was so angry for the eating of one apple, that he cast out our first parents out of Paradise; wherefore shall it not be lawful to me who is his Vicar, to be angry for a peacock, seeing it is far greater than 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 Schisms 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 satisfy 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, than men of their own Religion, their own flatterers and friends, it would have seemed incredible. But their own Writers have by God's 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 shall compare the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the government of his Kingdom set down in the Scripture, with the doctrine of the Popes, and the manner of their government, that the contrariety of them may be known: so that it shall be seen, that cold is no more contrary to heat, and black to white, than 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 man's salvation (without the which there is no eternal life) concerning the truth of Christ's manhood made of the woman, is utterly defaced and overthrown, by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome, in making him to have infinite bodies, not made of the seed of the woman, but of bread and wine; or at the least, made of two divers substances. And as they overthrew the doctrine of his person, so they overthrew 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 Father's 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 woe & a curse unto them that adds, empairs, or altars 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 easy to all them that will understand it; Prov. 8.9. Psal. 19.8.9 13. & 119. But they have many ways 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 human, 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 miss 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 joining with the Commandments of God, their own commandments, and that not as things indifferent, but as necessary to salvation, Concil. Trident. Sess. 6 cap. 10. Fifthly, in condemning all sense and meaning of the holy Scripture, but that which they hold themselves, Sess. 4. Last of all, in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection, obscurity and ambiguity, calling it dead and dumb, like a nose of wax. They therefore who have altered, added, and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his death, which he hath left in writ, for to instruct his Church in all things, and to make her wise to salvation, and perfect to every good work, doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his Prophetical office: But the doctrine of the Church of Rome hath done so: Ergo, they spoil 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 virtue 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 ways: as first, our Saviour 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 cries and supplications, with tears, in the days of his flesh, Heb. 5.7. Luke 22.44. and therefore he thrice 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 testify, that he suffered more than 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, than Christ hath not paid 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 shall die the death, Ezech. 18.20.  
Secondly, the Scripture testifieth, that Christ's 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 join 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 satisfy 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 man's 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 virtue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in setting up another sacrifice for the redemption of souls: And also they have spoilt him of the dignity of his Royal Priesthood, in joining unto him colleagues and fellow-Priests, to offer up himself daily in their pretended sacrifice.  
Fourthly, as they spoil him of his Priesthood, so do they spoil 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 God's 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 God's favour, Masuenda in disput. Ratisb. cum Bucero & Scholast. And also they join with the grace of God, man's freewill, 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, than 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 spoil 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 spoilt Christ of the first part of his office of his Priesthood, so do they spoil him of the second part thereof, which consists in his intercession, in joining 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 virtue 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 rob the Lord Jesus of his Priestly dignity, and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same: so have they rob 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 relics. 4. Unto images of the Trinity, of the Saints, of the Cross. 5. Unto things consecrated, as water, oil, etc. 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 etc. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist, whose doctrine spoils 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 man's salvation than he hath taught, and worship other Gods than the God that made heaven and earth, and after another manner than he hath commanded: Then I say, the Popes of Rome may justly be called, and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God: For they are guilty of all this abomination. And because I know that the poor and ignorant people, and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin, will not believe these things of him, and of his Church; but as Thomas said of Christ, Unless I see the print of the nails, and put my finger in the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. Even so, unless they see their idolatry, and grope it, as it were with their hands, they will not believe it: therefore I am compelled, for their conviction and information (that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish) to let them see their idolatries, and to make them to grope their abominations, and that by their own Books. For I shall not speak here beguess; for that were great foolishness to allege 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 shall forge nor fain nothing of them, but shall 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, etc. printed anno 1520. they pray to the Archangels and Angels, to defend them in battle: 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 Estate, and every malady or affliction, have their own Saint to be a Patron for them. Upon the which also hath proceeded this canonising of Saints; that is, to make men Gods. For they say, that this canonising 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 canonising of Saints. 1. To be reputed publicly to be a Saint. 2. To be prayed to by the Church. 3. To have Temples and Altars. 4. To have offerings and sacrifices offered to their honour. 5. To have a festival day. 6. To have an Image with a candle, in sign of their glory. 7. To have their relics. And they say, That they may be directly prayed unto with the Lords Prayer, which our Saviour form only to be said to God the Father. Now how shall 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 than 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 days? etc. And what shall we say to Franciscus and Dominicus, two of their canonised 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 than 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 than all the Apostles: for they left but their boats; but he left all to his very hose. They call him, Typicus Jesus, a typical Saviour, a singular crucified one, who received in vision the same wounds which Christ hath, & suffered the same dolours: 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 much more. It is written also upon the port of the Cordeliers of Bloys, of this Franciscus, That his sin shall be sought for, but it shall 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 heresy, to believe all Franciscus marks. And their Books are set forth by their privileges.  
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 twice 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, etc. And such like of the rest of the miracles, wherein he not only compares, but in a manner 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 communicate 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 applies that which is only spoken of Christ in the 45. Psalms, He is more beautiful than the sons of men. Also he saith, That there was two Images, the one of Paul, the other of Dominicus. At the foot of Paul's 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 easy 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 therefore the way to Christ by him is easier. So he prefers him to Christ in miracles, and to the Apostles. But what shall 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 absolutely 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 ofttimes 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 forehead; 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 threefold 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 this comparison through all the parts of Christ's life. And in the end, he saith, That being to departed 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 Advocate than 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 Pope's supremacy: For Gregory the 9 canonised him as a Saint, anno 1223. and appointed a festival day to be kept to his honour: And he that writes these things is an Archbishop of Florence, a man famous among them. To him that will join 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 Friars of that Province, of their Masses, prayers, fastings, abstinences, devotions, watch, disciplins, etc. 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, Christ, 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 honour 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. & 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 Advocate and Judge together, is too rigorous: for this cause, saith he, God hath provided an Advocate (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 rainbow, 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 Gentiles, 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 Gentiles. 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 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 shall I speak of her Litanies, Psalteries, and Hours? Of her Hours, where she is called, the Queen of mercy, who hath bruised the Serpent's head: which thing is spoken only to the first parents of the Son of God, Gen. 3. and the restorer and Saviour 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 honour to the Trinity, by whom the whole world lives, next God. She is called, the comfort of the desolate: 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 honours: 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 Litanies, 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 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 herself 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 shall 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 spoke of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to be transferred and applied 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 fullness 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 name's 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, Sat here, my mother, on my right hand. O mankind rejoice, 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 compiled by a Cardinal of Rome, Bonaventure, who was canonised 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 rejoiceth in my Lady. My soul, magnify my Lady, etc. Now lettest 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. etc. 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 remembrance 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 spoilt 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 testify, which by 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 relics of the Saints, they offer sacrifice, in burning incense unto them, which the Scripture calls an oblation only proper to the living God, Mark 9 49. Therefore Ezechias broke the brazen serpent, because they burned 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, etc. 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. come. 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 vestments, as though 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 shaved, 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 battle: the Lord of strength, Conrade. Brun. de imagine. cap. 7. Such like, when the Image of the Dove at the Pentecost, is let down in the Temple with fire and water, than the Priest saith, Receive the holy Ghost, Ibidem. So do the Popes give the style of the immaculate 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 these immaculate Lambs (speaking of the Images) receive that selfsame virtue 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 Christ's 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 testify, Polydor. Virg. de invent. lib. 6. cap. 13. And Pius 2. saith, Comment. lib. 2. that in the Church of S. Mary, etc. 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. the imag. cap. 21. That the images of Christ, and the Saints, aught 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 itself should be worshipped with that same kind of worship properly, with the which the thing itself 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. form a prayer to be said to the Image of Christ's face, kept in a shirt which they call Veronica, and hath granted ten thousand days pardon to them that say this prayer devoutly, Salve sancta facies Redemptoris nostri, etc. 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: the destroyer of heretics, our joy in this life. Secondly, they pray to this Image, to purge us from all the spots of our sins: to join us to the company of the blessed: to power in light in our hearts by that virtue which is given to it: to increase our merit, and to lead us to heaven. When shall we tumble ourselves 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 desolate. 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 Christ's, 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, shall be tormented in fire and brimstone, day and night: and the smoke of their torment shall ascend for evermore, and they shall have no rest, Rev. 14 10.11. I hope now the second point is sufficiently cleared, that they have spoilt Christ of his Priesthood, and of that glory and honour that is due unto him.  
Now as they have spoilt him of his Priestly office, so have they rob 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 ministry of the Word, Sacraments and Discipline, which he hath ordained for that end. As for the first: He by his Spirit 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 freewill: 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 favour of God; and that after they have obtained faith, they may not only fulfil the Law perfectly, but also do more; yea love God with a greater love than he hath commanded, and lead a more straight and heavenly life, then either the Law of God or man prescribes, as Bellarmin saith. And that men may not only satisfy God for their own sins, and merit everlasting life to themselves, but also may communicate 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 Cloisters and Nunneries, as their visitation doth testify. And in a fish pond there was found six thousand children's 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 Augsburg, 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 babbling 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 edify nor build up, no not the tower of Babel itself, suppose it be a tower of confusion. So by their doctrine they have spoilt 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 spoilt 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, ear and not hear them, minds and not understand them, because they are kept up in a strange language. And therefore sundry 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 virtue, corrupted them with errors, polluted them with ceremonies, and have spoilt the people of the fruit of them, by reason they are ministered 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 private Masses: and they have spoilt 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 Ministry 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 Legates, Cardinals, Primats, Patriarches, Archbishops, Lord Bishops, Canons, Parsons, Vicars, Archdeacon's, Priests, Abbots, Provincials, Popes Inquisitors, Commissioners, Officers, Procutors, Promoters, and the innumerable rout of their Monks, Friars, Jesuits; whose Sects and Orders, as they have been reckoned 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 Pope's having set themselves in the room of Jesus Christ, the King of his Church, have not only tumbled out Christ's 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 Magistrates, as shall 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 tyrannising 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, etc. 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 God's people, but to satisfy his own (if yet a horseleech 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 risen, 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 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 cried out upon of riot, 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 thiefs, of whom Rome is made a den: not against murderers, for whom there is a sanctuary in the houses of Cardinals at Rome, Aeneas Silvius hist. de Asia min. cap. 77. not against adulterers, not against whores, whereof the Pope received such tribute, as hath been spoken; but against Emperors, Estates, Nations, who would not serve him at a beck, against any man that denied his Parish Priest a little tiends: against whole assemblies of the faithful, whom he by most villainous 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 shall I speak of his tyrannical laws, whereby he hath oppressed the Church of God, as of single life, auricular confession, choice of meats, apparel & days, of new and strange canonising 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 shall I speak of his dispensations against the Old Testament, against the Epistles of Paul, against all right and equity? That a brother may marry his own brother's wife (King Henry the 8.) and an uncle his sister's daughter (Philip King of Spain.) And Pope Martin the fifth, approved the marriage of one with his sister german. That Church offices, and live, may be given to boys, 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 shall 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 days 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 foresaid 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 conclude this then, he is the Antichrist whose Doctrine and Religion, Ministry and Discipline, is directly contrary to the Doctrine, Religion, Ministry and Discipline of Jesus Christ. Again, he is the undoubted Antichrist, whose doctrine spoils 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 spoils 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 foretell 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 than is the undoubted Antichrist, whom the Scripture foretell 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 shall be proved, then of necessity it must follow, that the Popes of Rome are that undoubted Antichrist. Now for proof hereof, we shall set none other upon their assize, 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 than 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 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 heretic. 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 practice 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 than the Moon, and the Sun eight times greater than the earth; so is the Pope forty seven times greater than 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 allegiance and fidelity; Pope Clement 5. de jurejurando. The Pope may depose Kings from their Kingdoms, and absolve their subjects from their oath of allegiance, 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 excommunicate and deposed by the Popes. Justinianus, Otho the first, Frederick the first, Henry the fifth, Sigismundus, Carolus the fifth, all Emperors and Monarches, admitted by the Popes of Rome to kiss their feet. And if this had been their practice 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, aught to kneel thrice 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 stirrup, while the Pope leaps on. So did Constantin the Great, saith their Canon Law, Dist. 96. cap. Constant. The Emperor at the banquet holds the water to the Pope to wash his hands, and brings the first dish to the Pope's table. And if the Pope be to be carried in a chair, he, or the King, if they be present, aught 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 Monarches of the world: so that Pope Gelasius saith, That Emperors are more inferior to Popes, than 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 Primate. 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 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 retreat, 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 laws to bind the consciences of men, & cap. 15. and that he may create new Religions, Anton. sum. 3. part. tit. 22. cap. 5.  
His power over them that are in Purgatory and Hell. According to his absolute 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 infinite pain; to wit, from the pain of Hell, as Gregory did, who by his prayer absolved the soul of Trajan from the infinite 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 than the power of all the Saints, Baldus. God hath subjected the Angels in heaven to the Pope, and he is greater than they, in four respects: and no less honour is due unto the Pope, then to the Angels: and then greater (saith he) for the Pope receives from 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 claims power over heaven and earth and hell? This they cannot deny: But I assume, their own Clarks, Doctors, Popes, and Bulls testify 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 than 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 create 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 denied. 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 fullness 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. 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, etc. de consider. ad Eugenium: yea he hath claimed a greater power to himself, than 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 than 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 Pope's will is for reason: He hath an heavenly arbitrament, 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 absolute 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 judgement, will, and power; so doth he claim to him the selfsame 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 testify. 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 honours, 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 Friar 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, arbitrament, and adoration, but also the very Godhead itself, 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, divinity or Godhead. And the 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 forehead, 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 God's word, that is not God's 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 God's 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 Pope's 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 defence. Apolog. They say, He may dispense against the degrees forbidden in the Law of God. And that he may, according to his absolute 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 than God. To conclude 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 practice, 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 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 civet. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 19 expones this Temple to be the Church of God, wherein the Antichrist shall sit. For lest men should think that the Antichrist should be an open enemy to God, the Apostle saith, He shall 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 foretell to be an household enemy, and not a foreign so: and he shall withstand Christ not openly, but covertly. And though he be a deadly enemy to Christ, yet shall 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 God's 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 hypocrisy of a dissimulat truth: for he saith, he were not like the Lamb, if he spoke 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 shall 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 having a show of godliness. And his unrighteousness; that is, his doctrine, is called deceivable, 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 coloured with shows of truth and godliness, that every one cannot perceive it. And yet for all this hypocrisy of his, for all this dissimulation, and show of godliness. He shall speak like the Dragon; Rev. 13.19. that is, his doctrine shall be the doctrine of Devils. His drink shall 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 Catholics? 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, etc. 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 voice, 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 shall 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. So to conclude 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 deceivable: 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 civet. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 29. expone it of the Roman Empire: the which, as long as it flourished, and was in full strength, the Antichrist could not climb up to this his full height 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 height; 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 than 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 Prophecy: 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 Frenchmen, by the Popes: and then from 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 Pope's hand. So that now he vaunts himself to be Monarch of the whole world; and all Kings and Princes gave him their oath of allegiance: 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 ruins 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 days of the Apostles: that is, the foundations of that apostasy was begun to be laid in these days, and that he shall continue to the Lords coming: for he shall not be abolished but by the brightness of his coming, suppose he shall be first consumed with the sword of his mouth: that is, discovered, and sore beaten by the Lord's Word. All which agrees unto Papistry. For that Kingdom is that Apostasy and Antichristian Monarchy, whose foundation was beginning to be laid in the Apostles days, 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 Hierarchy and supremacy of the Pope, and also of his damnable and erroneous doctrine. For that superiority of the Ministry one over another, of Bishops over Pastors, forbidden by Jesus Christ, soon crept in, which was the foundation, or rather stairs, 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 shall assuredly fulfil it daily 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 daily 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 dregs of it shall not be abolished utterly, while the bright coming of the Son of God.  
It follows seventhly, the manner how his Kingdom and tyranny shall 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 calls 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 dwelled upon the earth, by the signs which was permitted him to do. Now certainly nothing can be spoken more aptly of the Pope's 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 deceivable; that is, covered with a fair colour 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 deceived so many Nations as they have done. For what is more common and usual in their mouths 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, etc. 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 falsehood 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 Cordova 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 hypocrite, 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 burned 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, & entered into her mouth: And when the Sacrament went by, she being in a garden, the wall 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 Christ's five wounds upon her. And as the history recordeth, other infinite 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 Friar, 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, etc. in Lisbon, approved by Friar Lewes of Granada, and by other persons worthy of credit in Paris, printed by John Bessant 1586. He allegeth three letters sent from persons of great credit for his warrant. But she was discovered, and confessed her hypocrisy: and that she painted the wounds on her hands, & drew blood on her side, & feigned 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 that certainly there is not one thing that doth more confirm this, that their Popes is the Antichrist, and their Kingdom Antichristian, than 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 more, have wrought by the effectual working of Satan? So then to conclude 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, etc. which cannot be denied: then of necessity it must follow that the Popes of Rome are the selfsame Antichrist which was foretell 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 foretell: 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 risen up immediately 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 showed 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 shall cause all to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Thirdly, that he should deceive them which dwell upon the earth, by the wonders and signs 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 forehead and hands. And the last thing from the which that Antichristian Kingdom (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 allegiance and fidelity unto them, taking their unction, consecration, and Crowns of them, and paid tribute unto them? Have they not kissed their feet, holden the stirrups, 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 own practices, that they cannot be denied. 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 King's reign by the Pope: And that he transfers the Empire from Nation to Nation, and gives them to whom he will: And that all Kings are but the Pope's 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 Caesar's successor, but Peter's successor, and the foresaid Emperor's Vicar. Yea, saith he, All Europe sends greater, or at the least as great tribute 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 tyrannous 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 excommunicate, 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 Countries, 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 than 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 Archbishops, that will spend twice as much as they will do of all the lands that is under their subjection. And some Princes have more land than 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 joined a Senate, 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 joined with him a Senate 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 Tribune's over the people, who had the power of forbidding and annulling of all decrees made by other Magistrates: 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 create new Religions: thirdly, to be Tribune's; that is, to disannul whatsoever decree or judgement of any Bishop or inferior Judges; yea of Synodal and General Councils, if they be not ratified by him. Thirdly, as in Rome was the head of the Empire, the Emperor and his Senate with him; and as the Emperors had their Magistrates 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 Pope's Kingdom, the Pope who is the head, and the Senate 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, Friars, etc. 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, etc. and their Religion, but the Popes of Rome? The blood of infinite thousands do testify 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 Catholics (as he terms 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 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 λ α τ ε ι 30 1 300 5 10  ν ο σ.   50 70 200.  all which being joined together, maketh 666. 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 Hierarchy? 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 Papacy, 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 John's Disciples, who received this Revelation, mentioneth, that the name of this Beast in this prophecy, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Iren. lib. 5. cap. 25. Sed & Latinis nomen 666. numerum habet, & valde verisimile est, quia verissimum regnum hoc Ε χ χ λ η.  5 20 20 30 8  σ ι α Ι τ α. 200 10 1 10 300 1 λ ι η α.   30 10 20 1   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 the Hebrew word ROMIITH, that signifieth R O M I 200 6 40 10 I TH.   10 400   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 Italy 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 applied, 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 forehead 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 yielded 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 than 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 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 shall be made desolate, and shall be burnt, as it is gathered out of the 17. of the Revelation, and this shall 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 foretell 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 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 bloodsheds, 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 gild 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 shall in hypocrisy pretend: but yet in truth have nothing such, but cruelty and ungodliness, the which can no ways 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 yielded 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 described. And the Rhemists say, in their annotations upon this place, that some expons these ten Kings, of ten Kingdoms, into which the Roman Empire shall be divided, which shall 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 shall be burnt with fire, and be made desolate by the ten Kingdoms, which God should stir up to hate her: and he speaks here of that Rome which shall be casten in the midst of the sea: after the which shall 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 than a thousand years, since Rome left off her Gentilism, and yet this prophecy is not accomplished in her. Unto these I join the testimonies of some of their own Monks Bishops, Poets, Friar's 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 behaviour of the Clergy and Bishop of Rome, he accuses them of sacrilegious bribery, of buying and selling of the Bishop's Pall, the Ring, and of all Laws and equity. And he saith in another place, 
Roma nocens nocet, atque viam docet ipsa nocendi,  
Jura relinquere, lucra requirere, pallia vendi:  
Non Deus est tibi Jesus perfida Roma peristi. That is,  
This hurtful Rome doth hurt, and teach to be wicked,  
To leave all ●aw, and gape for gain, and sell a Popish Tippet.  
A greedy gulf, a griping grave, a filthy jakes:  
Both bottomless, unfatiat: and all alike she makes.  
By drinking thou art dry, and louder thou dost cry, come bring me more.  
I pray thee cry, ho: but thou saith, no. I hunger sore.  
I think thou makes gold thy God, not Jesus Christ.  
Rome, what shall I say? What shall I do, or tell thee what is done?  
Wealth weakeneth thee, wealth threatneth thee not to be Rome.  
Then let me speak it, and let me write it, Rome once thou wast.  
Then let me speak it, and let me write it, Rome thou art gone.   
And John a Monk, saith, 
Curia vult Marcas, bursas exhaurit, & arcas, etc. That is,  
The Court of Rome doth aim at marks; it souks the purse, and soaks the arks.  
If that you mind to spare your arks, come not at Popes nor Patriarches:  
But if you frankly give them marks, and with good gold stuff up their arks,  
I warrant than you shall be free, from any kind of penalty.  
Who is within? Who is there? I. Why, why what would ye? Come in.  
Bring you aught? No. Stand still. But I do. Go ye then in.   
The same Monk also saith, 
Roma manus rodit: quod rodere non valet, odit.  
Dantes exaudit, non dantibus ostia claudit.  
Curia curarum genetrix, nutrixque malorum.  
Ignotos notis, inhonestos aequat honestis. That is,  
Rome is a raket, and spiteful hater of the empty hand.  
She heareth the giver, but others never, but letteth them stand.  
Her Court a cage of cares, of mischiefs eke the mother.  
She useth knaves like honest men, and strangers like a brother.   
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 Saviour, 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 forerunner of Antichrist; in that by swelling pride he preferreth himself before others. Arnulphus Arelatensis unto the Council of Rheims, testifigs this of the Pope; Whom (saith he) Reverend Fathers, think ye this man to be, who fitting in an high throne, shines in his purple and golden attire? 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, than a sceptre 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 thyself 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 riding upon a white palfrey, or being guarded 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 advice of Paul (Peter's 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 itself. Now what remaineth whereon ye might further encroach, 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 behaviour of the Romish Prelates: Hence cometh (saith he) that whorish tricking, that stage-like attire, that prince like pomp, which daily we see in them: Hence proceeds the gold that they use in their bridles, saddles, and spurs; insomuch that their spurs are more glittering than their altars. Hence came their stately tables, their variety of dishes, and quaffing cups. Hence issued their jonketting, banqueting, their drunkenness and surfeits. 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 lee-pots, and painting boxes. And hence had they their purses so well lined with coin. Fie 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, foretell the ruin of Rome, more than three hundred years since, in these words, writing to Innocentius the fourth, Pope.  
Roma diu titubans, longis erroribus acta  
Corruet, & mundi desinet esse caput.  
That is,  
Rome rolling long about in errors, bound, and thrall,  
Shall fall at last, and cease to be the lofty head of all.  
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 Prelates 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 forehead that name of blasphemy 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 that great Babylon. And Mathias Parisiensis saith, That Antichrist hath seduced all the Universities and Colleges of the learned, so that they teach nothing sound 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 heresy, and deposed by our right by the Council sentence, and common consent of the Princes and Prelates of Germany, the Priests of Italy, 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 Saviour foretell so many years before.  
And to conclude this, Hadrian the 6. Pope, in his instructions of his Legates 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 Prelates 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 Pope's 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 estate. I omit the rest Ye may see the truth is strong that hath made their own mouths to file themselves. To conclude this then: He must be the undoubted Antichrist, and his Kingdom Antichristian, unto whom the whole marks of the Antichrist, 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 Friars. Bishops, Cardinals, and some of themselves do call Antichrist, and ascribe these things unto him that belongs properly to the Antichrist: But his own Friars, Bishops, Cardinals, and some of themselves have so testified, as hath been proved also: Therefore out of their own mouths 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 antiquity: 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 dissensions among yourselves, whereof I have marked some, and the diligent Reader of your works may gather many more. 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, Schismatics, Heretics, and by a woman Pope; neither in doctrine, being direct contrary to the doctrine of Christ: no antiquity, 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 contrary the Scripture, contrary the practice 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 mouths 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. woe therefore belongeth to their souls that profess it openly, or secretly.  REVEL. 14.8. 
And there followed another Angel, saying; Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great City, because she made all Nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.  
Vers. 9 And the third Angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,  
Vers. 10. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture, into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:  
Vers. 11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever. And they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.    
FINIS.   

A BRIEF DISCOVERY OF THE BLOODY, REBELLIOUS AND TREASONABLE Principles and Practices of Papists: Wherein is evidently demonstrated,  
That they teach and commit Treasons and Rebellions against the lives of Princes, and peace of Nations; and dissolve the obligation of all Oaths and Bonds; and making Perjury and Rebellion, duties and meritorious works; they have been the Authors of Wars, Commotions and Combustions, both before, and ever since the Reformation, in Kingdoms and Commonwealths; and have used unparallelled cruelty, and unheardof inhumanity towards Protestants, where ever they had the upperhand. And the excuses of H.T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies, are evidenced to be false and frivolous.  2. Tim. 3.1. In the last days, perilous times shall come: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, etc. Traitors, heady, highminded, etc. From such turn away.  

TO THE LOVERS OF THE Reformed Religion, in Britain and Ireland, Grace, mercy, and peace.  
DEarly beloved in the Lord,  
The great increase of Popery every where, is so visibly seen, and so evidently known, that to speak any thing to prove and evidence the same, were altogether needless: seeing he is a great stranger in our Israel that knoweth it not. But, alace! there is very great decay of zeal and hatred against that Whore: that if our glorious Predecessors (whose excellent Motto it always was, No peace with Rome) were alive, they would wonder to see us so brutish and senseless, indifferent, and lukewarm, in ae matter of so great moment, wherein the honour and glory of God, the eternal happiness and felicity of our own, and our posterities souls, and the safety and preservation of Kings, Kingdoms, our lives, estates, and all that is near and dear to us, is so much and so nearly concerned: Therefore for letting us see our hazard in all and every one of these, as we have revised and republished the above written excellent Treatise of that learned, godly, and eminently zealous and faithful servant of Christ M. John Welsch, whose memory is very precious in the Church of Christ: who doth learnedly and plainly, to any ordinary capacity, discover the abominations of that Whore, and solidly prove her doctrine both to be most heretical and damnable, and herself to be the very Antichrist, that all who love the truth of God, and the salvation of their immortal souls, may be stirred up to a just zeal and indignation against her: So we have thought fit to subjoin this following Treatise, for discovering to all and every one who love the Reformed Religion, and resolve to adhere thereto, what treasonable and bloody principles, and inhuman and matchlesly cruel practices, are maintained and committed by Papists, in reference both to Kings, Princes and People, who profess the Reformed Religion; and consequently what all and every one of us may expect to meet with, if Popery prevail: that so being convinced of our hazard, both in body and soul, and in all that is near and dear to us, we may be stirred up to a real hatred and indignation against that Whore, and may be much in the exercise of prayer, repentance, and other lawful and commanded duties, for the putting a stop to the growth of the spreading abominations of that Whore, which is earnestly prayed for, by  
Yours for the truth, M. C.   

A BRIEF DISCOVERY OF THE BLOODY, REBELlious and treasonable Principles and Practices of Papists.  

SECTION I.  
Showing that the principles of Papists are treasonable and rebellious against the person and authority of Princes, and peace of Kingdoms, etc. And the excuses of H. T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies, are proved to be frivolous and naught.  
THE Church of Rome was formerly most hateful to the Churches of Christ in Britain and Ireland; not only because of her most damnable and heretical doctrine, but also because of the rebellious and treasonable principles and practices maintained and committed by her against the persons and authority of Princes, and peace of Kingdoms: her faith being accounted faction, and her Religion rebellion: Therefore Papists of late have endeavoured by all means to ingratiat themselves in the favour of Princes and Magistrates, making ample profession of loyalty and fidelity, and charging Protestants with the odious crime of disloyalty. And thus we see their late Writers, denying and disowning the doctrine of Rebellion and Parricide, that our Divines have justly charged them with. For H T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies, etc. printed at Douai 1671 calleth it a loud slander, to charge Papists with maintaining, that if the Pope excommunicate a Tyrant, or heretical Prince, his own subjects may lawfully kill him.  
Therefore to unmask a little the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles of Papists, we shall prove: First, that it is no slander, but a real truth, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that if the Pope excommunicateth a King, his own subjects may lawfully kill him. 2. That the Pope can dispense with the allegiance of subjects to their Princes: and if he so dispense, than they are loosed from subjection and allegiance to them. 3. That no faith nor oath is to be kept with Heretics. 4 That the Pope and Synagogue of Rome, have been the Authors of wars combustions and confusions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms all Europe over. 5. That their continual practice ever since the Reformation, hath been to plot and practise treasons and rebellions, assassinations, and murders, both of Princes and people, who professed the Reformed Religion. 6. That wherever they got the upperhand and dominion in any Kingdom or Commonwealth they have practised most unheardof cruelties, and barbarous inhumanities' against the professors of the Protestant Reform Religion.  
For the first and second of these points; to wit, that Papists hold that if the Pope excommunicate a King his own subjects may lawfully kill him: And that the Pope can dispense with the allegiance of subjects to their Princes; and if he so dispense, than they are loosed from subjection and allegiance to them. I shall evidence it to be their commonly received doctrine, both by the writings of their approved Doctors, and Bulls of their Popes, and their daily practices. And lest they say we wrong them, we shall (for the most part) set down the words of the Authors themselves.  
1. I shall begin with Doctor Ranchin a Papist, and a famous Lawyer in France, in his Book, entitled, A review of the Council of Trent, lib. 2. cap. 10. who setteth down these following positions, as commonly received in the Church of Rome, to wit, That it is necessare to salvation to believe that every creature is subject to the Pope of Rome. That he it set over Emperors and Kingdoms. That he carrieth both the temporal and spiritual sword. That he may depose Emperors etc. and transfer their Empires and Dominions from one line to another. That he may absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance. That upon just cause be may set up a King in every Kingdom; for he is the overseer of all Kingdoms in God's stead. That it belongeth to the Pope to correct Kings when they offend. Much more hath this Author to this purpose.  
2. But let us hear their own Doctors themselves. Augustinus Triumphus, de potest Eccles quaest. 46. art. 2. (as Doctor Ʋsher citeth him) saith, There is no doubt but that the Pope may depose all Kings, when there is a reasonable cause so to do.  
Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor, holdeth. (22. quast. 12 art. 2.) That so soon as a Prince is denounced excommunicate for Apostasy, ipso facto, his subjects are free from his soverainity: and absolved from the oath of allegiance, which they are bound to him. Bannes, and Gregory de Valentia, his scholars, hold, That not only total apostosie but partial also, such as heresy, is here meant. Now to profess the Protestant Religion is damnable heresy with them, and therefore consequently any Protestant Prince is here concluded by their interpretation.  
Suarez holdeth, That Churchmen may use a coactive power against Princes, even to dethrone them: his words are, Pontificem summum potestate coactiuâ in Reges uti posse usque ad depositionent etiam à Regno, si causa subsit. Suarez opusc. lib. 3. de primatu sum. Pontif. cap. 23.  
Azorius their great Casuist asserteth, That the jurisdiction and power of the Emperor, hath its being, existence, and dependence from the Pope. And upon this occasion telleth us, how many Emperors the Pope hath deposed, and that the Emperor is but the Pope's minister, elected by him for the defence of the Church, Azorius inst. Mor. part. 2. lib. 10.  
Emmanuel Sa after he had studied the point forty years, affirmeth, That the rebellion of a Clergyman is no treason: because he is no subject.  
That all Clergymen are exemed from the laws of Magistrates by a divine positive law, is mantained by Bellarmin de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 28. & de Pont. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 26. Soto de just. & jure, lib. 5. cap. 44. art. 1. Cajetan. Tom. 1. opusc tract. 1. de potest. Pap. cap. 27. Turrecremata lib. 2. c. 93. Gregory de Valentia tom. 3. disp 5. quaest. 11. punct. 1. Suarez in opusc. lib. 4. de immunit. Eccles. cap. 4. num. 3. cap. 8. num 9 and the Rhemists in Rom. 8.  
Cardinal Baronius, informeth us, by the example of Dacius Bishop of Milan, his dealing against the Arriant, that these Bishops deserve no blame, & aught to suffer no envy, who use all means that they may not live under an heretical Prince. His words are, Quo exemplo satis intelligas non mereri calumniam, neque invidiam Episcopos illos pati debere, Qui ne sub haeretico Principe degant, omnem lapidem volvunt, Annal. anno 538. §. 89. So that Papists may raise treasons, rebellions, commit parricide on the persons of Kings, rather than live under a Protestant Prince.  
This is evil doctrine, but worse followeth; for they directly maintain, that they may any manner of way kill Kings, Princes, or people, if in the least suspect to them of heresy, that is, of the Protestant Religion, which these following instances prove.  
M. Allen Principal of the Jesuits College at Rheims, in a solemn Oration said, It is permitted to us to kill Kings. Franciscus de Verone, in his Apology for John Chastel, grants allowance to every private man to murder the heretic as he meets him, if public means be wanting of making him away by the Magistrate. Dominicus Bannes in. 2. quaest. 12. art. 2. resolves, that they need not in this case, expect any sentencing of the matter by Pope, or any other: but when the knowledge of the fault is evident, subjects may lawfully (if so be they have sufficient strength) exempt themselves from subjection to their Princes before any declaratory sentence of a Judge. His words are, Quando adest evidens notitia criminis licitè possunt subditi (si modo ijs vires suppetant) eximere se à potestate suorum Principum ante Judicis sententiam declaratoriam.  
Suarez maintaineth that an heretical King after sentence (of excommunication) given against him, is absolutely deprived of his Kingdom, so that he cannot possess it by any just title, & therefore from thenceforth may be handled altogether as a Tyrant, and consequently he may be killed by any private person; and a little after he addeth, that in this a Christian Kingdom dependeth upon the Pope, that he may not only advise and consent that the Kingdom depose a King that is hurtful to it, but also command and compel them to do it. Hear his own words: Post sententiam latam omninò privatur Regno, ita ut non possit justo titulo illud possidere, ergo ex tunc poterit omninò tanquam Tyrannus tractari, & consequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici. Suarez defence. fid. Cathol. lib 6. cap. 4. §. 14. Pendet Christianum Regnum à Pontifice in hoc, ut possit non solum consulere, aut consentire ut regnum Regem sibi perniciosum deponat, sed etiam praecipere & cogere, utad ●aciat, §. 17.  
Joannes Mariana telleth us, That if the Pope excommunicate a King, and declare him a Tyrant, that he may be made away either by open force and arms, whether by violent breaking into the Court, or by joining of battle, is a matter confessed: yea, by deceit and ambushes too, as Ehud did in killing Eglon the King of Moab. Indeed it would argue a braver mind to profess open enmity, and publicly to rush in upon the enemy of the Commonwealth: But it is no less prudence to take advantage by fraud and ambushes, because it is done without stir, and ●ess danger, surely, both public and private. And in end he concludeth, That it is lawful to take away his life by any art whatsoever; with this proviso only, that he be not constrained, either wittingly or unwittingly to be the cause of his own death; yet poison him you may, if so that the venom be externally applied by some other, he that is to be killed helping nothing thereto: namely when the force of the poison is so great, that a seat or garment being infected therewith, it may have strength to kill. Joan. Mariana de Regis Instit lib 1. cap. 7.  
Franciscus de Verone in his Apology for John Chastel, part. 1. cap. 7. determineth, That Kings and Princes which are not Roman Catholics, may be lawfully killed by any private person; and that the kill of them is a generous, virtuous, heroic exploit, to be compared with the greatest and most praiseworthy actions: a most holy, worthy, commendable praiseful work. These that conspire against the life of such Kings and Princes, are magnanimous persons; their courage more than humane, heroic, divine; their punishments are true martyrdoms, they shall receive reward in heaven. Lest Papists think we wrong him, I shall set down his own words: Reges & Principes non Romani Catholici possunt de jure occidi etiam à privat â personâ & illud factum est generosum, cum virtute conjunctum, & heroicum, comparandum cum maximis & summa laude dignis factis, esse sanctissimum, humanissimum, dignissimum, laudatissimum, commendatissimum, etc. Eos, qui in vitam talium Regum & Principum conjurant, esse animosos machinatores, fortitudinem eorum esse plusquam humanam, supplicia eorum non nisi vera martyria appellanda. Qui sunt aliquando praemium accepturi in vitâ aeternâ. And again (part. 2. cap. 12. & 15. Necessarium quocunque casu religionem confirmari, etiam morte Regum) It is necessary in any case, that Religion be maintained, even with the death of Kings.  
Antonius Arnold in an Oration against the Jesuits, affirmeth, that the Jesuit Varadius wrote to Barerius, (Non posse ab aliquo fieri ullum magis meritorium opus, quàm si Regem intersecerit.) That there could not be a more meritorious work then for him to kill a King.  
Cresuel in his Philopat. sect. 2. num. 160. 162. affirmeth. That subjects may not only lawfully dethrone heretical Princes; but also are obliged by divine precepts, yea even upon the greatest hazard of their souls. His words are, Obligati sunt subditi ad Principos haereticos depellendos, & hujusmodi Principes suos non tantum legitimè possunt deturbare, sed etiam ad hoc praecepto divino ac vinculo arctissimo ac-extremo animarum periculo tenentur.  
But let us hear what H. T. replieth: First, saith he, art. 7. p. 100 What this or that particular Doctor may hold, or the Pope's flatterers, if he have any, adds nothing to the creed of Catholics, nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church. Answer. Sir, if you had not the whores fore head that refuseth to be ashamed, ye could not write so; for this is so well known to be the commonly received doctrine of your Church that Cresuel & Eudem ingenuously confesseth it. For Cresuel plainly avoweth, That it is the universal opinion of your Divines, and an article of your Faith, that any Prince who openly maketh defection from the Roman Catholic Religion, and would withdraw others from the same, doth presently fall from all his power and dignity, by virtue both of Divine and Humane law, and that before any sentence of the Pope; and their subjects are all free of any obligation of oath to obedience, and they ought to cast such a man out of their dominions as an Apostate, lest he infect others. Now lest ye think we wrong him, not citing his words faithfully, we shall set down his own words, Universa Theologorum Schola tenet, & est certum ac de fide, quemcunque Principem Christianum, si de Romano Catholica Religione manifestè deflexerit, & alios avocare voluerit, excidere statim ab omni potestate & dignitate ex ipsa vi juris divini ac humani: Hocque ante omnem sententiam Pontificis, & subditos quoscunque liberos esse ab omni juramenti obligatione quod de obedientia praestitissent; posséque ac debere hujusmodi hominem tanquam apostatam ex dominatu eficere, ne alios inficiat. Cresuel Philop. num. 37.  
Likewise Eudem affirmeth, Apol. cap. 3. Non est propria Jesuitarum, sed totius Ecclesiae, & quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta nostra doctrina. That this is not the peculiar doctrine of the Jesuits, but of the whole Church of Rome, received from ancient times.  
2. But if the testimony of these two Doctors be not sufficient, I hope the infallible judgement of two Pope's è Cathedra, will abundantly convince that this is the doctrine of the Romish Church. The first is Pope Urban, who (Can. 23. quast. 5. Can. excommunicatorum) saith, We esteem them not murderers, who being possessed with the zeal of their mother the Catholic Church, against these that are excommunicate, shall happen to kill any of them. The second is Pope Sixtus the fifth, who when he heard that King Henry the third of France was killed by the Monk, he went to his Consistory, where before his Cardinals at Rome, Sept. 11. 1589, he had a Panegyric Oration, which he began thus: Animo meo saepe, etc. When I pondered in my mind, and was intent upon the thoughts of these things which lately have fallen out by God providence: I thought I might make use of that of the Prophet Habakkuk, There shall be a work done in your days, which none shall believe when it shall be told. The King of France is dead by the hands of a Monk: for to that may the words of the Prophet be rightly applied, etc. (a brave application of Scripture indeed.) And a little after, We with grief truly did often foretell, that as he was the last of his family, so he should have an unusual and shameful end. See more of this Oration cited by learned Hornbeck contra Bullam Pap. Innocent. 10. Now can any Papist for his heart disown this treasonable doctrine, which the Pope approveth, except he disown his faith and Religion? For doth not the faith and Religion of Papists depend on the Pope's decrees so strongly, and with such a spirit of delusion, that he can make the most pestilent doctrines pass with them for Evangelical truths; and the most abominable actions for patterns of holiness? For Bellarmin expressly affirmeth (and no Papist that I heard of, did ever disallow it) That if the Pope did err in commanding vices, or prohibiting virtues, the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good, and virtues evil, unless she should speak against conscience. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. And that in good sense Christ hath given to Peter the power to make sin to be no sin, and that which is no sin, to be sin. Bellarm. contra Barclay, cap. 31. We can descent from the most eminent in our Church, when they hold any thing contrary to the Word of God: but so cannot Papists do with the Pope, whom they acknowledge to be infallible.  
2. But let us hear what H. T. saith further: We (saith he) abominat and detest that doctrine; to wit, that if the Pope excommunicate an heretical Prince, it is lawful for his own subjects to kill him. For it is defined by the Council of Constance, and therefore of faith with us, that it is heretical to affirm it lawful for a subject to kill his Prince, upon any pretence whatsoever. Sess. 15. Ans. O matchless audacity! For doth not the Bulls and D●cretals of your Popes, the Writings and Disputations of your Doctors, and your actings and practices prove you a liar? Yea, if there were no more than the Acts of the Parliament of Paris, who condemned the Books of Bellarmin Suarez, Mariana, Santarella, etc. to the fire, and banished the Jesuits the Kingdom, it were sufficient to convince you of falsehood. 2. Whereas ye say, that the Council of Constance hath declared the doctrine of King-killing heretical, it is a mere forgery: For your great Doctor Suarez (who did write fifteen Volumes of Divinity) saith to King James of famous memory, that the Council of Constance forbiddeth not the kill of a King excommunicated by the Pope. His words are: Ubi legit Rex in Concilio Constantiensi particulam illam Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati, aut illam, per suos subditos, aut alios quoscunque. The truth is, the case propounded to the Council by Gerson, was not about the murdering of Sovereign Princes, but about the kill of a great Officer of the Crown, who ruleth tyrannically, and exalts himself above his King. For John Duke of Burgundy, who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans, pretended him to have been a Tyrant of that kind. So then Tyrants are declared inviolable persons by the Council, who by its authority strengtheneth them against their King. But although it were true that is alleged, to wit, that the Council of Constance had decreed against King-killing, yet who knows not that Papists make nothing of its authority: for none of the Popes ever liked it, much less confirmed it.  
3. His next excuse is, That Mariana maintained the doctrine of King-killing only problematically, and his book was condemned & burnt by a Provincial Council of his own Order. Answer 1. Peter du Moulin tells another of your stamp using the same excuse, that the Court of Parliament of Paris, composed of grave heads, did not understand it so, when they condemned his Book to the fire: neither doth he speak of the murder of King Henry the third problematically, when he exalteth the murderer, in these words: Making a show of delivering letters (to the King) he gave him a deep wound above the bladder with a poisoned knife; which he hide in his hand. O admirable confidence of mind! O memorable action! by killing the King, he got to himself a great name. And in the same place he taxeth the King's servants, who presently killed that murderer, of cruelty and barbarousness: Mariana de rege, &c lib. 1. cap. 6.  
2. Whereas he saith that a Provincial Council of the Jesuits condemned Mariana's book, the same Du Moulin answereth. But why then did the same General of the Jesuits, who disavowed it when destruction was hanging over the head of his Order, approve and licence it before? For the book was approved by Aquaviva, General of the Jesuits, and Stephanus Hoyeda, Visitor of their Society in the Province of Toledo: and the approbation mentioneth, that other Jesuits had approved it before. But (saith he) see what that condemnation comes to: The Jesuits seeing their sect made odious by the writings of Mariana, Suarez, Vasquez, and others, and more by the murdering of Kings, and for that cause expelled France, made an order among themselves, whereby they forbade to write or teach that doctrine any more: The words of the ratification are these, That none teach by writing or speaking, that it is lawful f r any person, or upon any pretence of tyranny, to kill Kings and Princes. But how gross is their fraud in that. Orders? Do they forbidden their Society to believe so? by no means; but to teach so: neither will they have the execution done upon any pretence of tyranny, but only upon the definitive sentence of the Pope, or the States: and how are the lives of Kings and Princes more secure than before, by their declaring that it is not lawful to kill Kings and Princes, seeing that in their account they are no more Kings and Princes, when they are once excommunicated and deposed by the Pope? Peter die Moulin ubi supra, cap. 5. Truly any that considers the Jesuits temper, needs not to think it strange that their General both approved and condemned Mariana's book; for Doctor Rivet tells us that when the Parliament of Paris asked the Jesuits in Paris, whither they were of the mind of their General, who had approved Santarellas' book for King killing, and judged the things that are there to be certain? They answered, That living at Rome, he could not but approve what was there approved of. But say the Parliament, What think you? They answer, We think the clean contrary. But say the examiners, What would ye do if ye were at Rome? The Jesuits answered, That which they do which are at Rome. So Jesuits have one conscience at Rome, another at Paris. Thirdly, nor was it Mariana his alone that was guilty of writing for King killing. For beside these before cited, D. Rivet tells us that Ging●ardus a Jesuit, did write in praise of the murder of King Henry the third. And Albineus another Jesuit, did hear the murderer of King Henry the fourth confess before he did the fact, and when he was examined upon it, he answered; That God had given him that special gift to forget, when once he had absolved a sinner whatsoever was confessed by him. Yea, there was so much writing for, and acting of assassinations and parricids upon the persons of Princes, that the Parliament of Paris did not only condemn Bellarmin and Santarellas' books to be burnt, as engines of treason and rebellion: but also did expel the Jesuits the Kingdom, and set up a pillar of remembrance of their villainies.  
From all which I hope it is more than evident, that it is no slander, but a real truth that the Church of Rome holdeth, 1. That if the Pope excommunicate a King or Prince, his subjects may lawfully kill him. 2. That the Pope can dispense with the allegiance of subjects to their Princes, and if he do dispense therewith, they are loosed from subjection to them.   

SECTION II.  
Showing that no oath, nor bond can oblige a Papist: and that they hold it as a principle, that no faith is to be kept to Heretics.  
THe third thing we proposed, was to prove that no oath, bond, or obligation whatsoever, can tie or oblige Papists, whither to their allegiance to their Prince, or duty to their neighbours, if Protestants: which is very palpable, if ye consider.  
First, that it is beyond all controversy with them, that all Protestants are heretics, Princes not excepted: all being condemned as such by the Pope and Council of Trent.  
2. That they all hold, that Protestant Princes being declared heretics by the Pope, have no right to their Kingdoms, nor are their subjects bound to any allegiance to them, which is evident both from what is said formerly, and also from the Bull and Decrees of Pope Pius the fifth, who did depose and excommunicate Queen Elizabeth, and loosed her subjects from their allegiance, and gave the Kingdom to Philip the second of Spain, which Bull was confirmed by Gregory the thirteenth, and Sixtus the fifth, his successors, and was mantained and defended by Sanders, Parsons, Cresuel, and sundry other English Papists, even unto death.  
3. They not only lose subjects from their allegiance to Protestant Princes, but also they hold and maintain that no faith is to be kept with Protestants because condemned by the Pope and Council of Trent as heretics, and so are fallen from the faith: and so forfeit all privileges wherein keeping of faith with them might oblige others or stead them: and therefore let a Papist swear never so solemnly, and engage himself never so strictly by oath, compact, or covenant to a Protestant, he may break his oath, compact, and covenant to him without sin, according to their principles. But because that brazen headed impostor H. T. Author of the Manual of Controversies, &c denyeth this, affirming that Papists esteem themselves obliged to keep faith, even with infidels: therefore I shall prove the truth thereof.  
First, who knoweth not that John Hus and Jerome of Prague, upon the Emperor's promise of safe-conduct, appeared before the Council of Constance: But the Council declared that the Emperor was not obliged to keep his promise to them, because no faith is to be kept to heretics, and therefore notwithstanding of the Emperor's letters of safe-conduct, they condemned them to the fire, and accordingly burnt them. Now H. T. himself saith in that same place, What is defined by the Council of Constance, is of faith with Papists: therefore it must be a point of faith, That no faith is to be kept with heretics.  
2. Not only did the General Council of Constance decree this, but the Pope hath confirmed it. Now all Papists hold, that what is determined by a General Council and confirmed by a Pope, is of faith, and obligeth all Catholics Now that the Pope hath confirmed and allowed this, is most sure: for Pope Gregory the 9 (whose Decree is extant in the Decretals. lib. 5 tit. 7. de haereticis, cap. u●t.) out of his Pontifical seat decreeth: Absolutos se noverint, & debito fidelitatis dominij, & totius obsequij, quicunque lapsis manifestè in haeresin aliquo pacto quacunque firmitate vallato tenebantur ad stricti. Let all know that they are loosed from their fidelity and obedience, and any duty whatsoever, that they are bound to any that are manifestly fallen in heresy.  
3. If to the Decree of the Council, and confirmation of the Pope, the common suffrage of their Doctors can add any weight, than we have that too: For when Plancius (cited by D. Hornbeck, p. 172.) had said, Dic sodes, nun in confesso est apud vos, Principi haeretico aut excommunicato fidem nullam deberi u●i Pontifex jusserit Gratian. cause 15. quaest. 9 & decret lib. 7 cap. 5. & ibi glossae. Say, if ye dare, is it not confessed by you, that no faith is to be kept by you to a heretic or excommunicate, when the Pope commandeth? Suertius answereth (In confesso est: nec inventus est hactenus magn● nominis Theologus, qui non in hanc iêrit sententiam.) It is confessed: neither is there any Divine of note, who hath not held this opinion. And Clarus lib. 5 sent. saith▪ that (Sententiam illam frequentiori Doctorum calculo receptam) This opinion is received by the common suffrage of the Doctors. And Tiberius Decianus saith (Omnium consensu illam obtinere de fide haereticis non servandâ. That that tenet that faith is not to be kept to heretics, is received by the consent of all.  
Hornbeck citeth many more Popish Writers out of Plancius, Elenchi. pag. 7. Gerard. confess. Cathol. lib. 1 part. 2. cap. 19 and he addeth himself, that Thuanus declareth, lib 63. ad ann. 1577. that the Popish Doctors did cry out in their Sermons, That the Magistrates were not obliged to keep faith to heretics, according to the Decree of the Council of Constance. And he showeth moreover, that upon this pretext the contract of marriage betwixt Charles the 5. his daughter, and the Elector of Saxonies' son was declared void and nul: and Haumart the Emperor's Legate openly said, that faith was not to be kept to heretics, as testifieth Sieidan and Scultetus add an. 1527.  
Finally, their daily practices confirm this. For Cardinal Ossatu● (as Hornbeck citeth him) tells us in his 87. Epistle ad D. de Villeroy, that Pope Clement the 8. did press the King of France to join with Spain in the invasion of England: and the Cardinal answered, that the King was tied by an oath to the Queen of England: to which the Pope replied, that (That the oath was made to an heretic, but he was bound in another oath to God and the Pope: and in end he alleged the saying of Franciscus Maria Duke of Urbino, that indeed every one doth blame a Nobleman, or great man that is no Sovereign, if he keep not his covenants or fidelity, and they aucount him infamous: but supreme Princes may without any danger of their reputation make covenants, and break them, lie, betray, and commit other such like things. Also Pope Innocent the 10. in his Bull against the Peace of Germany, anno 1651. doth annul and abrogat the oaths for confirming of Peace.  
3. As the Pope's practices is a good example to Papists, so they follow their example to purpose, as I shall show in some few instances. In Queen Mary's time in England, the Suffolk-men did aid, assist, and advance her to the crown; she swearing to them that they should enjoy the liberty of the Protestant Religion: but this principle, that faith should not be kept to heretics, induced her not only to break her promise; but also to imprison some of them for minding her of it. How many fair promises did Katherine de Medicis Queen of France, and her son Charles the ninth, make to the Protestants; and yet this hellish principle induced them not only to break their promises; but also under the greatest pretext of friendship, to massacre them all at Paris, anno 1572. It was this devilish principle that made Don Frederick son to the Duke d' Alva, after he had taken Harlem upon composition, that the citizens should give 24000. florins to redeem themselves and town from spoil, to plunder the whole town contrary to promise, and to hang some, drown others, and starve others. It was this wicked principle that caused the Signior Noucarmes, when the inhabitants of Valenciennes in Hainault, surrendered the city upon good conditions, to keep the gates of the city shut for divers days, and most perfidiously and barbarously to hang up all the French soldiers, with all the Ministers, and Protestant merchants, and confiscate their goods. Many more instances might be given, but this may suffice.  
Notwithstanding of all this, H. T. is so shamelessly impudent as to say that the Council of Trent hath declared, That to violate any least point of public faith given to heretics, is a thing punishable by the law of God and man, Sess. 15.18. Ans. I have consulted Petrus Suavis on Sess. 15. and 18. and I can find no such declaration, only there is a safe-conduct granted by the Council to Protestants to come to the Council: But they fearing lest it was like the safe-conduct given to John Hus, did not accept thereof.  
The fourth evidence, to prove that no oath nor obligation can bind Papists is, Because, let Papists swear never so solemnly, whither for performance of fidelity to their Prince, or of keeping covenant and bargain with their neighbour, yet the Pope (according to their principles) may dissolve that oath, and free them from the obligation thereof. I might bring several proofs of this, but I shall only bring one very observable. After the Gunpowder treason King James appointed that all Papists should swear the oath of allegiance. But hear how Paschenius in his answer to King James his monitory Epistle, scoffs at it (as D. Ʋsher citeth him in his Sermon before the House of Commons, Feb. 18. 1620.) Vide in tantâ astutiâ quanta sit simplicitas. See (saith he) in so great craft how great simplicity doth bewray its self: When he had placed all his security in that oath, he thought that he had found such a manner of oath, knit with so many circumstances, that it could not with safety of conscience by any means be dissolved by any man. But he could not see that if the Pope, N. B. did dissolve that oath, all the tiings of it, whither of performing fidelity to the King, or of admitting no dispensations, would be dissolved together. Yea, I will say another thing that is more admirable: You know that an unjust oath if it be evidently known or openly declared to be such, bindeth no man, but is void ipso acto. That the King's oath is injust, hath been sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself: Ye see therefore that the obligation thereof is vanished into smoke, so that the bond which by so many wise men was thought to be of iron, it become less then of straw. So we may see that an oath upon the conscience of a Papist, is like a collar upon an Ape's neck, that he will slip on for his Master's pleasure, and slip off again for his own. Hence we may see what trust and credit to give their pretences to loyalty, and their taking the oath of allegiance. For let Papists pretend to never so much moderation, yet they acknowledge the Pope as supreme in all spirituals and ecclesiastics, and profess obedience to him before all the world in things of this nature. Now they all know that the Pope doth profess and publish both by doctrine and practice, that he hath power to excommunicate the greatest Potentats, if heretics, and to command all Catholics in all things, in ordine ad spiritualia. That all Catholics are bound to obey him under pain of damnation, in opposing their Sovereign without disputing his commands: And so soon as a Prince is excommunicate by the Pope for heresy, he is forthwith deposed and deprived of his Princely dignity and sovereignty, and his subjects are discharged from all allegiance, and are accursed if they further obey him, as is evident from the afore mentioned Bulls of Pius the 5. Gregory the 13. and Sixtus the 5. against Queen Elizabeth, and the writings of Bellarmin, Suarez, Allen, Sanders, Parsons, Cresuel, and sundry others English Papists; who have defended these Bulls and positions even to death. In this case, a Papist must either cast off his allegiance, or incur the Pope's curse, and consequently run on certain damnation. From which we see that (according to the principles of Papists) the Pope hath power to dissolve all bonds, covenants, leagues and oaths, as he shall find conducing to the advancement of the Catholic faith: so that if he list, no bonds, humane or divine, no oaths never so solemnly taken, shall bind Papists: for when occasion serveth, the Pope can and will relieve them from all obligations of God or conscience of nature and Nations, and they must submit to him without contradiction or limitation. So that one cannot be a Papist, but if he understand his own principles, he must be a traitor.  
Object. But it may be said, Although Papists maintain such principles in reference to them who persecute and extirpate Popery: yet if a Prince be  to Popery, and seek reconciliation with Rome▪ there is no fear from them. Ans. Let Simancha a Popish Doctor determine this. If Kings (saith he) or other Christian Princes be turned heretics, their subjects are presently fred from their dominion, neither shall they receive their right again, though they be afterward-reconciled to the Church. And as a King loseth his Kingdom by heresy, so his children lose their right of succession. His words are, Si Reges aut alij Principes Christiani facti sint haeretici protinùs subjecti & vassalli ab eorum dominio liberantur, nec jus hoc recuperabunt quamvis postea reconcilientur Ecclesiae. Et propter haeresin non solum Rex regno privatur, sed etiam ejus filij a regni successione pelluntur.  
To omit other instances, had not King Henry the 4. of France experience of this in his own person? for he being a professed Protestant & persecuted by the Leaguers, that he might enjoy the Kingdom in peace, was reconciled to the Fope, and went to Mass. But was he the more secure or safe for all this, surely not: for not long after he was stobbed in the mouth by a Jesuit. After which, for this and other of their treasonable practices and writings, they were banished France, and a pillar of remembrance of their villainies set up. But he to gratify the Pope caused demolish the pillar, and called them in again, telling the Parliament that the peril of it should be on him: and so it was; for it cost him his life, being stobbed by Ravillac through the very heart. And truly God ordinarily turns this policy to folly, whereof many instances might be given: I shall name but a few. The Eastern Emperors Justinian & Phocas, the better to recover & keep Italy, did the Pope's much honour, and greatly furthered their supremacy: But they in requital soon after (by God's just judgement) setting themselves against their successors in the cause of Images, made the greatest part of Italy revolt from the Emperor's obedience. After this, Constantin the 7. and his mother Irene, to get the Pope's favour, and to recover the Western Empire, or at least to keep what they had from revolting, with strong hand established worshipping of Images in the second Council of Nice. But within twelve years the Pope crowned Charles the Great Emperor of the West, and so they lost the Western Empire. Likewise John Paleologus Emperor of Greece, to procure the Pope's favour against the Turks, by the strong hand induced the Greek Church to reconcile with Rome, and to acknowledge the Pope's supremacy in the Council of Florence anno 1439. But this was so far from advantaging him, that the Empire was lost within 14. years after.  
Thus we see that God in his righteous judgement turneth such temporising with the Pope, to the ruin of them that do it. The only way of safety, is to stand at the swords point. The eyes of the Lord run to and fro to show himself strong in the behalf of them; whose heart is perfect toward him, 2. Chron. 16.9. Whereas politic compliance turns to the ruin of complyers. We all know what Jeroboams policy did: he to preserve his own Kingdom, Set up Idols stretched out his hand against the Prophet, made Priests of the lowest of the people, and ordained high places, 1. Kings 12.27.28. But what was the event? The text tells us, This thing became sin unto the house o● Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from the face of the earth, 1. Kings 13 33 34 Thus we see what treasonable rebellious and bloody principles Papists hold. Let us in the next place see if their practices have been answerable thereto.   

SECTION III.  
Showing that the Pope and Synagogue of Rome have been the grand Authors of wars and combustions, and confusions in the Christian world always, both before and since the Reformation.  
WE come now to the fourth thing proposed; to wit, that the Pope hath been the grand Author of wars, combustions and confusions in the Christian world always, both before and since the Reformation. This is so evident, that he is very unseen in Histories that will deny it: therefore I shall give only a passing taste of what is recorded at large by Historians.  
I. I shall begin with Gregory the first, who approved Phocas in murdering his Sovereign Mauritius, who killed his children before his eyes, and usurped the Empire: for he writes a gratulatory Epistle to him, in which he thus speaketh, Benignitatem pietatis vestrae, etc. We are glad that the benignity of your piety hath attained to the Imperial dignity. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, and let the people of the whole Republic be joyful for your gracious deeds.  
II. Gregory the 2. rebelled against his Sovereign Leo Isaurus, and made Rome, and the Roman Duchy do the same, because he prohibited the adoration of Images▪ and pulled them down every where: and being sore afflicted with the wars of the Saracens in the East the Pope seized on Rome, and made himself Lord of that part of the Emperor's dominions in Italy, which was the beginning of his temporal Principality, and is the title whereby he holds Rome, and the Territory of it to this day, even rebellion, and tyrannical invasion of the Emperor his Sovereign's Estate and Dominion.  
III. Gregory the 3. his successor came yet a further length: for Platina writeth of him, Hic statim, etc. That so soon as he attained to the Papal dignity, by the consent of the Roman Clergy, he deprived Leo the 3. Emperor of Constantinople both of his Empire and the communion of the faithful, because he had razed Images out of the Churches.  
iv The next instance I shall mention, is of Pope Stephen the 2. who stirred up Pepin King of France to expel the Exarches out of Italy: and when he had done, he obtained the Exarchat for himself, though belonging to the Emperor of Constantinople his lawful Sovereign; in which action there was both rebellion and robbery.  
V But Gregory the 7. (alias Hildebrand) surpassed all the rest; for he was wholly compounded of blood shed, treason and rebellion: for he excommunicated the Emperor Henry the 4. and deposed him, and gave his Empire to Rodolph Duke of Suevia. But the Emperor vanquished Rodolph in battle, who dying acknowledged that his right hand was deservedly cut off in battle, because he had sworn with it lifted up, allegiance to the Emperor. Rome was taken by the Emperor, and Pope Gregory died for grief.  
VI But Urban the 2. his successor, was nothing afraid of what had happened to Gregory his predecessor, but did also excommunicate and persecute him. This is that Urban that made that famous Decree, That an oath made to an excommunicate person, must not be kept.  
VII. But the Emperor was most of all afflicted by Pope Paschal the 2. who succeeded Urban; for he made his own son to take up arms against him, where he was overcome in battle, and deposed in a Synod held at Mentz by the Pope's command; and the Crown, and other Imperial ornaments, were violently taken from him by the Bishops of Mentz, Colen and Worms, and given to his son, and for grief he died soon after. But although we say, Livor post fata quiescit. yet the Pope's wrath did not cease against him after he was dead; for he would not suffer his son to bury him, so that he lay five years unburied. Cardinal Baronius commends this fact, saying. Quis negare potest summum fuisse hoc pietatis genus? etc. Who can deny that it was the highest kind of piety, to have showed himself cruel in this case? And again, Nihil habes in quo damnes filium, magis quam si insanienti furientique pius filius vincula injiciat patri. You can no more condemn the son, then if a pious son should bind his father who is fallen mad.  
VIII. But the son felt the Popes no better friends to him then they were to his father; for although Pope Paschal granted to him the collation of Benefices, and confirmed it with an oath, yet he broke the oath, although when he swore he divided the consecrated host betwixt him and the Emperor, saying, Sicut pars, etc. As this part of the vivifying body is divided, so let him be divided from the Kingdom of Christ who will go about to break this compact. And Calixtus the 2. his successor excommunicated him, and forced him to compound.  
Pope Adrian the 4. caused Frederick the 1. to hold his stirrup, and quarrelled him for taking the left in stead of the right. But the next Pope Alexander the 3. trod upon his neck when he stooped to kiss his Holiness foot, using these words of the Psalm 91. Thou shalt tread upon the Lion and Adder: the young Lion and Dragon shalt thou trample under foot. And when the Emperor said, Not to thee, but to Peter do I this submission. The Pope treading on him again, said, Both to me and Peter.  
IX. I spare to speak at large of Pope C●lestin the 3. who crowned the Emperor Henry the 6. with his foot, and after he had crowned him; cast down the Crown to the ground, thereby signifying that he had power to cast him down from the Empire▪ if he deserved it; which Baronius highly commendeth. But his successor Innocent the 3. is not to be forgotten, for he excommunicated John King of England, deposed him, absolved his subjects from their allegiance to him, and did cast an interdict upon the Kingdom, which lasted six years, and gave it to Philip August the French King, if he could take it, which made the subjects to despise him, the Clergy to revile him, the Barons to rise in war against him, and the French King to fall upon him, so that he was brought to such extremity, that to purchase his peace he gave the Kingdom to the Pope, and in end a Monk poisoned him. It would fill a volume to speak at large, how Henry the 3 King of England, was abused and tyrannised over by the Pope, and how Pope Innocent the 3. excommunicated the Emperor Otho, and deprived him of the title of the Empire, and how Honorius and Pope Gregory the 9 and Pope Innocent the 4. excommunicated, and deposed the Emperor Frederick the 2. and sent an army into Appulia, and seized upon his lands: and of the contest betwixt Philip the Fair King of France, and Pope Boniface the 8. who excommunicated Philip, and deposeth him of his Kingdom, and giveth it to the Emperor Albert, and laboureth to arm Germany and the Netherlands against France. But the King took him prisoner & brought him to Rome▪ where he died shortly through grief.  
X. It would also be tedious if I should relate how John the 23. and Benedict the 12. and Clement the 6 excommunicated & deprived Ludovicus Bavarus, and elected Charles, son of the King of Bohemia in his slead: Hence ensued a great and bloody war, and the Emperor Ludovicus Bavarus was poisoned by Pope Clement, as some Authors writ. And how Benedict the 13. excommunicate Charles the 6. of France, and how Pope Julius the 2. excommunicate Lewis the 12. King of France, and puts the Kingdom to interdict: excommunicats the Venetians, giveth their Dominions to any that will take them: driveth the Bentivogli out of Bononia: excommunicats the Duke of Ferrara, and invades his Country by arms, going to war in his own person: makes the English, Spaniards and Swissers to fall upon the French, takes many Imperial Cities: excommunicats the King of Navarre, and giveth his Kingdom to the King of Arragon, who upon that invades and takes it, and possesseth it to this day. It is thought that this Pope was the death of 200000. Christians in seven years.  
XI. But passing these, I shall come to the time of the Reformation happily begun by Luther, at which time we find Clement the 7. the great fomenter of the war between the Emperor and the French King, joining sometimes with the one, and sometimes with the other, and playing false with both. He thundered out his excommunications against King Henry the 8. the which his successor Paul the 3. confirmed, but it did him no harm.  
XII. I shall show more particularly afterward, how Pope Pius the 5. excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and stirred up not only her own subjects, but also the King of Spain against her, who prepared a great Navy to invade England anno 1588. yea, this Pope was so active in raising war against Queen Elizabeth, that when he published the Bull, he laid down an hundred thousand crowns to raise war, and promised fifty thousand more, yea, and to bear the whole charge of the war. He also used all means to stir Spain, France, and the Netherlands against England.  
XIII. Gregory the 13. who succeeded to Pius the 5. was not less active in plotting and stirring up war against Queen Elizabeth; for he gave to Thomas Stukly a commission to help the Irish rebels, and get the Kingdom of Ireland for James Boncompagnon his own bastard son; and gave him the command of eight hundred Italians, to join with Sebastian King of Portugal, who had engaged to the Pope to serve him with his whole forces against Queen Elizabeth, and had raised a great army for that expedition: But when Stukly came to the King of Portugal, he was upon a new design, to wit, to help a Moor King of Fez, against another Moor King, who kept him out of possession, and to get the Kingdom from them both; to which war he invited Stukly, promising immediately after that work was done (which he held forth as most easy) they should accomplish the Pope's desire. So they sailed over to Africa, where the King of Portugal and his whole army were destroyed, and with him Stukly and the Pope's Italian soldiers.  
XIV. The Pope had a great hand in the unparalelled massacre of Paris anno 1572. for neither his predecessor Pius the 5. nor himself, would consent to the marriage, by reason of their difference in Religion, while the Cardinal of Lorain told him that it was intended as a trap to destroy the Protestants, & then presently he granted a dispensation for celebrating of it, and gave all encouragement to the design: and when the news of the massacre came to Rome, there was nothing but triumphing and joy, and Cardinal Ursin was sent to France to commend & extol the King's piety and wisdom in that great action, and to bestow blessings and spiritual graces upon the King, the Duke of Guise, and the rest of the Actors of this horrid Tragedy. Not long after, this Pope sent to Henry the 3. the French King, and to his people, Indulgences for millions of yea●s▪ if they would be diligent and zealous in extirpation of Protestants.  
XV. This Pope laid a claim to the Kingdom of Portugal (all the males being extinct) as depending from the See of Rome, and would have the Kingdom rising in arms for him, against the heir from the females: but his claim was rejected.  
XVI. In the year 1580. he made a new assay upon Ireland; for he sent an Italian, called San Josepho, with some Italian troops there, to join with the Iris● Rebels, for gaining the Kingdom to his Bastard, or else to the King of Spain.  
XVII. About the year 1588. Pope Sixtus the 5. to favour the enterprise of Philip the 2. King of Spain, renewed the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth, pronounced by Pope Pius the 5. deprived her of her Kingdom, absolved her subjects from all allegiance to her, and gave plenary Indulgence to all that would make war against her; whereupon followed that great Armado of Spain, which the Lord in mercy did wonderfully discomfit.  
XVIII. This Pope did also excommunicate King Henry the 3. of France, and absolved his subjects from their allegiance, although he was a Papist, and was a plotter of the Massacre of Paris; yet because he did not zealously enough prosecute the Pope's design in rooting out Protestants, and was no friend to the holy League, he was excommunicate; whereupon many of his subjects rebelled against him, especially the City of Paris, and he was slain upon that account by a Dominican Friar: which action was highly commended by the Pope (as we told you before) in a full Consistory at Rome, and forbade that any should pray for his soul; for the Pope was not content that he had slain the King by his Bull, but would also damn his soul.  
XIX. His successor Gregory the 14. excommunicated King Henry the 4 of France, forbidding all Peers, Noblemen, Cities and Commons, to yield him obedience, and declaring him incapable of the Crown, as an heretic and a relapse. Pope Clement the 8. did the same over again: and although many of the French did adhere to him, yet the City of Paris, and the Guisian faction did violently oppose him, and would not acknowledge him for King, and several attempts were made to take away his life, first by a woman next by Peter Barriere, and thirdly by John Chastel; all denying him to be King, because excommunicate by the Pope. And although he turned Papist, and procured absolution from the Pope, yet it was his death: for Ravillac who killed him, alleged at his examination, that the King was an heretic in his heart, and deserved to be slain, as an enemy of the Church.  
XX. Pope Paul the 5. was as turbulent as his predecessors, as witnesseth his quarrels with the State of Venice, which he excommunicated, and put their State in interdict, because they had stopped by Edict the giving of lands to the Church. About the beginning of this Pope's reign, was that hellish Gunpowder plot hatched at Rome, and should have been effectuate in England by blowing up the King▪ Prince, Nobles and Commons, all at one blow. This horrid treason was the fruit and effect of the Pope's Bulls; for not only was Queen Elizabeth excommunicate, once and again (as we said before) and the Kingdom interdicted: but also King James, was by a Bull sent unto England a little before Queen Elizabeth's death, excluded from the Crown, and all that were not Roman Catholics, were declared incapable of, and excluded from the succession: whereof his Majesty complaineth in his Apology. For B●llarmin tells King James, Tort pag. 19 That the Pope claims a double right to England, one by reason o● his Apostolic power, which he extends over all men, according to that (Charter) Psal. 44. Thou shalt establish them Princes over all the earth. The other proper by a right of Dominion: for, saith he, England and Ireland are the Church's Dominions, the Pope is direct Lord, and the King his vassal.  
XXI. Neither were they less active in stirring up wars and combustions in other Kingdoms; for a Priest of their own named John Brown, aged seventy two, in his voluntary confession to a Committee of Parliament (set down by M. Prin in his introduction to Canterbury's doom p 202. saith, That the Jesuits (who are the Pope's agents) were the only cause of the troubles which fell out in Muscovia, when under pretence to reduce the Latin Church, and plant themselves, and destroy the Greek Church, the poor King Demetrius and his Queen and these that followed him from Polonia, were all in one night murdered by the usurper of the Crown, and the true progeny rooted out. That they were the only cause that moved the Swedes to take arms against their lawful King Sigismond, and chased him to Poland; and neither he nor his successors were ever able to take possession of Sweden; for the Jesuits intention was to bring in the Romish Religion, and root out the Protestants. They were the only cause that moved the Polonians to take arms against the said Sigismond, because they had persuaded him to marry two sisters, etc. They were the sole cause of the war in Germany and Bohemia, which began anno 1619. which caused the death of many thousands. They have been the cause of the civil wars in France, moving the King to take arms against his own subjects the Protestants, where innumerable people have lost their lives: for the Jesuits intentions were to set their Society in all Cities and Towns conquered by the King, and quite to abolish the Protestants. They were the cause of the murder of the last King of France. They were the only projectors of the Gunpowder treason, and their penitents the actors thereof.  
XXII. M. Baxter in his key for Catholics, chap. 45. 46▪ 47 48 49 proveth at large by good evidence, that the Jesuits had a special hand in the late Civil War that burned in the bowels of these three Nations, till it had near consumed them: Whose evidence I entreat that the Reader would read and seriously ponder.  
From all which I hope it is evident enough, that the Pope and Church of Rome, have been the continual Authors and instigators to wars and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms.   

SECTION IU.  
That the continual practice of Papists ever since the Reformation, hath been to plot and practise bloody and treasonable Conspiracies, Assassinations and Murders, both of Princes and People, who profess the Reformed Religion.  
IN the former Section we have proven that the Pope and Synagogue of Rome, have been the grand Authors of wars, confusions and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms: In this Section we are to prove that not only have they been the Authors and instigators to bloody wars and confusions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms; but that in all Protestant or Reformed Churches, Kingdoms, or States, they have been secretly and underhand always plotting and practising bloody and treasonable conspiracies, assassinations, and murders, both of Princes and people, who profess the Reformed Religion.  
It would be too tedious to declare at large what plots and conspiracies the Pope and his dependers and vassals have had in all the Reformed Churches, ever since Luther's Reformation: we only shall instance some few not our near hand, in France, Ireland, and in Britain.  
I. I told in the former Section how the Pope and his sworn vassals, were the Authors of the massacre of Paris anno 1572. which was surely hatched in hell, and carried on with all the subtlety of that old Serpent: for when the Pope and Court of Rome, and Queen Catharin de Medicis, and Charles the 9 her son, saw that fire and faggot, and force of war could not undo the Protestants, they said, come and let us deal subtly with them, and ensnare them, by pretences of friendship and flatteries, therefore they not only concluded a peace with them; but gave the sister of the King of France to the King of Navarre in marriage, that so they might massacre the Protestants at the marriage; and they suspecting no treachery, came to the City of Paris, where the Queen of Navarre was poisoned by a pair of perfumed gloves, and the Admiral, and the greatest part of the Protestant Nobility were all massacred in a morning: the massacre was so cruel, that it made the river run with blood, and there were thirty thousand Protestants killed in one month's time, of which more afterward.  
II. We also hinted before how King Henry the 3. of France, although he lived and died a Papist, and while he was Duke of Anjou, had fought several battles against the Protestants, and was one of the plotters in the massacre of Paris, yet because he did not join with the holy League, and obey the Pope's will in all things, the Pope excommunicated him, and stirred up James Clement a Jacobin Monk, to commit that horrible parricide upon his Royal person.  
III. We did also a little touch how his successor King Henry the 4. was opposed and molested by the Pope, and the holy League, his sworn servants, and excommunicate, and the Spaniards brought in the Kingdom to join with the holy League to his ruin: But God so blessed his enterprises, that he foiled them often; but he being weary of war, and consulting with flesh and blood, for peace and ease to himself and quiet to his Kingdom, turned Papist, and sought absolution from the Pope, and at length obtained it: But because they thought him not a heart Papist, and cordial for them in all things, they plot his death by secret assassination; and after several attempts, one whereof wounded him in the mouth, R●villac struck him through the very heart: although to please the Pope, he caused recall the Jesuits, which for their bloody principles and practices were banished the Kingdom. So this is the Pope and his Jesuits method, when they cannot overcome any Prince, that they think no cordial favourer of theirs, by open hostility; they excite and stimulat some scholar or other of theirs, secretly to assassinat him. For John Chastel, a scholar of the Jesuits, who stroke King Henry the fourth of France in the mouth, and broke out one of his teeth, intending to have cut his throat; when he was examined, confessed that he being guilty of a great crime, was kept prisoner by the Jesuits in the chamber of meditations; where, after they had long terrified his soul, they propounded to him a way to lessen his torments in hell, to wit, to kill the King, which the miserable wretch promised and attempted: Whereupon the College of the Jesuits was searched, and many persons seized on, among which was found a book in the praise of James Clement, the murderer of King Henry the 3 written by the Jesuit Guignard; containing many arguments and reasons to prove it was lawful and just to kill King Henry the 3. together with many incitements and motives to make away his successor King Henry the 4. then reigning, The themes given to young scholars, were found to be about King killing, with praises of the attempt and exhortations to it. Likewise Bariere, another wretch who had attempted to kill King Henry the 4. being examined, confessed that the Jesuit Varadius, Rector of the College of the Jesuits, had incited and adjured him upon the Sacrament of confession, and the communion of the Lords body, to kill the King▪ assuring him, that if he suffered for it he should obtain martyrdom. Moreover, Ravillac in his examination shown sufficiently by whose instructions he was persuaded to murder King Henry the 4. for he gave this reason why he did it, because the King would make war with God, in as much as he prepared war against the Pope who is God: which is the plain doctrine of the Church of Rome. So the Jesuits at the Pope's instigation, never ceased till they had assassinated both these Kings of France, Henry the 3. and Henry the 4. So Peter du Moulin, chap. 5.  
iv William Prince of Orange, being one of the blessed instruments the Lord employed for the delivery of the Netherlands from the Spanish tyranny and Popish idolatry; therefore the Popish faction carrying an implacable hatred to him, they stirred up one Joanville to kill him; and for encouraging him in this devilish attempt, a Friar persuaded him that he should go invisible: and for that effect he gave him some characters in paper, and little frogs bones, and other conjurations, whereby he being animated to that wicked deed, went & lay in wait, and shot the Prince with a pistol through the throat: But he through God's goodness recovering, they stirred up Baltazar Gerard to make a second attempt upon him, who shot him through the stomach and vital parts, so that he presently died.  
V But leaving these foreign instances, let us come home to Britain, where we will see a wonderful Tragedy of secret bloody treasons, plotted and carried on for the ruin of Queen Elizabeth, King James, etc. and the whole Reformed Religion professed in these lands. For so soon as the Pope perceived that Queen Elizabeth intended in earnest to shake off that Romish yoke, and that all his flattery and fair dealing could not reduce her to his obedience, she refusing to permit his Nuncio to enter her Kingdom, he falls to his old course, and anno 1569. Pope Pius the 5. excommunicats her (as we said before) absolving all her subjects from her obedience, and ●ursing all that should longer obey her, giving her Kingdom to the King of Spain. But fearing that a war might be dangerous, and of doubtful event, he thought the most compendious way to ruin her, was to send over his Agents to England, to cause proclaim his Bull there, and to excite the Papists in England to rebellion against her, and to endeavour by all means to assassinat her: For he thought this would either win her, or at least it would strengthen the King of Spain's hands, when he knew that there were secret plottings in England for to accomplish his design. Therefore he sent over his Bull declaratory by one Morton an English fugitive, who bringing it to Rodolf a Florentin, divers copies of it were first secretly scattered among the Papists, and then the Brieve itself fixed on the gate of London-house; by which time, the Priests, and other Agents for Rome, had wrought so far with sundry Nobles and Gentlemen of eminency, whom they either found or could make discontented with the Reformed Religion, or Government, or whom they discerned to be ambitiously affected, that they never rested, plotting one treason and rebellion after another. For in that same year wherein the Pope's Bulls was here scattered among the Papists, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, and sundry other their complices, fell out in actual rebellion. But that not taking effect, they used more secret and hidden ways for carrying on their mischief: For L. Aubespine, a French Ambassador of the Guisian faction, solicited one Mocdy to kill the Queen, by laying gun powder under her chamber, and secretly firing it. But although that was discovered, yet they did not cease, but all that Queen's time they were still plotting treasons; such as the treasons of Stuckly in Ireland, of the Stanley's in Darbishyre, of John Trogmorton and Brook, of  and Bristol, of the norton's, Barn and Mather, of Doctor Story▪ and Shirwin, Parsons, Campian, and Kirly, and many other Priests and Jesuits, to the number of 120. of Somervail and his adherents: of Main, Nilson, Thomson, and the rest of that crew: of pain and his fifty resolutes hired by the Pope to murder the Queen. Of Francis Throgmorton, Paget and Englfield. Of bloody Pary, of Babington, Tichburn, and the rest of that pack. Of the same Babington, Charnock and Savace, on a second devilish design. Of Lopoz▪ of Stanley, of Cullen, of York and Williams, etc. with infinite more that never came to light; yea, Garnet, Winter, Catesby, Treshame, and others, in the last year of Queen Elizabeth, traveled with the King of Spain to join with the Papists in England to depose the Queen, and to extirpate Religion. Thus they never rested all the time of that Queen, to plot treasons and rebellions against her. And is it not well known, how the Duke of Guise, and his faction in France, did enter in the holy League, to root out all the Protestants? In prosecution whereof, they warred and rebelled against their natural Sovereign's King Henry the 3. and King Henry the 4. while several hundreds of thousands of the subjects were killed and destroyed▪ and the whole Kingdom almost wasted and depopulated, and way made for the Spaniard to conquer the Kingdom, with whom the Leaguers joined, and brought his forces unto the Kingdom. And if his wars in the Netherlands, and the loss of his Armado anno 1588. had not weakened him, he might have conquequested all France. But did King James feel them any quieter in Scotland? Surely no. For beside the hazard he was in from them in his infancy and minority, he felt also their treasons and rebellions, when come to age: For the Earls of Angus, Huntly and Arrol, the Lords Maxwel, Hares, and others, made a conspiracy for bringing in the Spaniard, with whom they were to join forces for the ruin of King and Kingdom, and afterward broke out in open rebellion at the bridge of Dee; as is proved at large in a Treatise, entitled. A Discovery of the unnatural and traitorous conspiracy o● Scottish Papists, etc. printed by King James special command 1592. And as soon as he entered England, Watson and Clerk instilled treasons unto sundry Nobles and Gentlemen against the King and Prince before the Coronation: But that not succeeding, they fall next to the Gunpowder treason, designing to blow up King & Parliament, & all at one blow: they hiring the cellars of the  in which they laid 36. barrels of gunpowder, and 1000 billets, and 500 faggots; and if God had not discovered their wickedness by a singular providence, both King, Queen, Prince, Nobles, Knights, Citizens, Burgesses, yea the whole Parliament, had all gone with at one blow. I spare to speak of the continual treasons and rebellions in Ireland, both in Queen Elizabeth and King James reign; Or of that memorable design of the Spanish Armado anno 1588. Which however it was attempted by Spain, yet all men may know that the English and Scottish Papists kept continual correspondence, and were combined with the Spaniard: And of the thundering Bull of Pope Sixtus the 5. then sent abroad for confirmation of the several Bulls made by his predecessors Pius the 5. and Gregory the 13. against Queen Elizabeth, to the end our Papists might more cheerfully assist in that bloody enterprise. Nor were the Papists less active in King Charles the first his reign; as M Prin and M. Baxter have evidenced at large. Prin in several treatises (especially in a treatise entitled Rome's Masterpiece) shows what great plots they had, either to ruin King and Kingdom or to procure liberty for the profession of Popery. M. Baxter in his Key of Catholics, chap. 45. & seqq. proveth at large, that they plotted, contryved, and carried on that late change of Government in the State, and that cruel and abominable parricide committed on the Royal person of King Charles the first. Peter du Moulin junior, Chaplain to the King's Majesty, in his vindication of the sincerity of the Protestant Religion, in the point of obedience to Sovereigns, chap. 2. pag. 58.59 testifieth, That the year before the King's death, a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England, first to Paris, to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon, then altogether Jesuited, to whom they put this question in writing: That seeing the State of England was in a likely posture to change Government, whither it was lawful for the Catholics to work that change, for the advancing and securing of the Catholics cause in England, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his heresy? Which was answered affirmatively. After which the same persons went to Rome where the same question being propounded and debated it was concluded by the Pope and his Council, that it was both lawful and expedient for the Catholics to promote that alteration of State. What followed that consultation and sentence, all the world knoweth. The same Author relateth, That when the news of that horrible execution came to Rouen, a Protestant Gentleman of good credit, was present in a great number of Jesuited persons: where after great expressions of joy, the greatest of the company, to whom all gave ear, spoke much after this sort: The King of England at his marriage had promised us the reestablishing of the Catholic Religion in England, and when he delayed to fulfil his promise, we summoned him from time to time to perform it: We came so far as to tell him, that if he would not do it, we should be forced to take these courses which would bring him to his destruction. We have given him lawful warning, and when no warning would serve, we have kept our vow to him, since he would not keep his word to us. The said Author likewise relateth, That in pursuance of the  conclusion at Rome, many Jesuits came over, who take several shapes to go about their work, but most of them took party in the army. About thirty of them were met by a Protestant Gentleman, between Rouen and Deep, to whom they said (taking him for one of their party) that they were going to England, and would take arms in the Independent army, and endeavour to be Agitators. Much more hath he to this purpose.  
M. Baxter likewise proveth that many Jesuits did enter in the army, and swarmed through the Country, under the name of Independants, Seekers, Quakers, Levellers, etc. endeavouring to ruin the Reformed Religion, by railing against the Church, Ministry, Ordinances, etc.  
From all which it is evident, that the grand work of the Pope and Jesuits his Janissaries, is to plot and carry on treasons and bloodshed in Protestant Kingdoms and Commonwealths, which they have been still about since the Reformation: And no wonder the Priests and Jesuits lay life and all at the stake, to accomplish bloody and traitorous designs, seeing they are sworn and engaged by oath to make this their work: For the Pope binds all the Jesuits, and Priests by oath to inculcat their principles of treason into their proselyts, and to stir them up upon all occasions to act it, as will be evident to any who will but read the rules of Ignatius Loyola, the father of the Jesuits: Or the testimony of Pope Urban the 8. in his Bull of Canonization of Ignatius Loyola: Touching that Society, that beyond all other fraternity, they are the chief and most strenuous propugners of the Pope's authority. And how far do the Jesuits extend their vow of blind obedience? Even to the kill of Kings, raising of treasons and rebellions wherever they can have access. So that Watson in his Quodlibets, and other secular Priests, have proven and concluded the Jesuits traitors, both for tenets and practice. But not only are the Jesuits bound by oath to assassinations and rebellions, but also the secular Priests themselves (who are not Jesuits) are bound unto the Pope himself (in his Constitutions for ordering of the English College at Rome) by oath to propagat rebellion: For thus speaks Martin Aspilcueta. Doctor Novarrus, lib. 3. consil. & resp. council. 1. the regular. (cited by Doctor Burges) At Rome in the College of the English, it is a Statut and Papal Constitution, that whoever will be admitted into that College, he be tied to swear, that after so many years he will travel unto England for defence of the Catholic faith, and there preach it both in public and private. Now what Faith it is that they are bound to preach, the treasons and rebellions raised by them can best evidence. Now their great work is to corrupt the judgements of their followers, and instruments of assassination and treason, with poisonous positions touching the nature of such facts, and bribe their consciences with strong baits of reward and glory, to all that will undertake the acting of treasons and rebellions at their instigation, which is a strong incentive to them: For men that are either sensible of Religion, or desirous of glory, will easily be induced to any attempt, which is pronounced not only lawful, but noble and meritorious, for advancement of their Religion. And the Priests and Jesuits persuasions, are the more forcible, by reason of the great influence they have upon Papists of both sexes, and the power they exercise over their consciences, and the esteem and honour they have among them, because that they do hazard their lives to do them service, which doth exceedingly endear them to them, and makes them more apt to drink down any poisonous principles that they infuse. And so under pretext of Religion, they at their pleasure involve them in desperate treasons. For whither will they not lead them by advancing the Pope's authority over all, in ordine ad spiritualia, and by daily telling them that the Protestants are a pack of excommunicate and damnable heretics, which all Catholics are to look upon as such, and aught to prosecute them as the Pope shall command and direct? It would be too tedious to show how often, and with what arguments they have excited up their followers to treasons and rebellions. For what rewards have been promised to traitors, if they do the deed, and what glory of Martyrdom they purchase in heaven, in case they miscarry, is better known than I can declare. I shall only bring a few instances.  
First, one William Parrey a Popish traitor, acknowledged, That he had promised at Rome to kill Queen Elizabeth, about which he was much troubled in his conscience, till he lighted upon D. Allens book, which taught that Prince's excommunicate for heresy, were to be deprived of Kingdom and life: which book (saith he) did vehemently excite me to prosecute my attempt.  
Secondly, when the Gunpowder treason was hatching, Catesby, and some others, at first had scruples of the lawfulness of it; upon which they consult father Garnet, and others of their ghostly fathers, who all pronounce it lawful, and full of merit, and encourage them in it. Catesby had also grounded himself upon the doctrine of father Cresuel in his Philopater, who asserteth, That a Prince manifestly heretical, falleth from all Princely p●wer and authority, even before any legal sentence pass d by the Pope against him. To both which he added the infallible judgement of Clement the 8. who in two several Breves, one directed to the Catholic Nobility and Gentry of England; the other to father Garnet, enjoined them not to permit any but a Catholic Prince to succeed Queen Elizabeth. Hence he concluded, He who then might lawfully he kept out, may now as lawfully be thrust out▪ Pope Clement enjoined the former: Ergo, we may do the latter. And thus armed with poisoned Divinity, he and his followers, resolved most desperately to go on with that wickedness.  
Also Oneil first, and Tyron afterwards, had the public approbation of the University of Salamanca in Spain, before they displayed their rebellious banners.  
From all which, the Reader may perceive in what a poor case any Prince or Republic stands into where Papists have any power or strength. Is not both the King's life and his Kingdom and posterity in daily hazard of utter ruin and undoing?  
Object. But lest it should be said, that these were the the facts of some treacherous spirits, especially the Jesuits, who have been incendiaries, as well in their writings, as in their practices, yet the more moderate Catholics have ever condemned these facts and writings: and many of them have been content to have granted to the King, all that the Sorbon Doctors and Parliament of Paris have granted to the King of France.  
Answer 1. These treasons and rebellions have not only been done by some obscure hot-brained Papists and Jesuits, but also approved by their most learned & approved Writers; yea commended by the Pope himself, who (in their judgement is infallible:) For did not Pope Pius the 5. excommunicate and depose Queen Elizabeth, and gave her Kingdom to Philip of Spain (as we hinted before) which Bull of excommunication was confirmed by his successors Gregory the 13. and Sixtus the 5? And not only doth the Pope excommunicate and depose Kings, but also he doth approve of killing of Kings. For we told you before, that Pope Sixtus the 5. gave thanks unto God in open Consistory, for the horrible murder and assassination committed by James Clement upon Henry the third of France; which Oration was published by the Papists and printed at Paris by Nicolas Nevil and Rollin Thory, with approbation of their Doctors Boucher, de Creil, and Ancelin. And is not the forecited resolution of Pope Urban, half an approbation of King-killing, when he saith, He esteemed them not to be murderers, who possessed with the zeal of the Catholic Church against these that were excommunicate, should happen to kill any of them? And did not Pope Paul the 5. permit Garnet and Oldcorn (who were taken and executed in England for the Gunpowder treason) to be put in the Catalogue of Martyrs, their picture to be worn in medals, their image to be set upon the Altars in Churches, and their bones worshipped as holy relics? And Gerard, another of the Gunpowder traitors who fled, was permitted publicly to take confessions in S. Peter's Church at Rome. And Tosmond (another of these hellish conspirators) was made public Penitentiary at Rome, and Confessor to the Pope himself, after they were fled for that hellish Gunpowder plot. And doth not Franciscus de Verone write an Apology in defence of John Chastel, who attempted the murder of King Henry the 4. of France? Now either the Papists must acknowledge these assassinations and murders to be lawful▪ or they must condemn the Pope as erring in approving of them, which will strike against the foundation of their Religion to wit, That the Pope cannot err. Now therefore albeit some Papists in words profess a dislike of Jesuitical practices▪ yet still they hold of the Pope for the whole frame of their Religion, and vow obedience to all his public definitions, and so must approve of the most vile parricide imaginable, if the Pope command or approve of it.  
2. It is an ordinary stratagem of Papists to profess to abhor Jesuitical tenets to lull us asleep, to get their wickedness acted with less suspicion. Among many, instances might be given: I shall give one in Queen Elizabeth's time, when after that Pope Pius his Bull came out against her, some seminary Priests admired and extolled that Bull, and blasphemously said, It was endited by the holy Ghost: yet presently after they set out a book (on purpose to lull the Queen and State asleep) to admonish the Papists of England, not no practice any mischief upon the Queen, because Catholics might use no other arms, but tears, prayers, watch and fastings, against their adversaries, and yet in the mean time they never rested plotting one treason after another. A list whereof I set down before. And even Watson and other Priests, who did write against the Jesuits rebellious practices, were the desperate propounders and ringleaders of that treason against King James and Prince Henry, at his coming to England; for which the said Watson and Clerk suffered the reward of traitors. So that H. T. and other Papists, are not to be believed; for they will say any thing, maintain any assertion, that they may make for the advancement of their cause.  
3. What is the matter although they pretend to grant to the King all that the Sorbon Doctors and Parliament of Paris grant, yea what although they profess to swear their allegiance, are we the safer, seeing they change their principles according as they see occasion, and seeing they hold that the Pope can dispense with any oath, even after they have taken it, as I have proven before? And did not Parsons and Campian anno 1580. (notwithstanding of their strict oath to obey the Pope in all things) procure a dispensation to free all Catholics from obeying the Popes own declaratory Bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth, till a better opportunity? So you see they can get a dispensation from the Popes own Bull, if they find it not seasonable. What oath then will bind them, especially to these they account heretical? For that is one of their principles. No faith is to be kept to heretics, (as we shown you.) They can change themselves Proteus-like in any form. When there is no remedy, they will yield to any thing; But when they see their time, they will do any thing.  
I shall close all with the testimony of two great Doctors and Bishops in King James time, the first whereof is Doctor Andreus Bishop of Winchester, who in a sermon on Nou. 5. 1616. speaking of the reason that Bellarmin gives, why the primitive Christians did not rise up against persecuting Emperors. id fuit quia deerant vires; He makes this collection, that is as much as to say, if they now in these days be so as they were then, and carry themselves quietly, it is quia non sunt vires: and to hold no longer, then donec erunt: And then you are like to hear of them, to have them go again with such another birth. Ye shall have them as mild as Gregory the first, when they have no strength: But as fierce as Gregory the 7. when they have: and afterwards thus.  
See ye not next under God, whereto to ascribe your safety? even to non erant vires, there is a point hangs on that: for while that lasts, while ye keep them there, ye shall have the primitive Church of them: have them to lie as quiet, as still, as ever did the barrels in the vault, till vires, like fire come to them, and then off go they: then nothing but depose Kings, dispose of Kingdoms, assoil subjects, arm them against their Sovereigns: then do they care not what: But if the powder take not fire, then shall you strait have books tending to mitigation; then all quiet again: certainly, thus standing it were best to hold them in defectu virium, to provide, ut ne sint, to keep them at non sunt vires, till time they be better minded in this point: and we have good assurance of it: for minded as they are, they want no will, no virus, they tell us what the matter is; strength they want; they writ it, they print it: and si adessent vires, they would act it in earnest. Thus he.  
The second is Doctor Prideaux in a Sermon on Nou. the 5. who having reckoned up a Catalogue of the damnable doctrines of Popery, professeth to have done it. To make it appear to these that would willingly be better persuaded of their doctrine, that the doctrine itself directly warranteth treason. Let the traitors be what they will, and that none can be an absolute Papist, but (if he thoroughly understand himself, and live under a Christian Prince, that hath renounced the Pope's authority) must needs, being put unto it, be an absolute traitor.  
Thus I hope ye have it proved, both from their principles and practice, that if Popery or Papists, get any strength or footing in a Kingdom, it will tend undoubtedly to the ruin of both King and Kingdom. Yet the Papists are grown so impudent of late, as to charge the Protestants integrity of rebellion, and rebellious principles, and excuse their own rebellious principles: As in a Treatise, entitled, Philanax Anglicus, dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury: But Peter du Moulin, hath learnedly answered it. And truly herein they deal with us as Verres did with Tully: Verres himself was a very notorious thief, and knew that Cicero had much against him in that kind, and therefore he knavishly and impudently calls Cicero the thief first, though a very true man and noble Orator. It is just so in this case. Now I pray, what case may both King and Kingdom expect to be in, if Papists get any strength or power? Have they not given infinite proofs both of old and late, of their rebellious disposition and treasonable practices?   

SECTION V.  
Containing some instances in particular of the barbarous, and inhuman cruelty of Papists to Protestants, where they had the power over them.  
I Have hitherto shown that both the principles and practices of Papists, tend to treasons, rebellions, war, and bloodshed: I shall in this Section, to detect their cruelty, give some instances in particular of their barbarous & inhuman cruelty to Protestants, where ever they get power & authority, or the upperhand over them. This is so well known, that none that knows any thing of History are ignorant of it. Ought ever the sad and deplorable case of England in Queen Mary's time to be forgotten, when either the soul behoved to be ruined by Idolatry, or else the body to be burnt in a fire? This was an unanswerable Dilemma, either soul or body must perish. How many hundred of Martyrs were burnt in one year all the Country over.  
Their inhuman cruelties executed on Protestants, are so many and terrible, that they would make up many Volumes, and make the hair to stand, and the ears to tingle. What greater torments are imaginable then is used in the Inquisition of Spain and Italy, as it is described by M. Clerk in his martyrology? But that the Reader may know ex ungue leonem, their cruel and inhuman carriage to Protestants, I shall set down a few instances.  
I shall begin with the Waldenses in Provence, against whom Meinerus Precedent of Oppede anno. 1545. raised war, & coming to Cabriers, in which there were only 60. poor sick peasants, who offered to open the gates and quite the Country, leaving all their goods behind them; but he entering the town caused all the men to be brought in a field and to be cut in pieces: The soldiers striving who should show the best manhood in cutting of heads, arms and legs. The women he caused to be locked in a barn with much straw, and so put fire to it, where many women great with child were burnt. One soldier moved with pity, opening a hole in the wall that some of them might come out, Oppede made them to be beaten back to the fire with picks and halberds: some of them that came forth, he slew with his own hands, ripping open their bellies, so that their children came forth, whom he trod with his feet. It is too tedious to tell the hellish and unparallelled cruelties that he used upon that people. See Sleydans Commentaries, and M. Clerk's Martyrology, pag. 133. Another instance of their inhuman cruelty was in Italy anno 1560. in Calabria: where 88 Protestants being shut up in a prison, the executioner cometh in, taketh out one and blind-foldeth him, and so leads him forth to a large place adjoining, where commanding him to kneel down, he cuts his throat, and leaving him half dead, he takes his butcher's knife all bloody, and goeth back to the rest; so leading one after another, he dispatched them all. This was such a sad spectacle, that he that writes of it, could not repeat it without tears. See Clerks Matyr. pag. 238.  
The next instance of their inhuman and bloody cruelty shall be the Massacre of Paris, anno 1572. where when the Papists could not get the Protestants subdued by war, they conclude a peace: And for security of it, the King gives his own sister to the King of Navarre, and all the Protestants are invited to the marriage: But in the mean time, the Queen of Navarre is poisoned and dies, and upon bartholomew's day, anno 1672. the gates were shut (under pretence of searching for one that shot the Admiral, but really to keep all the Protestants within the City) and they came in first and killed the Admiral, and threw his dead body into the streets, and sent his head as a present to the Pope: And then to work they went, and slew that night, and the two days following to the number of ten thousand in Paris. In this massacre their cruelty was so great, that they spared not young children in the cradle, nor infants in their mother's wombs, so that the streets were covered with mangled bodies, gates and doors filled with blood, shoutings and howl of the murderers, mixed with the cries and groans of the dying; the breaking open of doors and windows, with the noise of guns and pistols, all which made an hellish noise: multitudes of dead bodies were thrown into the river, which was died red with their blood: presently after the King sending letters to Meaux, Troy's, Orleans, Angiers, Rouen, Tholouse, Bourdeaux, and other places, where they murdered all the Protestants most barbarously and inhumanely, and cast out their dead bodies naked without the honour of burial, or threw them in the water, so that the rivers were died with their blood. The number that were massacred in France in a few weeks, amounted to thirty thousand and above. Whosoever desires to hear a more full Relation of the mischievous and horrid cruelty used in this Massacre, let them read Fox his Acts and Monuments, Vol. III. and Clerks Martyrology, p. 310. etc.  
The next instance I shall give, shall be of their persecution in the Valtoline, anno 1620. where setting upon the people as they were at Sermon, not dreading any such thing, they murdered them all, not regarding sex nor age: After which, they marched to Sanders, where the Papists in that place hearing of their coming, went to the Justice, protesting that they should guard him from danger, and that they would not permit such villainies to be committed among them then did they arm themselves, under pretence of defending and securing the Protestants; who trusting to their promises; mixed themselves among them to stand to their own defence. But they treacherously betrayed them, and joined with the other Papists in murdering them all wherever they met with them. Their cruelty was monstrous for they put a gag in the mouth of some, and then filled their mouth with powder, and put fire to it, which tore their head miserably. Some had their mouths slit up to their ears others had the flesh cut from their faces, others were slashed in other parts of their body till they died, and others were often put to the strappado, and then hewn in pieces.  
The next instance is more recent and fresh in memory, in the late wars in Germany, since anno 1630. where the Swedes possessed of a town, called Pasewalk, the Imperialists took it by storm, beat, killed and drove out the Swedes; and not content therewith, they fell to torturing of the Towns men, ravishing women and girls in the open streets, and Churchyard▪ yea women in child bed; where they killed the men, fired their houses, and burned many in them. Thrust straw into cellars where children were hidden, and so burnt and smothered them. Then they burned the Churches, and massacred the Ministers, and at last burnt down the whole Town.  
The like cruelty was used against the city of Magdeburg, famous for Religion, which being taken by Tilly anno 1631. was in twelve hours' space wholly turned into ashes, except 139 houses: No mercy was shown to any age, sex, or condition; about twenty thousand persons were slain▪  and smothered to death; six thousand were drowned in the river: Ladies and Gentlewomen like beasts were yoked together, and led about the Country, and driven into woods to be ravished; and such as resisted, were stripped stark naked, whipped, had their ears cropped, and so were turned off.  
The Popish army having taken the town of Hoxter anno 1634. they spared neither man, woman nor child, most inhumanely butchering, and hewing in pieces all, without respect of age, sex or condition; and what the sword could not spoil, they caused the fire to consume, and the dead corpse they cast into the river Weser.  
Their rage was so great against the professors of the Gospel, that neither Turks nor Heathens did ever exceed them. In Saxony, Tilly's soldiers tortured the Protestants, by half strangling them, and pressing their thumbs with wheels. In Pomeran they forced the people to eat their own excrements; and if they refused, they thrust them down their throat, whereby some of them were choked. They tied about the heads of some, strong matches or cords, and with short truncheons twisted them while blood came out of their eyes, ears, and noses, yea sometimes till their eyes started out of their heads: to others they tied burning matches between their fingers, yea, to their eyes, ears, noses, tongues, cheeks, breasts, legs, and secret parts; yea, such parts as nature hideth, they either stuffed with gunpowder, or hung bags of powder to them, and so giving fire to it, in an horrible manner they burst their bellies, and killed them: with bodkins they made holes, or with knives they cut the skin and flesh of many. They drew strings and cords through the fleshy parts of some, and through the muscles of their thighs▪ legs▪ arms, etc. or through their noses▪ ears, lips, etc. Some they hung up in the smoke, drying them with small fires, and sometimes refreshing them with small drink or water, taking care lest in their torments they should die too soon. Some they put into hot ovens, roasting or smothering of them there. Some they roasted with fires of straw: some they stifled, strangled or hanged, and this was a great favour, so soon to rid them out of pain. Of many they bond their hands and feet, that the blood spitted out of their fingers and toes ends. Of some they tied their hands and feet backwards together, stopping their mouths with clouts, to hinder them from praying. Some they hung up with ropes fastened to their privy parts; and hearing their cries, strove by their roar to drown their cries, as in sport. Many they drew up on high, hanging great weights at their feet, to pull their bodies out of joint. Of some they plained their faces with chissels. Some men they openly gelded in presence of their wives & children. The mouths of some they set wide open with gags, and then poured down their throats stinking water, urine, and other liquid things, till they grew sick, and their bellies swelled like tuns, whereby they died leisurely with greater torment. Down the throats of some they violently thrust knotted clouts, & then with a string pulled them up again, whereby they displaced their bowels, & put them to miserable torment, in so much as some were made dumb, others deaf, others blind, and others lame. If the husband entreated for his wife, or the wife for the husband, they would take the intercessor, and torture him in the same manner before the others eyes; and when any of these poor creatures in their torments or agonies of death, called and cried unto God for mercy, they would command and seek to force them to pray and cry unto the Devil. Yea their devilishness proceeded so far, that they studied to find out new and unheardof torments. Some they bound, hung up and sawed off their legs; of others they rubbed off the flesh of their legs to the very bones: of others they tied the arms backward, and so ●anged them up by these distorted parts, many they drew through the streets of the city stark naked, then broke and wounded them with axes and hammers; & generally used them with such barbarous cruelty that many begged to be shot or slain instantly, rather than to live and be partakers of such miseries. Rapts and ravish they committed beyond all humane modesty: maids and matrons, wives and widows they forced and violated without distinction; yea, in the presence of their parents, husbands and neighbours; yea, women great with child, and others in childbed, their beastliness was such, that no pen can write it, no faith can believe it.  
In Hessen land they took divers poor women, some mad, some dumb, some lame, and tying up their coats about their ears, so used them as a modest pen cannot express. In Pomeran they took the fairest maids, and ravished them before their parents faces, making them sing Psalms the while: One beautiful maid being hid by her parents in a dunghill, they found her out, had their pleasure of her, then cut her in pieces, and hung up her quarters in the Church; yea very girls of ten years old and under, they ravished, till some of them died. Virtuous and chaste women they would threaten to kill, or throw their children into the fire, if they would not yield to their lusts. Divers maids and women to avoid their lusts have leapt into rivers and wells, and some have otherwise killed themselves: and that which was never before heard-of, they did not only violate sickly and weak maids and women till they died, but committed the like filthiness with the dead corpse. Who desires to see more of this, let him peruse Clerks Martyrology, pag. 275 & seqq.  
The last instance of the unspeakable ruin and misery of Protestants under the merciless rage of Papists, where they are masters, is a homebred one in our own days, and fresh in memory, and of our own brethren, to wit, the English and Scottish Protestants in Ireland, in that late persecution raised by the Irish Papists against them, anno 1642. commonly called, The Irish rebellion. To make a full Relation of their horrid and barbarous cruelty, it would fill a whole Volume itself, there being several Volumes written on that subject. I shall only name some few particulars. And first, when their plot was ripe, the Priests gave the Sacrament unto divers of the Irish, upon condition that they should neither spare man, woman, nor child of the Protestants, saying▪ that it was very meritorious to wash their hands in their blood. One Halligan a Priest, read an excommunication against all these that from thenceforth should relieve or harbour any English, Scots, or Welsch Protestants, or give them alms at their doors, whereby many were famished to death. The Friars with tears exhorted them not to spare any of the English. They openly professed that they held it as lawful to kill a Protestant, as to kill a sheep or a dog. One of their Priests said, that it was no more pity or conscience to take the lives or estates from them, then to take a bone out of a dog's mouth.  
The day before this Massacre was to begin, the Priests gave the people a free dismiss at Mass, with free liberty to go out and take possession of all their lands: as also to strip, rob and spoil them of all their goods and , the Protestants being as they told them, worse than dogs; for they were Devils, and served the Devil, and therefore the kill of such was a meritorious act, and a rare preservative against the pains of Purgatory; for that the bodies of such of them as died in the quarrel, should not be cold before their souls should ascend up into heaven, they should not fear the pains of Purgatory. And that caused some of them to boast, after they had murdered many, that they knew that if they should die presently, they should go strait to heaven.  
When this persecution first began, many of the Irish Gentlemen persuaded many of their Protestant neighbours to bring their goods and  to them, and they would secure them; and gave deep oaths and protestations to many, that if they would deliver their goods, they would suffer them, with their wives and children, to departed the Country: yet having got their goods, they murdered some of them; others they stripped stark naked, man, woman and child, and so turned them out of doors; not suffering them so much as to shelter themselves in bushes, or in the woods. And they prohibited any of the Irish, under great penalties, to give them any relief: And their design was, that these whom they would not cruelly murder in cold blood, might miserably perish through cold, nakedness, and want: And therefore when any got any rags to cover their nakedness, they stripped them again and again, and drove them to the wild woods, in frost and snow, so that many of them starved, and fell down dead on the high ways. Others that got to any English town, died so soon as they came there, by reason of the cold and famine suffered in the way. But these were but the beginnings of sorrows; for they fell on and murdered in cold blood, some at plough, others in their houses, others travelling in the way without provocation.  
In the Castle of Lisgool there were about 152. persons consumed with fire. At the Castle of Monea were an hundred slain together. All that was in the Castle of Tullah, were all cruelly murdered, after the Castle was yielded upon composition, and faithful promises of fair quarter.  
At Lissenkea they hanged and killed above an hundred of the Scots Protestants: Some they caused upon hopes of life, to hear Mass, and to swear never to alter from it, and presently thereafter hanged or killed them.  
At Portendoun-bridge they drove a thousand persons into the river, and drowned them all; yea in that County they drowned four thousand persons, driving them to the river: and if any were slack in their pace, they pricked them forward with their swords and picks: and to terrify the rest, they killed some, and wounded others: and if any essayed to swim to the shore, they stood and shot at them. Some they gave passes, and sent of the Irish with them, under the pretence of safe-conducting them, while they came to some place fit for execution, where they either murdered or drowned them.  
At Armach, Onel got together all the Protestants thereabout, pretending to conduct them to Colrain; but before they were gone a days journey they were all murdered, and so were many others, though they had Oneals protection. In Armach town there were 500 persons murdered and drowned. In Kilmore all the inhabitants were stripped and massacred, being 200. families. The whole County was a common butchery, where many thousands perished in a short time, by sword, famine, fire, water, and all other cruel manner of deaths that rage and malice could invent: yea, their cruelty was so great, that they would not grant them so much liberty as to pray before they murdered them. Some when they were kneeling and praying, they would cut off their head. When some on their knees begged but leave to pray before they were slain, they would bid them bequeath their souls to the Devil. Others would ask them, Why do you desire to pray, your souls are already with the Devil? and so would immediately slaughter them. Some they put in filthy dungeons, full of dirt and mire, and there clapping bolts on their legs, suffered them to perish at leisure. Some they barbarously mangled, and left them languishing upon the high ways, crying out but for so much mercy as to be dispatched out of their pain. Some they buried alive. Some when they were half hanged, they cast into pits, covering them with a little earth, where they sent out most lamentable groans for a good while after. Some they hacked, slashed, and wounded and then put and kept them under with stones, where they lay languishing and groaning, while their own wives stopped their breath with handkerchiefs to put them out of pain. Some they buried alive, yet so as their pitiful cries were heard afar off. Some were deadly wounded, and so were hung by the chocks upon tenter hooks. Some with ropes about their necks, were drawn through the water. Some with ropes about their middles, were drawn through woods and bogs. Some were hung up by the arms, and then with their swords they made experiment how many blows an English Protestant would endure ere he died. Some had their bellies ripped up, and so were left with their guts running about their heels.  
Many women great with child they hung up, then ripped their bellies and let the infants fall out, and gave them to be devoured of dogs and swine. Many children they took by the heels, and dashed their brains out against a tree. Many they pucked and stabbed with their skeens, forks and swords, slashing, cutting and mangling them, in their heads, faces, breasts, arms, and other parts yet killed them not, but left them wallowing in their blood▪ to languish, starve, and pine to death; and when they desired them to kill them out of their pain, they refused; yet sometimes after a day or two, they would dash out their brains with stones or clubs, which they accounted as a great favour. In the cold weather many thousands of Protestants of all ranks, ages and sexes, being turned out stark naked, perished of cold and hunger Thousands of others were drowned, cast into ditches, bogs, and turff-pits. Multitudes were enclosed in houses, which being set on fire, they were burnt miserably. Some that lay sick of fevers, they drew out of their beds, and hanged them. Some men, women and children, they drove into boggy pits: and if any of them endeavoured to get out, they knocked them on their heads. Some aged men and women, they forced them to carry their own children to the river, where they were drowned; yea some children were compelled unnaturally to be the executioners of their own parents. Wives were forced to help to hang their own husbands, and mothers to cast their own children into the water, after all which themselves were murdered In Slego they forced a young man to kill his own father, and then hanged him up. In another place, they forced a woman to kill her husband, than caused her son to kill her, and then immediately hanged the son: and this they did that they might destroy both soul and body: yea, the women were as bloody as the men, killing women and children; yea, they boiled a child of twelve years of age in a caldron: and in some places, the women stoned the English women to death. In some places they plucked out the eyes, and cut off the hands of the Protestants, and so turned them out into the fields to wander till they perished.  
Neither did their cruelty end with the lives of the Protestants, but extended after death, to the denying burial to their carcases, casting some into ditches, leaving others to be devoured of ravenous beasts and fowls; yea some that had been formerly buried, they digged up, and left them as dung upon the face of the earth; and they vowed if any parents, or wives digged graves to bury their husbands or children in, they should be buried therein themselves. Yea, they abused and triumphed over the dead; for at Kilkenny, when they had committed many cruel murders, they brought seven Protestant heads, among which was the head of a Minister, all which they set on the Market Cross, on a Market day, triumphing● slashing, and mangling of them, and putting a gag into the Minister's mouth, they slit up his cheeks to his ears, and laying a leaf of the Bible before it, they bid him preach, for his mouth was wide enough. When they put many Protestants in houses, and set fire in them, and burned them, they exulted over them, imitating in scorn their cries, and saying, O how sweetly do they fry. Yea, they made their, boast how many Protestants they killed; yea, they burned and blasphemously abused the Bible. At Slego they put all the Protestants in the Goal, and about midnight they were all stripped stark naked, and there most cruelly and barbarously murdered, with swords▪ axes, skeens: some of them being women great with child, their infants thrust out their arms and legs at their wounds; after which execrable murders, they laid the dead naked bodies of the men upon the dead naked bodies of the women, in a most immodest posture, where they left them while the next day, to be looked on as a delectable spectacle to the Irish.  
About Dunganon were 316. Protestants in the like barbarous manner murdered: about Charlmont above 510. about Tiron 250. One M. Crew, murdered 31. in one morning: Two young villains murdered 140. poor women and children: An Irish women with her own hands murdered 45. At Portendown-bridge were drowned above 300. At Lawgh were drowned above 200. In another place 300. were drowned in one day. In the Parish of Killamen there were murdered 1200. Protestants. In the County of Antrum they murdered 954. Protestants in one morning, and afterwards about 1200 more in that County. Sir Philem Oneal boasted that he had slain above 600 at Garvagh, and that he had left neither man, woman, nor child alive in the Barony of Munterlong. In other places he murdered above 2000 persons in their houses, above 12000, were slain in the high ways, as they fled towards Down.  
Not only the men, but also the boys murdered Protestants, for there were 15. Protestants all murdered in one night by a Popish boy of 14. years, who slew them with his skeen, they being imprisoned, and their feet in the stocks.  
Another of twelve years killed two women. An English Papist woman killed seven men and women of her neighbours in one morning; and it was usual for the Papists children to murder the Protestants children; and sometimes with their wooden swords, sharp and heavy, they would venture upon people of riper years. An English woman who was newly delivered of two children, some of these villains violently compelled her in great pains and sickness, to rise from her bed, and took one of the infants that was living, and dashed his brains against the stones, and then threw him into the river. The like they did with many other infants. Many others they hanged without all pity; yea many young children they cut into quarters and goblets. Eighteen Scots infants they hanged upon a clothiers tenterhooks. One fat man they murdered, and made candles of his greass. Another Scottish man they ripped up his belly, and an end of his small guts tied it to a tree, and forced him round about it, till he had drawn them all out of his body, saying they would try whither a Scots-man or a dog's guts were the longer. They took one M. Watson, and cutting two colops out of his buttocks, they roasted him alive. They ripped up a Scottish woman great with child cut the child out of her womb, and so left it crawling on her body. They used also to send their children abroad in troops, armed with long watles and whips, wherewith they use to beat dead men's bodies about the privy members, till they beat them off. They broke the backbone of a young youth, and so left him in the fields; and some days after, he was found, having like a beast, eaten all the grass round about him; yet neither then would they kill him outright, but removed him to a place of better pasture.  
These and many more cruelties were used among the poor Protestants: who desires to see their monstrous, and more than barbarous cruelties at more length, let him peruse a book written on purpose, called Ireland's tears, and M. Clerk's Martyrology, from pag. 347. to pag. 369. which books never Papist could convince of falsehood.  
Now lest any should think this was a natural quarrel that the Irish had against the English. Ans. Certainly that could not be, because they were no more merciful to the Scottish, whom all acknowledge to be of their own Nation. 2. The English Papists were no whit inferior, but rather exceeded the natural Irish, in their cruelty against the Protestants that lived among them within the Pale, being never satisfied with their blood till they had seen the last drop thereof.  
Now was ever such inhuman cruelty heard or read of among Turks or Heathens, as they exercised against the poor Protestants, who never provoked them thereto, yea, that had always lived peaceably with them, administering help and pity to them in distress, cherishing them as friends, and loving neighbours? yet they shown them no favour nor pity: Alace! who can conceive the fears, terrors, anguish, bitterness and perplexity that seized upon the hearts of the poor Protestants, finding themselves so suddenly surprised without remedy, and inextricably wrapped up in all kind of outward miseries, which could possibly by man be inflicted upon humane creatures? What sighs and groans, trembling and astonishment? What schricks, cries, and bitter lamentations of wives, children, servants and friends, howling and weeping, finding themselves without all hope of deliverance from their present miseries? How inexorable were their torments without all bowels of compassion? The most barbarous Nation never used more cruelty, than they did upon the poor Protestants all the land over. I believe the Irish in this massacre destroyed by several sorts of torments several hundred thousands: for there were given up upon oath 150000. put to several sorts of death in the Province of Ulster. What the number of the slain was in the three other Provinces, is not on record, but certainly it was very great. As among other things, the Remonstrance of the distressed Protestants in Munster, set down in M. Clarks Martyrology evidenceth.  
By all that is said, I hope it is sufficiently proved, that the principles and practices of Papists are bloody, treasonable, cruel and inhuman; yet they are not only so impudent as to deny this, calling it a loud slander, but also to charge Protestants of integrity (as they call us) with treasonable and rebellious principles. Whereas we in all our Confessions acknowledge that Magistracy is an ordinance of God, and that every soul is to be subject to the higher powers, and that fidelity and obedience is due to them, in, and for the Lord. The public Confessions of our Churches, plead for this. See the Augustan, French, Belgic, Helvetick▪ Bohemian, Saxonick, Suevick, Scottish, English, and the Assemblies Confessions.  
Did ever any of our Divines teach any such doctrine? or to commit any such practices as Papists teach? Do we not all hold that an oath is strictissimi juris, of most strict obligation, and can be dispensed by none under heaven, and aught to be kept even to heretics, infidels, or any other whatsoever? We acknowledge that Churchmen, as well as others, are subject to the Magistrate, according to the Word of God, Rom. 13.1. None of us did ever teach, that the Pope, or any Churchman may dethrone Kings, and alien at their Crowns to others; neither do we teach that Church men are loosed from the positive laws of Emperors and Kings; much less do we hold, that the Pope may lose all subjects from their oath of loyalty, and command that a Jesuit stob, or poison a King, when he turneth enemy to the Roman faith. Satan himself cannot charge us with these; therefore we entreat that none would hearken to the Author of Philanax Anglicus, or the like, who endeavour to traduce and calumniat us, as if the Protestants of integrity did teach and practise rebellion, etc. Look to our Confessions and the approved writings of our Doctors, and to the practices of Protestants in the Kingdoms and Commonwealths where they live, and they will be forced to confess we own no such doctrine. Who more loyal subjects than the Protestants in France to King Henry the third, and King Henry the fourth? They owned them▪ assisted and fought for them, when almost all others abandoned them? How faithful were our predecessors in Scotland to King James, they crowned him in his cradle, they preserved him, owned and assisted him, and made him a glory to Europe, for understanding, learning and wisdom?  
I shall not insist further on this, seeing Peter du Moulin hath learnedly vindicated the Reformed Churches from this false aspersion hatched in hell, of purpose to alienat the affections of the Magistrate from us. But this only say, as we desire to render to God the things that are Gods; so we desire to render to Cesar the things that are Caesar's.  
But to conclude, Doth not the truth and honour of God, (which ought to be dearer to us then our own salvation) our own and posterities welfare and safety in body, soul, and all that is near and dear to us, call us to consider and seriously to lay to heart the increase and prevalency of Popery? Since the Reformation, there was never generally more prevailing of Popery, and more hazard of being ruined thereby, then now, and yet never less sense thereof, & zeal against it. In former times, the least appearance of the prevalency of Popery did alarm all, to deal according to their place and station, most seriously, for suppressing thereof. I shall not insist in showing how zealous our predecessors in Scotland were against Popery, and how they left no mean unessayed for total extirpation thereof out of the land; nor how ready they were upon the least appearance of any danger, to discover the danger, and petition and supplicat the Kings Majesty and Estates of Parliament for remedy. For instance, when news came of the preparation of the Spanish Armado 1588. what fasting, praying, and humiliation was all the Land over; and all other means essayed for preventing that dismal-like stroke? And anno 1592. when the plots of the Popish Lords, who had conspired to bring in the Spaniards in the Kingdom, was discovered; what zeal and forwardness did all the Land show for defence of the Reformed Religion, and suppressing of Popery? I will not, I say, insist at large on these, seeing the Acts of our Parliaments (wherein there are so many excellent statutes and laws made against Popery) and the Histories of these times doth abundantly declare what ze●l and hatred all ranks and degrees had against that Romish Whore. But I shall only make this inference. If they had such love to the truth, and such zeal against Antichrist, who had not such light, and were not so strongly engaged, as we are; shall they not arise in judgement against us, and condemn us? For should not the truths of God be as precious to us, as to our predecessors? Are there not as many obligations lying upon us, as was upon them? Is not Popery that same damnable Antichristian idolatry now, that it was then? Why then are we so dreadfully lukewarm and indifferent, and so little zealous against it? Should we be silent when Christ suffers? If in any thing, and at any time we be obliged to confess him before men, and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints; is it not in this thing, and at this time, when Antichrist is endeavouring to rob us of the purity of the Gospel, and to entangle us with the yoke of his Idolatry and superstition? Do we not see what we may expect, if Popery prevail, notwithstanding of all their specious pretences, and fair and plausible insinuations.  
The massacre of Paris, the Spanish Inquisition, and their unheardof cruelty in Ireland to our own flesh and blood, together with the Marian days in England, ought never to be forgotten by us, but always raise in us a perfect detestation of, and holy zeal and indignation against that Scarlet Whore. What may we expect if Popery prevail, but that sad Dilemma, either to be burnt at a stake, or lose our souls and bodies eternally: for the portion of these that worship the Beast, and receive his mark, is to be casten in that lake that burneth night and day, Rev. 14.10.11.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
NOw, although we can expect nothing but either loss of life, and all that is near and dear to us, or to lose our souls eternally, if Popery prevail: yet how little concerned are we in these matters? How luke warm and indifferent are we in this age and generation, as to any Religion? How few are they that are stirred up to deal with God by prayer and supplication, for continuing of the Gospel in purity with us, and to lay seriously to heart the abounding iniquity of these days, that may justly provoke the Lord to give us up to the tyranny of Antichrist? It is true many apprehend no hazard from Antichrist, and think that all the noise that is made of the prevalency of Popery, is without any real ground and cause: But let such think what they please, yet really our hazard is not so little as is apprehended, if we consider the diligence, activity, and vigilancy of Antichrist upon the one hand, and the lightness, unstability, lukewarmness, and Gallio-like temper of this generation, together with the dreadful evils whereby the Lord is provoked to remove the candlestick, and give us up to strong delusions to believe lies, on the o her hand.  
I. First, I say, if we consider the diligence and activity of Antichrist; for is not Antichrist as active and diligent as ever? Hath he not been still endeavouring by all manner of way to get his deadly wound cured, and the Reformed Churches brought again under his subjection, and especially Britain and Ireland, which he looks upon as his great eyesore? Therefore he hath erected for educating of the children of Scots and English Papists, a College at Douai in Flanders, another at Rome, the third at Valladolit in old Castille, a fourth in Sevil in Spain, a fifth in S. Omers in Artois, a sixth in Madrid in new Castille in Spain, a seventh in Louvain in Brabant, an eight in Liege in Luikland, a ninth in Ghent in Flanders. Now these that are educated in these Colleges (especially at Rome) they are bound by oath to come over to Britain and Ireland for propagating of Popery; and accordingly some comes over to preach and say Mass to Papists: Others comes over under the notion of gallants, and offers their service to Noblemen, that so they may engyre themselves into their favour, and know affairs. Others give out themselves to be Seekers, Quakers, etc. and rail against the Ministry and ordinances, and diffuse Popish doctrine: and in these employments they use undefatigable diligence: They do not weary in their work: They are as active now as any time heretofore, walking and acting most politically and under ground: For their great work now a days is to destroy the Reformed Churches by underhand dealing, and leger de main (as they call it) so that we shall not know nor see who hurts us, while we be utterly ruined. Adam Coutzens a Jesuit of Mentz, a great Politician, wrote a great Book of Politics, and in his 2. Book, chap. 18. he gives several rules to his fellow Jesuits, for cheating a people of the Reformed Religion by slight of hand and leger de main.  
1. The first is, To proceed as Musicians do in tuning their instruments, who proceed gradually, straining their strings with a gentle hand, and setting them up by little and little. Or as Physicians do in curing diseases, who abate noxious humours by degrees and pauses. So Jesuits will not discover all their doctrine at first, but bring in corruptions by degrees.  
2. The second is, To press the examples and practices of some eminent men, as a good mean to draw on the rest. Thus they cry out such a Nobleman, or great man, hath embraced the Roman Religion, why may you not do the like?  
3. The third rule is, That Arch-heretics, and such as are Teachers of heresy (meaning the zealous Ministers, and others that propagat and defend the Reformed Religion) must be banished the Commonwealth at once, if it may safely be done; but if not, by degrees. This way they followed in Bohemia, banishing the Ministers by degrees, and their great hatred is still against the Ministry.  
4. His fourth rule is, That these that are adversaries to true Religion (to wit, Popery) be put from their dignities, places and offices, and not trusted with power or public employment. Hence Jesuits insinuat themselves much, ordinarily on Statesmen, and these who have the disposal of places of trust, and use all means to keep zealous Protestants from trust and power.  
5. The fifth rule is, To make the Protestant Religion odious, by laying load upon such tenets as are most subject to harshest construction; and rendering the persons of these that maintain them contemptible. Hence it is the great work of Papists to raise calumnies on our Religion, and the professors thereof: for example, That we make God the Author of sin; revive old condemned heresies, etc. and they have raised a great heap of lies, reproaches and calumnies upon our first Reformers, Luther, Calvin, etc.  
6. His sixth rule is, To foment the quarrels that are among Protestants, and strengthen the party that is nearest a compliance with Rome. So any difference that is among us, they cast oil to the fire, and play their own game thereby.  
7. The seventh rule is, That all private Conventicles, and public meetings must be forbidden. This they did in Bohemia; for the Pope and his Cardinals had a consultation what they should do with the Bohemians and Germans? It was resolved, that seeing their former strong purges which they had used to expel heretical humours, had not proved effectual, they therefore resolved to take a milder course; and in prosecution thereof, they used several stratagems; one whereof was, to prohibit all meetings of the Protestants.  
8. His eight rule is, Severity of laws and punishments, to compel the obstinate unto duty, and yet the rigour of the law must be slowly drawn out, and not against all; but only such as be most dangerous: For (saith he) although compulsory reformation will do no good to old standers, yet it will render the younger sort Catholics.  
9 The ninth and last rule is, That such as are in authority, and have the public management of Ecclesiastical affairs, do religiously practise and maintain integrity and purity of manners. From all which we may see that we may be in great hazard of being ruined by the policies of Priests and Jesuits.  
II. But, alace! although they be nothing abated in their activity and diligence to undo and ruin us; yet we are wonderfully abated of our zeal and hatred of them and their doctrine. Our predecessors had their zeal raised very high against them, and were very active and diligent in resisting and opposing them; but how indifferent and lukewarm are we in this generation? some of a Cassandro-Grotian temper, that are for complying and uniting with them; others of Gallios' temper, that is not much concerned in any Religion, if they can secure their own civil concernments: others are ignorant, light, unstable, and unfixed in the principles of Religion; so there are but very few that have any sense of the evil or danger of Popery upon their spirits.  
III. But that which may most of all alarm us, is our heinous provocations and transgressions, whereby the Lord is dreadfully provoked to give up with us, and remove our candlestick out of its place, and to give us up to the delusions of Antichrist; may we not tremble for fear of this, if we consider what God hath done for us, and what requital we have given him.  
God hath done many wonderful things for us in these lands, both of old and of late; for according to the promises made of old to his Son, That he would give the heathen for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession, & that the isles should wait for his law, was graciously pleased many hundred years ago, & early after the rising of the Sun of righteousness, to give light unto the Gentiles, to pity our forefathers then mancipated to the service of Idols, which were not God, and visit them with the light of the glorious and blessed Gospel; which he so blessed▪ that in a short time both King, Nobility, and people embraced it, and the whole Nation became Christians, and for sundry generations the land was blessed and honoured of God with many Professors and Pastors famous for learning, holiness and piety; and for their pains and success in the work of the Gospel, both at home & abroad, until at last, with the rest of most of the Christian Churches in Europe, it was involved in the darkness of Popish superstition and idolatry; to which the greatest part were in bondage for many years: but there was a remnant, who kept their garments pure, and did not receive the mark of the Beast. Likewise when the Lord with a high hand and a mighty stretched-out arm did discover (by his servant Luther, and other worthy instruments whom he raised up) the abominations of that Whore, he was graciously pleased in the days of our fathers, to redeem us from that Antichristian tyranny, and superstition and idolatry, and again to cause the light of the Gospel shine among us; which maugre many oppositions, he hath always kept among us in purity to this day, expecting that we should have brought forth the fruits thereof. But, alace! was ever a people followed with so much mercy; and gave such evil recompense and unanswerable dealing to the Lords goodness, as we have done? Was ever more wickedness and profanity among a people, then is among us? Is not many very ignorant of GOD, and the way of salvation holden out in the Gospel, notwithstanding of all the pains that have been taken on them? Hath not profanity, like Jordan, overflowed all its banks? I know not if there be so much swearing, drinking, whoring, blasphemy, revelling, etc. among Heathens, that never heard of the Gospel, as is among us. And is there not an universal almost contempt and undervaluing of the Gospel, and a deriding and mocking of Religion? Many are now grown so Atheistical, that they have casten off all fear of GOD, Heaven, Hell, or regard of salvation, or damnation. Did GOD threaten to remove Ephesus candlestick out of its place, because of falling from her first love? And ought we not to tremble, lest ours be removed? Did he threaten to spew Laodicea out of his mouth, because of lukewarmness, and being neither cold nor hot; and can we conceive that he will spare us who are so universally lukewarm? Did GOD cut off the Jews, who were the natural branches, for their unfruitfulness, and other sins: and suppose we that he will spare us? Is it enough to constitut a Reformed Protestant to cast off the idolatry error and superstition of the Church of Rome, and not also to reform from the profanity and wickedness that reigns in the world; and to use all endeavours to have our conversation according to the Gospel? For the great end of the appearing of the grace of GOD in the Gospel, is to teach us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present life, etc.  
The Magdeburg Century-Writers (in praefat. ad Cent. 5.) observe▪ that before Antichrist came to his height, and infected the Christian world with his idolatry, these following iniquities reigned every where. Verbi Divini contemptus, etc. The contempt and depravation of the Word of the LORD: the inventing and defending of corruptions: the toleration and reverencing of seducers: the persecution and oppression of faithful Teachers: and finally, Epicurism and collusion with the ungodly: upon which followed, as a deserved punishment, the substitution of humane traditions, in place of GOD'S Word: the giving liberty and rewards to impostors: the hindering the confession of the truth: the giving over to a reprobat sense, and to blindness; and being deceived by the efficacious illusions of the Devil, which punishments were accompanied with idolatry, superstitious worship, Fanatic and more than Ethnic furies; also civil punishments and calamities on the Kingdoms and Commonwealths, in which these sins did abound.  
The Author of the Book, entitled, Consideratio causarum Belli Bohemici, points out the abounding among them, of the subsequent sins, as one main cause of the destruction of Bohemia by Antichrist. The chief sins (saith he, part. 2. pag. 24.) that abounded in Bohemia before its devastation, were (as the godly often confessed) ingratitude and unthankfulness for the Gospel, and contempt of the Ministry, that they did not esteem it as became: excess in meat and clothing, especially in great persons: oppression of their subjects, and small care of the poor: doing to their neighbour what they would not had them doing to them: remissness and slackness in discipline, and giving a licence to sin: but especially cold rifeness and lukewarmness, in reference to the interest of Christ, and defence and maintenance of the Gospel.  
Now if God was so provoked by these  sins, that he gave up almost all the Christian world to the delusions of Antichrist, and removed his Candlestick from Bohemia, which was such a famous Church, and had witnessed for the truth against Antichrist for so long a time; may we not tremble, lest he be provoked to give up with us? Is not the Word and Ordinances much contemned and despised among us? Have not many errors and corruptions sprung up, and like a flood overspred many places in these Lands? Was there ever more ingratitude, and unthankfulness for the Gospel, and contempt of the Ministry among a people, then is among us? Is not gluttony, drunkenness, vanity of apparel and oppression, turned Epidemic, among all ranks and degrees of persons? Were ever any more coldrife and lukewarm in reference to the interests of Christ, than we are? Yea, we are guilty of many of these things, for which the Lord threatneth to departed, and to remove his Candlestick, as will appear, if we a little consider some of the special sins that the Lord threatneth with his removal.  
1. Ignorance of God, and of the necessary truths of the Gospel, is threatened with his removal, Jer. 6.8. Be instructed, O Jerusalem! lest my soul departed from thee, etc. Isai. 27.11. It is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them, will have no mercy on them: and he that form them, will show them no favour. Now for all the light of the Gospel that hath shined among us these hundred years and above, the Word being line upon line, precept upon precept, etc. yet what gross and palpable ignorance is every where to be found; the generality of people ignorant even of the fundamentals of Religion?  
2. Barrenness and unfruitfulness under the Gospel, is threatened with the removal thereof, Isai. 5.6 7. I looked for grapes, but behold wild grapes. And now go to, I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard; I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up: and breakdown the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged, etc. The fig tree that was three years fruitless, is commanded to be cut down, Luke 13.7. And the earth that drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth nothing but thorns and thistles, is rejected, and near unto cursing, Heb. 6.8. Now, was ever people more reigned upon then we? And yet is there any that is more barren and unfruitful than we are? Are not the most part of us empty vines, that bring forth fruit to themselves? How few are there that the grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath taught to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly; to be crucified to the flesh, with the lusts and affections thereof, to have their conversation in heaven?  
3. Slighting, loathing and wearying of the precious things of God, and of his Ordinances, is a sin, for which the Lord threatens to remove from a people, Amos 8.4.5.6.9 11.12. Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, etc. saying. When will the new Moon be gone that we may sell corn: and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, etc. Vers. 9 I will cause the Sun to go down at noon, and darken the earth in the clear day. And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs to lamentations, etc. And vers. 11. I will send a famine in the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the Word of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the North even to the East; they shall run to and fro to seek the Word of the Lord, and shall not find it. Zech. 11.8. Their soul abhorred me: then said I, I will not feed you; that that dieth, let it die. Now is not the wearying, despising, slighting and contemning of the Ordinances of Christ, so evident among us, that he that runs may read it?  
4. A fourth sin, for which the Lord threatens to give up with folk, is formality and lukewarmness; contenting themselves with a form of godliness without the power thereof. 2. Thess. 2.10.11.12. Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved: and for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, etc. And Laodicea is threatened for her lukewarmness, to be spewed out of Christ's mouth, Rev 3.16. Now what age or generation could ever parallel this for formality and lukewarmness in the matters of God? And may we not be justly given up to the delusions of Antichrist?  
5 A fifth sin, is unbelief and disobedience to the call of God in the Gospel, Hosea 9.17. My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall wander among the Nations. Was it not for this sin, that the Lord upbraided those Cities, wherein most of his mighty works were done, and threatens to bring desolation on them? Matth. 11.21.22.23.24. Were not the Jews cut off for their unbelief? Rom. 11.20. And is there no sad evidences and symptoms of this sin every where? How few are they that have received Christ by faith, & is endeavouring Gospel-obedience? And may we not fear lest the judgement of Chorazin, Capernaum and Bethsaida be ours?  
6. A sixth sin, for which the Lord threatens to remove the Candlestick, is falling from our first love, Rev. 2.4 Now have we not declined, not only from the love and zeal which our fathers had; but also even from that love, zeal and diligence in duty that once we ourselves had?  
7. A seventh sin, is stupidity and impenitency under all God's dispensations, whether of mercy or judgement, Jer. 8.5.6 7. And is not this sin so manifest, that he that runs may read it? Who is smiting on his thigh, and saying, What have I done? How few are noticing what God is contending for, or laying their iniquities to heart?  
Several others might be instanced, but these may suffice to show us what ground of fear we may have of Gods giving us up to the delusions of Antichrist: yea, is he not in a great measure departed from us? Hath he not sore cracked, if not broken, the staves of beauty and bands, our unity and authority? We are divided in his anger, and contempt is poured upon us. Is not the blessing of Ordinances much restrained? How few are converted and built up by the Gospel? Yea, what deadness, decay and withering is upon all, even the Lords people? And how many are content to live without God, and suffer him to be gone?  
Now lay all these together, and we will see that the ground of fear is greater than is apprehended by many: Therefore let us be laying the hazard of the Church, and of ourselves and posterity to heart, and let us be stirring up ourselves to deal with the Lord by mourning and repentance, prayer and supplications, for the turning away of his wrath, and for the pouring out of his vials upon Antichrist. If ever there was a time wherein repentance and mourning for our sins, and the sins of the Land was called for, it is now: For are not our sins very great? And is not the cry of them come up to heaven? And is not the Lord harkening and hearing if any man will repent him 〈◊〉 the evil of his do, and say, What evil have I done For he is waiting to see what we will do, before he leave us altogether: For he hath in a great measure left us already. For are we not stricken with blindness, confusion and astonishment, and trembling of heart? Is he not in a great measure departed from his Ordinances? For is not that light darkened, that life withered, that strength abated, that presence evanished, that tenderness gone, these influences withholden, that sometimes were wont to be felt in Ordinances? Yea, is not prayer restrained and love waxed exceeding cold, and hardness of heart grown universal, delight in God and in his Word, and in the exercises of godliness grown exceeding rare? Doth not God hid his f●ce from us, and answer us with terrible things in righteousness? All which speak, that the glory of the Lord is departed from the Temple to the threshold. Let us therefore lay these things seriously to heart, and break up our fallow ground, and circumcise ourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of our hearts, lest his fury break forth like fire and burn, that none can quench it, Jer. 4.3. For is he not crying, both by his Word and dispensations, Be instructed, O Jerusalem! (O Britain!) lest my soul departed from thee, lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited? Jer. 6 8. Repentance and Reformation is only the mean to prevent our ruin: therefore let us be dealing with him who is the Prince exalted, to give repentance and remission of sins, for the pouring out of that spirit upon the land. O! if we were all about this work! then there might yet be hope in Israel concerning us. The Lord who is rich in mercy, grant us mercy, so as to be stirred up to true mourning and repentance, and to be laying more seriously to heart, the grounds of his contention. Amen.   
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page 1. line 7. for Churches, read Church, p. 9 r. Rev. 14.11. p. 33. l. 19 r. Arim. p. 37. l. 30. r. Beauties, p. 58. l. 32. r. Sacramentis, p. 92. l. 23. r. imports, p. 128. l. 5. r. naturis, p. 151. l. 9 r. is, p. 172. l. 18. r. books, p. 212. l. 9 r. The eleventh, p. 388. l. 7. r. if it be of works, p. 393. l. 32. r. one, p. 413. l. 33. r. Ephes. p. 443 l. 6. r. so great, and l. 13. r. King, p. 481. l. 33. r. gravest, p. 484. l. 10. r. persecute, p. 489. l. 22. r. Protestants of integrity.