INTRODVCTION M. Gilbert Brown An Answer to a certain Libel or Writing sent by M. JOHN WELSCH to a Catholick as an Answer to an objection of the Roman Church c. I received a little scrol which was sent to you by M. John Welsch Minister at Kirkubright in the which there is much promised and little done And because it may appear to some to be something I will God willing answer the same in particular M. John Welsch his Reply AS to your judgement and censure of this my answer to your objection wherein ye think there is much promised and little done I do not regard it For so long as your heart is bewitched with the pleasures of Babel your light is but darkness so while the Lord anoint your eyes with that eye-salve promised in the Revelation 3. and purge your heart by faith ye cannot discern of things different and give upright judgement What I promised I am now by the grace of God ready to perform And whether it was something or nothing much or little that I did let work bear witness and let them that love the truth judge M. Gilbert Brown First he tittles his libel An answer to an objection of the Roman Church whereby they go about to deface the verity of that only true Religion which we profess God forbid that we Catholicks whom he calls the Roman Church seeing that we are the only defenders of the truth as our predecessors the Pastors of the true Church was before us should go about to deface the truth But we go about to impugn all false doctrine repugnant to the truth as the holy Fathers of the primitive Church did before us against the hereticks in their dayes as Ireneus Cyprian Ambrose Augustine Hierome Basile Gregory Chrysostome with the rest of the true Pastors of the Church And seeing that the Ministers of this new Evangel have not only invented some heresies themselves but also have renewed many old condemned heresies confuted by them before as they cannot deny as I shal give some examples afterward as the heresie of Simon Magus of Manicheus Pelagius Aerius Jovinianus Vigilantius with many others what less can we do nor impugn the same as our predecessors did before M. John Welsch his Reply As to your answer First ye deny it and detest it as a blasphemy Next ye go about to clear your selves from the suspicion of it Thirdly ye challenge us and our doctrine with the crimes of novelty and heresie And so ye conclud ye could do no less nor impugn it As to your denying of the defacing of the truth of God so doth the whorish woman Prov. 30.20 after she hath eaten she wipes her mouth and saith she hath not sinned which is true as well in spiritual as in bodily fornication So notwithstanding your Church hath buried the truth of God in the graves of darkness and did overcover it with their traditions and glosses these many years by gone yet you wipe your mouthes and say you have not sinned But look to it in time for ignorance and zeal without knowledge will not excuse you in the day of the Lord. That you detest it as a blasphemy so did the high Priest rent his clothes and said Christ blasphemed Matth. 26.65 when he spake but the truth As for your golden styles which you take to your selves of Catholicks defenders of the truth successors to the Pastors of the true Church and impugners of all false doctrine Your doctrine indeed could not deceive so many if it were not covered with these styles your poyson and abomination would not be drunken so universally if it were not in such a golden cup as this Rev. 17.4 So these are the hyssop wherewith ye would wash you from this iniquity and cleanse you from this sin But may not false Prophets come in sheeps clothing Matth. 7.15 And the ministers of Satan can they not transform themselves as though they were the ministers of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13.14 The Scriptures have fore-told it And did not the false Apostles in Ephesus call themselves the Apostles of Christ and yet they were found lyars And did not the synagogue of Satan call her self the synagogue of the Jews Rev. 2.4.9 that is the Church of God and yet they were not so but the synagogue of the devil Yea and did not Abrahams seed and they that sate in Moses chair and was the successors of Aaron condemn the Savior of the world John 8.37 Matth. 23.2 Therefore not by your styles but by your fruits ye must be tryed Matth. 7.16 For if ye be Catholicks c. ye will teach the doctrine of that good Pastor and chief shepherd the Lord Jesus John 10.14 So it is your doctrine and not your styles that must defend you SECTION II. Whither the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church ANd because Christian Reader by this style of Catholick which they ascrive only to their Church they cause the simple to err and leads many blind-fold to damnation therefore I will take this visard from them Ye are not the Catholick Church as ye style your self 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 Catholick 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 shal be hereafter to the end of the world professing the true faith c. Now I reason thus The Catholick Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now and that shal 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 shal be hereafter Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church Choose you now which of these ye will deny The proposition I suppose ye will not for then ye should bring two inconveniencies the one upon Pope Pius and the Fathers of Trent that they have erred in defining the Catholick Church and so the Church and the Pope may err The other is upon your self who said that your Church hath not erred And so ye lose your styl of a defender of the Catholick 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 your self into and so you must hold fast the proposition All the question is then of the assumption Whither the Roman Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now and which shal be to the end of the world or not First I say a particular Church comprehends not all the faithful from Adam c. But the Roman Church is a particular Church or
Babel and therefore one day she shal 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 shal ascend for evermore Rev. 14.1 What now will you say to these things that your Church is not the Catholick Church but a part of it only and is only Catholick because of the Catholick 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 your self 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 strait ye must say so yet for all this not only call ye your Church Catholick because of the soundness of doctrine which ye suppose she professes but also and speciallie 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 Catholick Church for out of the particular Church there is salvation but out of the Catholick Church there is no salvation Thirdlie I say as the Epistles of Peter John James and Jude are intituled Catholick 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 Catholick but because they are written generallie to all So the Church is called Catholick properly not because of the soundness of doctrine for that is common to all the particular Churches that have the puritie 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 Jewes 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 Catholick and therefore in our Belief we say not I believe the Catholick doctrine but the Catholick Church So by this she is properlie distinguished from particular Churches as the mother from the daughters and the whole body from the particular members So then if you would speak properlie 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 Catholick Church but yet dead and rotten as shal be shown afterward by the grace of God Otherwise if you will but call her the Catholick Church you first rob the mother for she is properly Catholick 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 heavie 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 Countrey And therefore as the Apostle saith of them that blasphemed his doctrine Your damnation is just Rom. 3.8 For a wo by Gods own mouth is pronounced against them that call good evil and evil good truth falshood and falshood 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 Jude 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 Jewes before you call the doctrine of the Gospel a sect a heresie 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 babler 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 Friers 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 abhorrs 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 blasphemie 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 hereticks and infamous men the Gospel of Christ had been lost and in stead of it we would have gotten a new Gospel the dreggs 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 iniquitie therefore they caused it quietlie to be removed and buried and yet they not condemned as hereticks that preached it But by the contrary the Waldenses and others that withstood it was condemned as hereticks 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 shal 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 shal be proved afterward by Gods grace SECTION III. Concerning the Churches 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 dayes of Christ and his
Church and as Bellarmin sayes as hath been said before If ye go this far as ye do indeed and as Bellarmin doth and your self must do if ye be a right defender of your Catholick faith here or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the puretie and truth of your Church and Religion Then I say that your ground is as false and erroneous as the stuff that ye build upon it for both they have failed and have been interrupted as shal be proved afterward And mark this Christian reader as the Philistins Church wherein they praised their God Judg. 16. and mocked Samson the Lords servant had two chief pillars whereon the whole house leaned and was born up so hath the Church of Rome two chief pillars whereon the whole weight of their Church and Religion hings the one whereof is this that the Church cannot err the other that the Pope is the head of the Church Take these two from them their house must fall and their Religion can stand no longer For when they are brought to this strait that they see they cannot defend their Religion neither by the testimonies of the Scripture nor yet by the examples of the Church of God when she was in her greater purity and sincerity they are compelled to lay this as a ground to hold all their errors on that the Church of Christ cannot err So take this ground from them their Church and Religion cannot stand Now as to the testimonies which ye quote out of the Old Testament out of Luke 1.33 in the New Testament they only prove that the Church and Kingdom of Christ shal endure for evermore and that his covenant made with her is everlasting The which cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine for both the chaff and evil seed in the Church that is these that are called but not chosen may err and that to death and damnation and yet his Church and Kingdom and his covenant remaineth sure stable and inviolate for the Lord only offers his covenant unto them and they through incredulitie reject it and so he is not bound to sanctifie or save them much less to keep them from error And as for these who are called and chosen all these promises are made and performed in every one of them and the covenant of God is so sure in every one of them that our Savior saith None of them can perish John 10.28 And yet for all this every one of them may err in doctrine suppose not to death and damnation which ye will not deny And if ye would infinit examples not only of the Saints of God of the laicks as ye call them but also of the Priests Prophets Apostles yea and of Popes also and of your own Doctors and Bishops as a cloud of witnesses would stand up and avow the same in your face Now I gather seeing that the militant Church here on earth hath but two sorts of persons in her these that are called and chosen and these that are only called but not chosen and both may err in points of doctrine the one finally to death and damnation the other may err suppose not finally to death and damnation and yet the covenant of God remain sure everlasting and inviolate with his Church Therefore I say the promises of the stabilitie of Christs Kingdom and the perpetuitie of his covenant made with her cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine So ye have lost your vantguard Let us come to the rest and see if they will favor your cause any better then the former hath done The next place ye quote is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shal not prevail against it And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of Scripture which shal fight more for you then this let us therefore try it to the uttermost and see how far it can be stretched out What argument will ye frame out of this place For if you gather no more but this Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal never prevail against the Church that is built on the Rock that is on Christ Therefore the Church that is built on him shal never be all utterlie extinguished and abolished by Satan Then Bellarmin tells you that ye spend but time in proving of this for we grant it That the Church of the chosen shal never perish But if you go further and say That the Church of Christ shal never err because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it then I say either that exposition is false or else the gates of hell should have prevailed long since against your Church for when it prevailed against the rock whereon the Church was built it prevailed against the Church For raze and overturn the foundation of a house the house cannot stand seeing the standing of the house consists on the firmness sureness of the foundation thereof Now the rock whereon ye say the Church is built unto whom this promise is made is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome for so ye all with one consent expone the same Rhemists annotation upon this place Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Church as ye say and the gates of hell hath prevailed against them as I shal prove by the grace of God it must follow if your exposition be true that the gates of hell hath prevailed not once only but at many times against â—he Church For first Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine when he thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ the Kingdom of Christ not to be heavenlie but earthlie not spiritual but like the Kingdoms of this world proper to Israel Acts 1.6 not common to all by vertue of the promise and also he is commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentils doubting nothing Acts 10.20 Which testifies that he doubted before whither the Gospel should be preached to them or not and therefore erred in a matter of faith and that after he had received the promise of the holy Ghost And also he erred in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law Acts 10.14 for he believed that some meats were unclean after the death and resurrection of Christ and therefore he refused to eat thereof And this was a matter of faith also And last of all the holy Ghost testifies that he went not a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paul to his face And as for them whom ye call his successors the Popes of Rome not only may they be hereticks but also some of them have been hereticks And therefore if your argument be good the gates of hell both may and have prevailed against them That they may be hereticks I will fetch no other witnesses but your own Councils Canons Cardinals
by the grace of God may keep the Commands of God and obey him which is contrary to their Confession of Faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith If you will enter into life keep the commands Matth. 19.17 And again If ye love me keep my commands John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place He that loves me not keeps not my words c. Also Take up my yoke upon you c. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light Now I believe that no man can deny but this yoke and burden of Christ is his Commands and Laws This same doctrine the Apostles teached S. Paul saith Phil. 4.13 and 2.13 I can do all things in him that comforts me And before For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will And S. John 1.5.3 saith This is the charity of God that we keep his Commands and his Commands are not heavy Now further then these we read that Noe Gen. 6.9 Abraham Gen. 26.5 Job 1.22 were just men and obeyed God And S. Luke 1.6 saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just before God and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter of the which I have noted some as 3. Kings 14.8.4 and 18.3.4 and 20.3.4 and 23.25 2. Chron. 15.15 Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries and I believe that all men will confess that our doctrine in this and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one M. John Welsch his Reply It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the contrary Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it and covered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain For first where as ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commands Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes By the help of the grace of God Lib. de justific cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will may keep the commands So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Commandments in the faithful and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it and so it may be ye teach them The rest of your brethren are more plain in halfing it betwixt free-will and the grace of God helping free-will as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause and the grace of God but a helper to it And secondly whereas ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commandments of God and obey them Bellarmin saith more plainly cap. 19 pag. 364 lib. 2 de justifi cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them and they may absolutly fulfil the Law and keep the whole Law and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous and proceeding of a perfect holiness without all blemish of sin and that they please God not for the imputation of Christs righteousness covering their imperfections and forgiving them but for the excellencie of the work it self So this is their doctrine Christian Reader Now as he hid his own so hath he hid ours also For our Confession of Faith saith That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect which word he omitted as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keep the Commandments of God Our doctrine therefore is this That of our own nature we are dead in sin Eph. 2.1 and of our selves we are neither able to understand 1. Cor. 2.14 nor think 2. Cor. 3.7 nor will nor do those things that are pleasant to God Philip 2.13 and therefore we must be born anew again John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight John 15.5 and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect ever some darkness some rebellion some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us so that we know but in a part 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part and our heart sanctified in part from the which it cometh that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do and would do as the Apostle saith Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19 20.21.22.23 24. Next that all our righteousness as the Prophet saith is but as a menstruous cloth Esai 64.6 ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us and so that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ and their imperfection to be pardoned By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will and to do in us we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ who is made to us of God righteousness sanctification and redemption by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins and so we conclud with David Psal 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him and whose iniquities are covered This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head Now to answer you Whereas ye say That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law is the renewing grace of God and that this obedience is sincere and hearty not to one but to all the Commandments not only outward but inward suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires then I say you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point And so becoms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith as ye stile yourself And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe suppose ye lost that stile for ever But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience as Bellarmin calls it and if ye understand a perfect obedience as your Church teaches then first tell me why did ye not speak as
in the Old Testament was and is fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Testament For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament it behoved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament but your sacrifice of the Mass is one with neither of them for it is not one with the first sort for they are spiritual you will have it external neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross for there he died there he shed his blood and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath and indignation for our sins and there he satisfied the justice of God and merited an everlasting redemption to us But in your sacrifice of the Mass your selves grants that neither is he crucified nor is his blood shed nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross For two several actions which have two different forms and are done in divers times and places for divers ends cannot be one only and the self same sacrifice for it is the form that gives a thing to be and distinguishes it from all other things But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms are done in divers places and times and for diverse ends therefore they cannot be both one Further if they were both one then it should follow that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor But Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de missa cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass is but of a finit valor and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices is not prefigured in the Old Testament As for the second that it was fore-told by the Prophets It is as true as the former for all the sacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament as hath been said makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices Christs on the cross and our spiritual sacrifices and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament As for these Scriptures which ye quote Malac. 1.10.11.12 Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 they speak of the spiritual worship of God and of the spiritual sacrifices which the Gentils being called should offer up unto God under the Gospel whereof mention is made in these places Heb. 13.15.16 1. Pet. 2.5 Rom. 12.1 and 15.16 For either they speak properly and literally or else figuratively But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament Or if you will say they speak figuratively then I say they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass which you will have to be a sacrifice not figuratively but properly So howsoever ye expone them they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first which ye will never be able to do or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament will never prove it seeing there is nothing either prefigured or fore-told in the Old Testament but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament You say that Christ the chief Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action and according to the order of Aaron upon the cross instituted it Matth. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world Before I come to the institution there are two things to be examined which you have written here The first that you say that Christ according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the cross Unto the which I answer first that you gain-say here two great Papists Alanus and Bellarmin whereof the one saith that Christ never sacrificed Aaronicè that is according to the order of Aaron Alanus de Eucharist lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck nor yet according to the order of Aaron Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it that it is not according to the order of Aaron but also he affirmes that this should be certain to all the faithful So if you be of the faithful and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed this should also have been certain to you and so you should not have gain-said it You had need to beware of this M. Gilbert to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith for by this doing ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith seeing you so openly contradict the maisters and defenders thereof Mark this Reader what concord these men have among themselves some saying one thing some another Next I say if you refer this also to his person that as this action was according to Aaron so himself was a Priest according to his order in his sacrifice Then I say you both gain-say the plain Scriptures of God Heb. 5.6.10 and 7.11 and also the learnedst of your Church Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. For suppose it be true that this sacrifice of his upon the cross did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron and put an end unto them according as he said It is finished Yet he offered up this sacrifice not as he was a Priest according to Aaron for he was not a Priest according to his order at all but as he was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck and therefore the Scripture joyns both together Heb. 5.6.7.10 to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross as he was Priest not according to Aaron but according to Melchisedeck
saying in Philosophy that a conditional Proposition proves nothing It appears he hath been in haste that he might not have leasure 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 shal be (c) M. Gilbert is once beguiled for this is performed sure that he is never able to perform his sayings Master John Welsch his Reply This my Reply I hope satisfies for answer to this section 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 fore-tels that when the Antichrist shal come the defection shal be universal and all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication M. Gilbert Brown Where this is written M John tells not For I am sure as it is set down here there is no such thing in our Bibles no not in their own corrupted Bibles except they have augmented them of new That there shal be an universal defection it is altogether repugnant to the Word of God as I have shewed before in proving the Church always to continue For the same place where I believe he alledges to hath these words And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints and to overcome them And power was given him upon every tribe and people and tongue and nation and all that inhabit the earth adored it whose names be not written in the book of life of the Lamb Rev. 13 7.8 Here any man may see that the Saints of God that shal be persecute by the Antichrist such that is written in the book of life shal not make defection then it shal not be an universal defectioÌ„ And also M. John afterward in finding some of his Religion that said against the Antichrist the Pope the time bygone is contrary to himself here that the defection shal not be universal And where he saith that all Nations shal be drunkâ—n with the wine of her fornication the text is otherwise Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication that is that the people of all Nations that have obeyed her shal be punished with the wrath of God and not that all the world should make defection M. John Welsch his Reply You fight against your own shadow M. Gilbert and whereas ye can find nothing justly to quarrel in my words being rightly taken and taken as the Scripture takes them you devise a meaning of your own brain and would father it upon me that ye may the more easily have somewhat to speak against For I neither spake it nor meant it that the elect should make defection in the time of the Antichrist I am so far from it that suppose I believe assuredly that this prophesie is fulfilled in your own Church yet I know assuredly that the Lord reserved his own elect to himself who was kept free from your Idolatry as he promised Rev. 14. and Histories record of some whereof I did set down some of their names But this is the doctrine of one of your own Church Dominicus a Soto in lib. 4. sent dist 46. quaest 1. art 1. who believed it assuredly That the faith of Jesus Christ and Religion should be utterly extinguished through the persecution of the Antichrist if Bellarmin speak true of him lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. And so turn the point of your sword M. Gilbert upon your own brother who so taught and not upon me who is far from it And if ye will say wherefore then called I it universal I answer Because the Scripture calls it a defection without any addition or restraint and your Rhemists grant That this defection shal be a revolting of Kings People and Provinces and the publick intercourse of the faithful with the Church of Rome shal cease And that the dayly sacrifice shal be abolished most universally throughout all Nations and Churches of the world by Antichrist himself Annot. upon 2. Thess 2. And Bellarmin saith lib. 3. cap. 16. That he shal be Monarch of the whole world Therefore this Kingdom by your own confession shal be universal and seeing his Kingdom is an apostasie or defection for as many as shal obey him shal make defection from the faith therefore by the doctrine of your own Church it must be an universal defection And the Scripture saith expresly That he shal make all both smal and great c. to receive a mark on their right hand and on their fore-heads and that no man may buy or sell c. and that all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication Rev. 13.16 and 14.8 and 18.3 Now whither I might call that universal which the Scripture calls all and your Rhemists and Bellarmin makes so general and universal that it shal possess all the Kingdoms of the earth let the Christian Reader judge And let me ask you M. Gilbert Do you not believe that the Church is Catholick or Universal And do you not think with one of your own number to wit Costerus a Jesuit in Enchirid. that the Church is called Universal because the faith of the Church is scattered in all Nations and yet for all this all particular Nations and all particular men receives not this faith and yet notwithstanding it is Universal and is called Universal still And doth not the Scripture prophesie that in Abraham all the Nations shal be blessed Gal. 3.8 and yet for all this there were and is millions of the Gentils that are not blessed in him Why then in like manner may not the defection in the time of the Antichrist be called universal although the elect be exeemed from it But wherefore insist I to refute this vain quarrelling of words which serves to no purpose So then this that I said is both in your Translation and ours in substance and is not contrary to that which I said afterward As for that place of Scripture which ye cite here Rev. 3.7 8. it is not spoken here of the Antichrist but of the persecution of the Roman Emperors As for that calumny of yours in calling our Bibles corrupted and augmented this is your sin M. Gilbert whereof one day ye shal make an account to the Majesty of God for the slandering and bearing false witness of the truth of God And to speak the truth this is true of you For both you have 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
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 Popes Supremacy as your Church now affirms of him some more some less And also it is condemned by Provincial Councils as of Antioch Canon 6.12.13.14.15.19.20 and of Carthage 2. Canon 12. anno 404. and 3. confirmed in the General Council of Trullan Canon 26. and 6. and by the Council of Milevis Canon 22. condemned also by the Universities of Paris Appellat Univers Paris olione 10. ad futur Concil infastic rerum expe ca. fugi and Lovane Aeneas Sylvius de gestis Basil Concil lib. 1. and Colen and Vienna Histor de Europa cap. 22. and Cracovia Comer de rebus Polonorum lib. 21. So then by the authority of Councils General and Provincial and of Universities the Monarchie and Superioritie of the Pope over all General Councils is disallowed And suppose the Churches of France and Germany did honor them and gave them some preeminence both of honor and power being blinded at that time with the smoke that came out of the bottomless pit yet it may appear by their supplication ad Ludovicum 11. pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae adversus Rom. aulam defensio Parisiensis curiae Gravamina nationis Germaniae exhibita Maxim 1. that they did not allow that full Monarchie of his but misliked it and hated the same yea France made laws against it in Conventu Bituricensi Now these are such whom your selves do hold for Catholicks and yet they acknowledged not the Monarchie of your Pope The Churches of Graecia and of Asia in the East Chalcon conc de reb Turc lib. 1. 6. and of Muscovia Jovius in Muscovia in the North and of Ethiopia in the South Alvarez in descriptione Aethiopiae cap. 77. 83. and of Boheme Aeneas Sylvius hist Bohem. cap. 32. Provence Sleydan comment lib. 16. Piemont M. Fox in the acts and monuments lib. 7. And the Reformed Churches that are this day in France Flanders England Scotland and so forth throughout Europe all have condemned your Popes Supremacie So that if his Supremacie were to be put to tryal by the judgement and will of men so many thousands of Pastors Doctors Synods Councils Universities and Churches through all ages in all Countreys of all sorts and estats may suffice to put the Pope from his Supremacie So that I think you may blush M. Gilbert that hath so boldly written that he hath been alwayes acknowledged by the visible Church to be the visible Head of the Church seeing his Monarchie was never fully acknowledged until the Lateran Council under Leo the 10. 1516. years after Christ But seeing the Word of God is the only just tryal of it and seeing it is not written in the book of life therefore I conclud that his Supremacie is not a citizen of that new Jerusalem but a child of Babel and therefore they are blessed that shal dash it against the stones M. Gilbert Brown That the Church at any time may be invisible it is repugnant to the Word of God in many places and to M. John also For he gives examples afterward of sundry as he saith that was of his Religion and opponed themselves to the Pope and his Clergy and that saith he when he was come to the hight If the true Church opponed its self to the Antichristian Church then it was visible and known and if it was known when the Popes Kingdom was at the highest much more when it was low and so it was always known by M. Johns self Master John Welsch his Reply Whether oppugn ye your own imagination M. Gilbert here or that which I write If the first then you are foolish who fight against your self as ye do indeed If the second then I say that which I said was this That no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat as it is now For this is our doctrine concerning the invisibility of the Church the which because you know not therefore you stumble at it and oppugns only your own invention and not our doctrine and therefore your reasons and Scriptures which ye bring here serve to no purpose for they make nothing against us We say that the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect is always invisible both because the principal part thereof is in heaven and also because the senses of men cannot discern who are true members of the Catholick Church here their effectual calling their faith love hope and inward graces their union with Christ their Head their spiritual armor weapons and warfare and their Head Christ Jesus and their whole glorie is inward and invisible and they shal never be seen all gathered together until that great day Ephes 5.25.26.27.32 Psal 45.13 John 10.27 2. Tim. 2.19 Luke 11.28 Matth. 7. Ephes 6.12 2. Cor. 12.3.4 So that suppose they may be seen outwardlie as they are men and sometimes in respect of their outward ministerie yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church that is in so far as they are chosen and sanctified c. as hath been said they cannot be discerned by the senses of men and so are invisible Next we say that the particular visible Churches are not always in one outward estat sometimes outwardlie glorious sometimes more obscure sometimes openly known and seen by all sometimes known and 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
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 joyn grace to be a preveener and worker with free-will 37. The Pelagians affirmed that the Gentils might by Philosophie 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 then 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 controversie of original sin That in them that are baptized 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 fulness of all grace In 3. parte summae quaest 27. art 7. Which is to equal her with God For only in him the fulness of all dwelleth And many other heresies of the Pelagians have the Papists renewed 40. A kind of hereticks 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 de 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. concl 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 blasphemie is this And Torrensis a Papist objected to Catharinus another Papist in his book de residentia cont Cathar That he denyed the Law of Moses to be Gods Law and the precepts of Paul to be Christs precepts Mo also I might bring but these will suffice Now of these things I may most justly conclud 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 heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks this you cannot deny because it is your own proposition but these former heads which I have set down wherein I have used no calumnie as ye have done was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as witness the ancient Fathers therefore they are heresies yet and the defenders thereof hereticks And so by your own argument many points of your Religion are old condemned heresies and your selves hereticks who do defend them SECTION XXVII Concerning Antichrist Master Johns Conclusion ONe thing which I hope will cut off all controversie I offer to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist And if this be true then all men that profess him secretly or openly as it is said in the Rev. 14.10 shal drink of the wine of the wrath of God Master John Welsch Preacher of Christs Gospel at Kirkubright Master Gilbert Brown If this controversie of ours shal not be cut away while M. John prove the Pope to be the Antichrist certainly it will indure ten hundred thousand years after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday Then it must follow seeing that is a thing impossible to be done that all these that will not openly and privatly obey the Pope and reverence him as the Vicare of Christ because he is chosen by God to rule his Church here on earth that they must drink of the wine of the wrath of God Our merciful Lord illuminat M. John with his holy Spirit and grace that he may understand the truth and receive the same and so become a member of his true Church whereby he may be partaker of the merits of Christ that his soul may be safe Amen Master Gilbert Brown Priest and defender of the Catholick 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 infinit number of Christians And I have not taken so long a term as you have set down here and yet I hope I have proved it sufficiently Put all your might to disprove it if you can And as to that threatning of yours M. Gilbert wherein ye say that all those who will not openly and privatly obey the Pope c. must drink of the wine of the wrath of God If it may be believed then how doth this stand first with your Popes pardons whereby he gives men pardon or licence to profess subscribe and swear to our Religion as it is reported that some of your own Religion have confessed it Next how stands it with the dissimulation of your Jesuites and seminary Priests when they come to any place where our Religion is openly professed Thirdly what comfort is this which ye have pronounced to your own poor Countreymen who do not openly avow Papistrie but have subscribed and communicat with us Is this an open profession or not And if it be not if ye be a true Prophet then must they drink of the wine of the wrath of God then must they be condemned in Hell by your judgement because they profess him not openly And last of all if this threatning of yours be true then beside the many infinit thousands who profess him to be the Antichrist you condemn to Hell all the Greek and Eastern Churches who in number far exceed them who obey you and all the Churches that have been six hundred years and more after Christ For they obeyed not the Pope openly nor privatly as Christs Vicare over them as I have proved before And also you condemn a number of your Anti-Popes to Hell with their Cardinals Bishops and Churches who followed them For they gave out themselves to be Popes and
for I think you would not have wished me to read that thing which ye your self believes not to be true I therefore read it and read it over again And beside many other things I find this in it that the Antichrist should be born of a Virgin by the help of the Devil as Christ was born of the Virgin by the work of the holy Ghost I wondered that you should have wished me to read that Book in the which there was so manifest an error and that contrary the doctrine of your own Church You should beware of this M. Gilbert for if your Head and Church get wit of it they will not only count you a bad defender of the Catholick Faith as you say you are but also it may be they suspect you of heresie who do wish your adversaries to read that Book wherein so manifest an error is and that against the doctrine of your own Church For who will think of you but that ye are of that same opinion your self seeing you are so earnest with others to read the same Bellarmin that great defender of your Catholick Faith was more wise then you in this point For first he saith lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. There is a manifest error in that treatise Next he saith It is certain that that treatise cannot be Augustins but it is probable saith he that it is Rabanus his work So to conclud this I assure you M. Gilbert I am of the same mind that I was concerning your Popes for all the reading of that work But I am not of the same mind towards you that I was before the reading of the same for either I think you have been very foolish in wishing me to read that which you believed not your self to be true or else that ye defend a manifest error not only against the truth but also against the doctrine of your own Church And let your Pope who is the bond of unity among you see to this how to reconcile you and Bellarmin two defenders of his Catholick Faith you saying that that work is Augustins and Bellarmin flatly denying it and affirming that it cannot be his you wishing your adversary to read it and Bellarmin confuting a manifest error in it But betwixt you be it Now this is all that you have said for the defense of your Pope which are but as figg leaves which cannot hide his nakedness Now I will let thee see Christian Reader what we have for us wherefore we affirm and teach and is ready also as thousands have done before us to seal it with our blood that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told should come time hath made manifest and the Lord his mouth hath in a part consumed And first I will lay this ground which M. Gilbert cannot gain say and the conscience of all men will subscribe to That as the true Christ is sufficiently described in the Old and New Testament so the Antichrist is sufficiently described there also And as he is to be believed under the pain of the endless damnation of their souls to be the true Christ to whom the prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the Savior to come doth agree and of whom the New Testament testifieth that they are accomplished so he must be that Antichrist which the Scripture fore-told was to come to whom every one of the marks and properties of the Antichrist set down in the same do agree and in whom they are found to be accomplished Let us therefore out of the Scripture search the marks of the Antichrist and then let us see whether their Popes of Rome be stamped with these marks or not I speak not now of the many Antichrists whereof John speaks 1. John 2.18 which were fore-runners of that great defection which was fore-told should come in the Church of God but of that chief and great Antichrist who not in one or two things only but almost in all the points of his Religion should be contrary to Jesus Christ whom these places of Scripture 1. John 4.3 2. Thess 2. Rev. 11.13.17.18 do describe And while as I affirm that the Popes of Rome are this great Antichrist I understand it thus That they are the Prince and Head of that defection and apostasie which the Scripture fore-shew and fore-told was to come in the Church For I do not think that all the strength and force of the Antichrist is included in the Pope but the Pope and his Kingdom which is contrary to the Kingdom of Christ is most truly called the Antichrist whereof because the Pope is the Prince and Head therefore by that figure taking the part for the whole I call him the Antichrist And in this we follow the Scripture for the Scripture speaking of the Antichrist sometimes calls it a defection and a mystery of iniquity and the second beast that hath horns like the Lamb and the Harlot and sometimes points out the principal and chief in this Kingdom on whom the whole body of iniquity doth hang as when he writes here the man of sin and son of perdition which is an adversary who extolls himself above all c. which is most properly spoken not of the body but of the Head Having shown now in what sense we take the Antichrist we will go to the matter And first to that 2. Thess 2.3.4 where he is described and that by no dark prophesies as you say but by plain sayings First therefore the Scripture calls him there a man of sin a son of perdition The which to be accomplished in your Popes your own Histories Cardinals Councils Favorers Friers Friends and themselves do sufficiently testifie So that if they speak true of themselves which you cannot deny then of all the monsters that ever the earth hath born some of your Popes have been the greatest monsters For in this point M. Gilbert we deal not with you as ye deal with us for ye cite our enemies as witnesses of us which should have no credit and we cite your own friends and these of your own Religion So that they shal be fetched out as witnesses against you in this point whether your Popes be the men of sin and sons of perdition or not What Commandment is there of the first or second Table which they have not violated in the highest degree 1. Whoremongers 2. Adulterers 3. Sodomits 4. Incestuous 5. Fosterers and maintainers of harlots 6. Tyrants 7. Devilish and Sorcerers 8. In pride passing all creatures under heaven 9. Atheists without God 10. Perjured 11. Burreaus 12. Bawds and merchants of whores 13. Sacrilegious 14. Traitors 15. Seditious 16. Blasphemous 17. Parricides 18. Poysoners of Emperors Senators Cardinals yea of their own parents and sisters 19. Helpers of the Turks 20. Drunkards 21. Simoniacks 22. Monsters 23. Bastards 24. Arrians 25. Idolaters 26. And so contentious that sometimes there was two sometimes three and sometimes four all Popes striving for the Popedom together
when Martin Luther and Zuinglius first came to the Gospel The Latin words are cum Martinus Luther Zuinglius primum accessissent ad Evangelium So it saith not that they were the first that came to the Gospel but that it was easie to you to spew out cursed speaches when they came first to the Gospel So that this word primum that is first is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospel before but in comparison with that time in the which they themselves knew not the Gospel It is an adverb of time and you take it for an adjective noun But there is a vail over your eyes that ye can neither see what we or your selves writes So then to conclud seeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught hath the warrant from Christs Testament and seeing all that ever professed the true Religion that hath Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture visible or invisible are his predecessors Therefore the Religion which Martin Luther taught was the true Religion And seeing your Religion hath not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament but is that apostasie and defection that Antichristian Kingdom that was fore-spoken of in the Scripture Therefore I conclud that your Church and Religion which he oppugned is not the true Church and Religion but that Antichristian Kingdom And this for the first part of your objection Now we come to the second M. Gilbert Brown As for the other part of the objection which he alledges to be ours that is that our Religion was never said against we say not so for why all hereticks and others infected with false doctrine have ever said against the same almost at all times For how soon that Christ our Savior planted the truth the Devil immediatly sew popple in the same according to the parable set down in S. Matthew M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to that part which ye say is untruly alledged of you which moved you to say that either I knew not your proofs or if I knew them that I altered the same that I might the better oppugn my own invention Of my knowledge of your proofs I will speak nothing But let us see whither this be my invention or not or rather your own proof You for the confirmation of the truth of your Church and Religion brought in this as a proof that I nor no Minister in Scotland was able to assign the true Church that spake against it Either then ye prove nothing or else this must be one of your proofs because it was never spoken against by a true Church Now compare these words with mine and see whither I speak ignorantly or untruly of your proofs I said that ye affirmed your Religion to be true because it was never spoken against Here our words are one except this that ye add be a true Church I understand the same and therefore I gave the instances first of Christ and his Apostles next of the primitive Church thirdly of these that lived in Popery which spake against your Religion all which I appeal your conscience whither think ye that I judge them a true Church or not Now in that ye expound it otherwise of hereticks this is neither my words nor meaning but your own invention So that by this it may appear that either ye have not understood my words alledging your objection or else ye have altered the meaning of the same that ye might the more easily answer to your own inventions and gain-say my words M. John Welsch his Answer to the objection Your Religion of the Roman Church was never instistituted nor preached neither by Christ nor by his Apostles as I offer me to prove by their writings which is the only touchstone whereby all Religion should be and must be tryed M. Gilbert Brown I think in this M. John takes upon him an impossibility for it is said that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition except it be set down in the Word of God which is of authority and that I am sure he cannot find because Papistry by him is not so old as the Word of God is But in the mean time M. John proves nothing He offers very fair and when ever he proves any thing contrary to us with Gods grace he shal get an answer And note here that M. John can say nothing to our argument for to it he gives no answer M. John Welsch his Reply In your answer to this Section First ye think it impossible because of the form of it Next ye say it is but an offer and I prove nothing Thirdly that I answer nothing to your argument nor can answer nothing Now of all these in order And first to the form ye think it impossible to prove because it is a negative proposition Is not this a negative proposition that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist You cannot deny it Again I ask is this sentence to be found in the whole Scripture I suppose ye will never be able to find it Then I say if it be true that ye say then ye your self in your book and this your answer and Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Sanderus 40. demonstrations and all the rest of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichrist takes in hand in your judgement an impossibility and so do you indeed not because it is a negative proposition but because he is the Antichrist in very truth What would the Pope your head think of you if he heard you say so Certainly I think he would not inrol your name among the defenders of his Catholick faith whereof this is the foundation Secondly is there not many formal syllogisms that have the proposition or assumption negatives and will you say they cannot be proved if the matter be true because they are negatives What is this but to raise the foundation of Logick and Raison Logick is not Rhetorick and Physick is not Logick both these are negative propositions and I suppose neither of them are so found in the Scripture and will you say that it is impossible to prove them because they are negatives What you mean by this I understand not unless you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strive about words prove and improve forbidden by the Apostle 2. Tim. 2.14 Thirdly ye except these negative propositions which are set down in the Word of God which hath authority as ye say I assume But your Religion in substance is condemned in the Word of God therefore by your own confession it may be proved suppose it be negative For Nazianzen saith lib. 5. de Theologia That these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessary consequence are of the same truth and authority with these sentences that are expresly set down in the Scripture And whereas ye say Papistrie by me is not so old as the Scripture I grant that What then Therefore it is not
the rest which is exceeding many and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith you will say with the rest of your Clergie that the Pope cannot err Therefore a Pope Gelasius by name saith de duabus natura in Christo Neither the substance of the bread nor nature of the wine ceaseth to be any more then they were before but remain in their own substance And he calls them there An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we Will you avow your transubstantiation which they so flatly deny And as our Savior saith A Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand so the manifold divisions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine Some of you expounds this word hoc this (1) Bonaventure Gerson contra Florentiū lib. 4. of the bread (2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body (3) Innocent 3 de offic miss pag. 3 object 14 Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it an individuum vagum (4) Durandus rational 4 some saith it signifieth nothing (5) Holcot in 4. sent quaest 1 and some saith it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem Secondly in the exposition of the word est is some for it is some for it is changed Thirdly some (a) Thomas saith the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing some saith (b) The gloss of Gratian and the extravag de cōsecr dist 2 cap. Species c firmit extr de summa Trinitate it passes in the body of Christ Fourthly some saith (c) C. non oportet ibi gloss de consecrat dist 2. c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine some saith it is (d) Thomas 3974 art 8. turned in Christs vital humors some saith it is turned in the wine and after in the blood some saith (e) Durand lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it Fifthly some saith (f) Thomas Epist 59. 3. quaest 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantitie other some saith (g) Durand lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the substance Sixthly some saith Christ (h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. consecrated by the word he blessed some by the (i) M. Gilbert words This is my body and the blessing together some (k) Gloss in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons dist 2. will have the consecration to be made in heaven and some frankly (l) Scotus in repor dist 8. qu. 2. confesses That they neither know the words nor the number of them whereby this consecration is made And to omit six hundred the like I will only touch these few (m) Gloss in l. tribus some saith The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth (n) Cajetan tom 2. cap. 2. 3. 5. some saith That it feeds (o) Gloss ibidem some saith As soon as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven (p) Durand rational lib. 4. But other some faith It passeth from the teeth to the heart and then the bodily presence ceases (q) Bonavent 4. dist 13. art 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack c. but not to the mind And yet he saith He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not for the variety of opinions and in so great variety he saith what to hold is hard to judge And suppose he holds it That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught because saith he the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it and infidels and hereticks would jest at it and laugh us to scorn Yet sundry others holds as Alexander de Hales part quaest 45. Thomas Aquin parte 3. qu. 80. art 3. Antonius Archiepisc part 3. tit 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly but also Christs body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught and that brute beasts may eat Christs body it may go into the belly of dogs and swine O filthy mouthes unclean spirits what heretick what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal yea so barbarous and brutish as ye are So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits who thought that saying hard but also like the barbarous Canibals who eat the flesh of man O blind leaders of the blind shal myce dogs and swine eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ Shal they then have eternal life I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine and their hearts will tremble at it These absurdities together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same hath made some of your great pillars to say as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ And others as Lindanus Panop lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati That transubstantiation it but a tradition which hath not the author of it in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And others as Tonstal de Sacramentis That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture as they were before the Council of Lateran then to bring in such a question I have been longsome in this but yet it so behoved me because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass and their other idolatries and abominations So then to conclud this seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ nor his Apostles nor ancient Fathers nor your own Canon Law and Popes as they have been cited And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same therefore it is to be rejected as heretical damnable and blasphemous by all Christians And this for the fourth point of your doctrine SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Master Gilbert Brown WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice which we call the blessed Mass that our Savior did at his latter Supper and was (a) Levit. 2. per totum 6.20 prefigured by the Law of Moses and fore-spoken by the (b) Mal. 1.10 11. Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 Prophets For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests according to the order of (c) Genes 14.18 Psal 109.4 Heb. 7.3.17 Melchisedec in this action according to the order of (d) Heb. 9.12.13.14 Aaron upon the Cross took (e) Matth.
The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take
ye say if they prophesie at any time it is of evil and not of good so said Achab of the Prophet of the Lord 1. Kings 22.8 and therefore he hated him so you speak with the same spirit against us that Achab spake with against the Lords Prophet And what good can be spoken of your Babel since the Lord hath fore-told the ruine of it in part hath been accomplished And some of your own number as Hildegardis Briget Catherine de Sens have fore-told of the destruction of your Church the reformation of the Church of Christ As for the time it was spoken of before and I suppose ye have thought it too long and yet be in patience M. Gilbert for it must continue and your Babel must down As for the clothing of sackcloth it was the apparel of such as was in dolor and in mourning whereby is signified the sorrow and dolor that should arise to the true Ministers of Christ through the persecution of the Antichrist his members their idolatrie and abominations The which hath been so clearly fulfilled in the Preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his dayes and before also even to this day that he must be blinded of the Lord who sees it not And whereas ye cast up the clothing of the Ministry in this land ye have forgotten your self and your Clergy and your Head the Pope with his triple Crown with all the rable of his Prelats Abbots Bishops Cardinals c. as full of riotous pride and pomp as ever were the Persian Kings See Bernard de confid ad Eugen. lib. 4. Platin. de vita Pontif. in Paulo 2. His clothes be made of precious stones his gorgeous Miter 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 Popes Miter by a mischance at his coronation was worth 6000. crowns Platin. in vita Clementis 5. Pyropus bright O very Troyan 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 over-seers of the Church of Christ seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Prelats according as it was prophesied of you Rev. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modestie But you are like the Lamians of whom it is reported that they had but one eye and when they went forth they took it with them to look upon others and when they came in their own houses they laid it beside them You look to your neighbors but ye over-see your self So for all the differences which ye have yet assigned it remains sure that by these two Witnesses here are signified the Ministers of the Gospel Master Gilbert Brown But note here I pray you how well these new Evangelists agree in the exposition of this Revelation of S. John for all their grounds proofs is upon prophesies and dark speakings Young Merchiston in his book upon the Revelation chap. 11. vers 3. expones these Witnesses to be the Old and New Testament as he proves in the 21. Proposition and M. John will have them the Ministers Merchiston saith that to be clad in sackcloth is to preach the Word of God with the obscurity of mens traditions and colored glosses M. John saith here that the sackcloth signifies persecution for the preaching of the Word The notes on their Geneva Bibles printed at London expones the sackcloth to signifie poor and simple apparel And Bale upon the same place writes that this sackcloth signifies sober conversation God knows if this and the like be wholsome doctrine to preach to the poor people some one way and some another according to the invention of their own brains without any proofs Maister John Welsch his Reply As for these diverse expositions which ye mark in us that have so stirred up your affections that ye cry out God knows whether this be wholsome doctrine to teach the poor people or not I answer That these diverse expositions of ours are all agreeable to the analogie of faith as your self will not deny and therefore cannot be called unwholsome doctrine Otherwise not only the Fathers but also your own Doctors and Bishops and Popes have delivered unwholsome doctrine by your reason for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture diversly which is so manifest that I need not prove it and your self also hath delivered unwholsome doctrine here for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving for two contrary things and yet Bellarmin saith that some Catholicks take them both for one And what shal I say of your diverse expositions which were tolerable so being they were according to the proportion of faith your contradictions one to another and that not only in exponing the Scripture but in the main points of your Religion some holding one thing and some another as partly hath and partly shal be marked are manifold And if diverse expositions of a place of Scripture be unwholsome doctrine as ye say then surely this point of your Catholick doctrine which teaches that the Scripture hath a five-fold sense and that it may be five diverse ways exponed must be unwholsome doctrine and then ye lose more then you can win by this Beware M. Gilbert that by this dealing ye bring not your self in suspicion that ye are forsaking your Catholick Faith For this is a point of it as Bellarmin reports lib. 3. de interpret verb. cap. 3. As for your calumnies first in calling us new Evangelists I answered to that before next in saying that all our proofs and grounds are upon prophesies and dark sayings First you injure the holy Ghost in calling his prophesies dark for the cause of this is not in them but in our blindness Secondly ye speak too plain an untruth for it is more then manifest that not only prophesies but also the plain and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture is the grounds and proofs of our Religion as is manifest by the points of doctrine which we have handled here Master Gilbert Brown And it follows in M. John And at the last saith he they shal be put to death c. Here is two things to be noted First that the Church shal not be invisible in the time of Antichrist for if the Pastors of the Church be invisible how shal they be taken and put to death If the Antichrist and his members shal slay them how can they do the same except they know and may see them To be invisible is not to be known or seen but they will see and know them or else they cannot discern them from their own whereby they may put them to death and save their own The second thing to be noted that
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. de purg cap. 4. Michael Bai Gerson and Roffensis all Papists against your venial sins Bellarm. lib. de imaginibus cap. 8. Abulensis and Durandus and Peresius Papists against your making of the Images of the Trinity A great many of you as Alexander Thomas Cajetan Bonaventure Marsilius Almain Carthusianus and Capreolus teach That that same worship should be given to the Image which is given to that which the Image represents And yet Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro and others is against this Therefore either the one or the other is not of your Religion And ye your self if ye be measured by this measure is not a right Papist because you dissent from many of them in many things as hath been proved before And certainly M. Gilbert if this reason of yours hold forth you shal cut off from your profession such a number of Popes Councils Jesuits Cardinals and Doctors from your Religion that it is to be feared that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholick Faith yea from being a member of their Synagogue that for the defence thereof is compelled to cut off so many from the same And secondly I say your reports concerning their doctrine is not to be credited but their own Apologies and Writings whereby it appears that it hath been always your fashion the more to discredit them to charge them with a number of absurd opinions which they never held As for example you charge here Waldus and his followers to have had their wives and all other things common which is your calumny of them and not their practise or doctrine For Gulielmus Parvus writeth that their life was commendable And Reynerus in his Book of Inquisitions one of your own Religion a Writer of 300. years ago who was often at the examination of them as he himself saith confesseth That they had great show of holy life and that they believed all things well of God and all the articles contained in the Creed and lived justly before men and chargeth them that they hated and blasphemed solam Romanam Ecclesiam the Romish Church only So then if his report be true as I hope ye will not gainsay they were both far from that error for that were neither to believe all things well of God nor yet to have a show of holy life and to live justly before men and also they were of our Religion in all things And where you say that we renew many old condemned heresies I answer That neither the doctrine which I affirmed they taught here was heresies nor yet themselves hereticks But you and your Church who have condemned them for the truth of God and have renewed old condemned heresies as shal be proved afterward And we have renewed no heresie at all but only the truth of God which your Church hath obscured and buried Therefore your conclusion is false that our Religion was never professed in all points as it is now in Scotland before in no Countrey no not say you by any one man For it was taught and professed by Christ and his Apostles and also by all the primitive Churches in their dayes in all points throughout all the parts of the world where they preached the Gospel as it is now in Scotland as we offer to prove by their writings and I have proved the same in sundry heads here Next the substance thereof was continued many hundred years in the Churches of Christ while partly by the heresies that sprang up for the popple was soon sown among the good seed and the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles dayes and partly by the Mahomet and partly by the darkness of Popery it was corrupted piece and piece And what difference can you find between the Religion that the Waldenses professed and us if ye will give credit to their Apologies and Reynerus testimonies of them As for M. Robert Bruces testimony which ye produce it serves no wise to confirm your purpose but seeing ye abuse the testimonies of Scripture it is no wonder suppose ye abuse the testimonies of men For it is most true which he affirms that the truth of God hath continued for that space in this Kingdom without heresie or schism as we never read it did in any Nation in the earth in such purity without heresie and schism for such a long space And yet it follows not but it hath dwelt in sundry Churches in such purity before suppose not so long together which you omit in your conclusion Doth it follow by his testimonie but that our Religion hath been preached and professed in all true Churches in all points suppose not so long in such purity as it is in Scotland Neither doth it follow but that the substantial and main points of our Religion have been professed in all Christian Churches longer then that space suppose mixed either with some heresies or schismes So you must coin a new Logick M Gilbert before ye can confirm your proposition by his testimonie Master Gilbert Brown But here it is to be noted also that M. John can find none before the year of Christ 1158. that said against the Pope and his Religion and none immediatly before Luther the space of an hundred years and more So the Church was without his Doctors eleven hundred years and fifty or thereabout And such like Martin Luther had no predecessors to whom he succeeded in his Religion Master John Welsch his Reply You not two things here which are both false The one that I can find none that said against the Pope and his Religion before the year of Christ 1158. For our Savior and his Apostles and sundry learned Fathers in all ages and Councils both General and Provincial and some of your own Doctors and Popes have spoken against the Monarchie of your Pope and your Doctrine and Religion as I have proved before And Reynerus a man of your own Religion testifies that some said The Waldenses who had the same Religion which we profess was continued from Sylvesters dayes who lived about the 320. year of God And some said that it continued even from the Apostles days Therefore the first is false The second thing is that I can find none before Luther immediatly the space of an hundred years and more I see you are not ashamed to speak any thing for the defence of your Kingdom were it never so manifestly false
at the bridge of Dee as is proved at large in a Treatise intituled A Discovery of the unnatural and trayterous conspiracy oâ— Scottish Papists c. printed by King James special command 1592. And as soon as he entered England Watson and Clerk instilled treasons unto sundry Nobles and Gentle-men against the King and Prince before the Coronation But that not succeeding they fall next to the Gun-powder treason designing to blow up King Parliament all at one blow they hiring the cellers of the Parliament-house in which they laid 36. barrels of gunpowder and 1000. billets and 500. fagots and if God had not discovered their wickedness by a singular providence both King Queen Prince Nobles Knights Citizens Burgesses yea the whole Parliament had all gone with at one blow I spare to speak of the continual treasons and rebellions in Ireland both in Queen Elizabeth and King James reign Or of that memorable design of the Spanish Armado anno 1588. Which however it was attempted by Spain yet all men may know that the English and Scottish Papists kept continual correspondence and were combined with the Spaniard And of the thundering Bull of Pope Sixtus the 5. then sent abroad for confirmation of the several Bulls made by his predecessors Pius the 5. and Gregory the 13. against Queen Elizabeth to the end our Papists might more cheerfully assist in that bloody enterprise Nor were the Papists less active in King Charles the first his reign as M Prin and M. Baxter have evidenced at large Prin in several treatises especially in a treatise intituled Romes Master-piece shows what great plots they had either to ruine King and Kingdom or to procure liberty for the profession of Popery M. Baxter in his Key of Catholicks chap. 45. seqq proveth at large that they plotted contryved and carried on that late change of Government in the State and that cruel and abominable parricide committed on the Royal person of King Charles the first Peter du Moulin junior Chaplain to the Kings Majesty in his vindication of the sincerity of the Protestant Religion in the point of obedience to Soveraigns chap. 2. pag. 58.59 testifieth That the year before the Kings death a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England first to Paris to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon then altogether Jesuited to whom they put this question in writing That seeing the State of England was in a likely posture to change Government whither it was lawful for the Catholicks to work that change for the advancing and securing of the Catholicks cause in England by making away the King whom there was no hope to turn from his heresie Which was answered affirmatively After which the same persons went to Rome where the same question being propounded and debated it was concluded by the Pope and his Council that it was both lawful and expedient for the Catholicks to promote that alteration of State What followed that consultation and sentence all the world knoweth The same Author relateth That when the news of that horrible execution came to Roan a Protestant Gentle-man of good credit was present in a great number of Jesuited persons where after great expressions of joy the greatest of the company to whom all gave ear spake much after this sort The King of England at his marriage had promised us the reestablishing of the Catholick Religion in England and when he delayed to fulfil his promise we summoned him from time to time to perform it We came so far as to tell him that if he would not do it we should be forced to take these courses which would bring him to his destruction We have given him lawful warning and when no warning would serve we have kept our vow to him since he would not keep his word to us The said Author likewise relateth That in pursuance of the fore-mentioned conclusion at Rome many Jesuits came over who take several shapes to go about their work but most of them took party in the army About thirty of them were met by a Protestant Gentle-man between Roan and Deep to whom they said taking him for one of their party that they were going to England and would take arms in the Independant army and endeavor to be Agitators Much more hath he to this purpose M. Baxter likewise proveth that many Jesuits did enter in the army and swarmed through the Countrey under the name of Independants Seekers Quakers Levellers c. endeavoring to ruine the Reformed Religion by railing against the Church Ministery Ordinances c. From all which it is evident that the grand work of the Pope and Jesuits his Janisaries is to plot and carry on treasons and bloodshed in Protestant Kingdoms and Commonwealths which they have been still about since the Reformation And no wonder the Priests and Jesuits lay life and all at the stake to accomplish bloody and traiterous designs seeing they are sworn and ingaged by oath to make this their work For the Pope binds all the Jesuits and Priests by oath to inculcat their principles of treason into their proselyts and to stir them up upon all occasions to act it as will be evident to any who will but read the rules of Ignatius Loyola the father of the Jesuits Or the testimony of Pope Urban the 8. in his Bull of Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Touching that Society that beyond all other fraternity they are the chief and most strenuous propugners of the Popes authority And how far do the Jesuits extend their vow of blind obedience Even to the killing of Kings raising of treasons and rebellions whereever they can have access So that Watson in his Quodlibets and other secular Priests have proven and concluded the Jesuits traitors both for tenets and practise But not only are the Jesuits bound by oath to assassinations and rebellions but also the secular Priests themselves who are not Jesuits are bound unto the Pope himself in his Constitutions for ordering of the English Colledge at Rome by oath to propagat rebellion For thus speaks Martin Aspilcueta Doctor Novarrus lib. 3. consil resp concil 1. de regular cited by Doctor Burges At Rome in the Colledge of the English it is a Statut and Papal Constitution that whoever will be admitted into that Colledge he be tyed to swear that after so many years he will travel unto England for defence of the Catholick faith and there preach it both in publick and privat Now what Faith it is that they are bound to preach the treasons and rebellions raised by them can best evidence Now their great work is to corrupt the judgements of their followers and instruments of assassination and treason with poysonous positions touching the nature of such facts and bribe their consciences with strong baits of reward and glory to all that will undertake the acting of treasons and rebellions at their instigation which is a strong incentive to them For men that