Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	call_v	choose_v	confound_v	2,156	5	10.1042	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65422	Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...; Reply against Mr. Gilbert Browne, priest	Welch, John, 1568?-1622.; Craford, Matthew. Brief discovery of the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of papists.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1312; ESTC R38526	397,536	586

that spake against the Pope I will but note their persons Robert Grosshed John Gryllis a p●eaching Frier anno 1253. Gregory Ariminensis Franciscus de Rupe Scissa Taulerus in Germany Gerardus Rhidit Michael de Cesena Petrus de Carbona and Joannes de Poliaco Joannes Rithetalanda anno 1360. Armachanus the Archbish p in Ireland 1360. Nicolas Orem Matthias Parisiensis Nilus A●chbishop of Thessalonica John Wicleff and the Lord Cobham and sundry others Master Gilbert Brown M. John hath set down here a number of (a) It is false obscure and infamous persons for the most part justly (b) And this also condemned for heresies without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he alledges and all (c) This is also false for Gerard and Dulcimus Navarrensis which I first cited was almost 400. years before M. Luther and Calvin and the Waldenses was more then 300. years before them two hundred years before Calvin began their Religion or thereabout Of the which I contend not whether they spake against the Pope or not For all hereticks from the beginning have barked against the Pope But our contention is whether such heads of Religion as they denyed were heresies or not which as yet M. John hath not (d) But these heads is proven that the Pope is the Antichrist and Rome Babel they are not hereticks therefore our Religion was before Martin Luther proved nor is not able to defend these whom he calls his worthy men for appearantly by this all hereticks are worthy men by him albeit they be not of his Religion in all things Master John Welsch his Reply You calumniat our Religion of novelty and say Martin Luther begin it anno 1517. Unto the which I answered That our Religion hath Christ Jesus in the Old and New Testament to be the Author thereof and hath the primitive Church many hundred years thereafter to be the teachers and professors thereof the which I have proved already by some examples and that even till the smoak of that Antichristian darkness of yours did overspread all as it was fore-told by the holy Ghost At the which time also the Lord did reserve his own elect to himself even these hundred and forty and four thousand which did not bow their knees to your Baal as it was fore-prophesied whereof also a great many is recorded in Histories and of whom I set down some examples here Upon the which I reason That Religion which is warranted by the Scripture and professed in the primitive Church c. and hath sundry that taught and professed it and that even in the midst of Popery when it was at the hight thereof is not a new Religion nor invented by Martin Luther But ours is such as hath been proved Therefore unrighteous and blasphemous must ye be who slanders the Lords truth and Religion of novelty and fathers it upon flesh and blood whereof he is the Author Your answer to the first two we have examined Now let us see your answer to this First you say they are obscure men I answer If you call them obscure because they wanted the outward glory wealth and renown of this world Then suppose it were so yet have they Jesus Christ the Prince of life who was called a carpenters son Matth. 13.54 55 56. and his Prophets of whom some were herd-men Amos 1.2 and his Apostles who were fisher-men Mat. 4.18.21 his Church which consists not of many wise mighty or noble but of the foolish weak and vile of the world for them God hath chosen to confound the wise and noble 1. Cor. 1.26.27.28 to be companions with them and so they are the liker both the Head and the members It is true indeed your Popes and Clergy are not obscure for they have the wealth and glory of the world But as Bernard said to the Pope In this they succeed not to Christ or Peter but to Constantine But they receive their good things in this life with the rich glutt●n and therefore they must receive their pain with h●m in the life to come But why do you call these obscure whom I named here Are not some of them Friers some of them Provincials of Gray-Friers some of them Masters and Rulers of Universities some of them excellently learned which your own Church cannot deny some of them Bishops and Archbishops some of them Noble-men and some of them as namely the Greek and Eastern Churches in number learning purity of doctrine and godliness far exceeding your Papistical Church Who is worthy or famous if these be obscure Are all men obscure and infamous to you but your Popes and those who submit their necks to him And if you think these too obscure men to be called worthy men then behold yet M. Gilbert more noble personages who have resisted your Popes Monarchy As King Philip le Bell of France the Prelats of France joyning with him in his Dominions about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third King of England despised the Popes curse and appealed from him to God about the year of God 1346. And also sundry Emperors as Constantine the fifth Leo his son and Constantine the sixth in the East and Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. and Frederick the 2. in the West Will you call these Kings and Princes of the whole world obscure men So all sorts of men M. Gilbert both rich and poor Princes and subjects and these also within your own bowels being overcome with the strength of the truth of God have spoken against your Religion Why you call them infamous and hereticks justly condemned I know not except it be because they taught and professed the truth of God and condemned your Antichristian idolatry and abominations But all are not infamous and hereticks whom ye call so and surely if murderers hereticks adulterers Sodomites open bargainers with the Devil and the vile monsters of the earth is to be called obscure infamous and hereticks then your Popes are to be called so who of all men that ever the earth hath born have been the vilest monsters and hereticks as I have proved in my other Treatise concerning the Mass and the Antichrist You say next that you contend not whether they have spoken against the Pope or not for all hereticks have ever barked against him that sore against your heart M. Gilbert because you cannot deny but ye have taught this doctrine with us and if it be so M. Gilbert that these men and Churches and many thousands more of all sorts have taught this doctrine with us many hundred years before Martin Luther for the first two which I named was almost 400. years before him then why were you so shameless both to write it and also speak it to blind your poor Countrey-men to their and your damnation that our Religion was begun by Martin Luther and never professed before him So leave off M. Gilbert to beguile the simple and ignorant people with this sottish and

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

Tabernacles was not so kept as it was then since the dayes of Josua which was more then a thousand years Nehem. 8.18 And all the time of the captivitie where was there any publick face of the Church of God with his publick worship uncorrupted in all things as the Lord commanded it As concerning the Kingdom of Israel from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Juda they never had the worship of God in integritie but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him and after another manner and by other Priests then they were commanded Next they fell to the worshipping of Idols till they were transported out of their land and scattered upon the face of the earth What shal I pursue the sayings of the Prophets how the only visible Church in the world is called an harlot Isai 1. the Temple a den of thieves Jer. 7. the Prophets all blind guides and dumb dogs that cannot bark Isai 57.10.11 Hosea 2. Now when God of his infinit mercy sent his only begotten Son in the world the light the life the salvation of the world what did the Church and the Clergie the Scribes and the Pharisies that sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23. Surely Christ had none so great enemies as they were who were the Doctors the lights the successors of Aaron to whom the Law was concredited When Christ testified of himself that he was the light of the world they said his testimony was not true John 8.13 When others believed in him they said they were deceived John 7.47 They ordain that if any man should confess Christ he should be excōmunicat John 9.22 So that many that did believe in him durst not for them confess him John 12.42 They watched him of purpose that they might have matter of accusation against him Luke 6.7 And when he cast out Devils the Scribes and the Pharisies said that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils Mark 3.22 Mat. 12.24 They said they found him a man perverting the nation and forbidding to pay tribut to Cesar Luke 32.2 They condemn him in a solemn Council as worthy of death Mark 14.64 Yea as Christ testifies of them they neither entred in the Kingdom of heaven themselves nor suffered others to enter in Mat. 23.13 And yet they are these that if ye look to their antiquitie they have their beginning from Abraham if to their succession they succeeded to Aaron if to their callings they were Scribes and Pharisies and sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23 if to the place it was to the house of God if to the people whom they taught they were the only people of God if to their prerogatives to them appertained the adoption and the glorie and the covenant and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises of whom are the Fathers and of whom is Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed forever Amen Rom. 9.4.5 And if ye will look to their Council they were solemnlie called together where they condemned the Lord of life and crucified the Prince of glorie What can you say to these That they erred in the person of Christ but not in the exponing of the Law as some of you saith But first Moses did write of Christ John 5.46 and Christ is the end of the Law Rom. 10.4 So that if they had not erred in exponing of the Law they had not erred in the person of Christ because the Law testified of Christ he was the end of it Next the Scripture testifies that they erred in exponing of the Law that they both brake the Law and teached others so to do Mat. 5. And therefore Christ saith Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisies ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5.20 For whereas the Law of God counts hatred murther and lust adultery and rash swearing unlawful swearing and our enemies our neighbors whom we ought to love and to do good unto They by the contrary taught that our friends was only our neighbors whom we should love and therefore they said that we should hate our enemies vers 43. That hatred was not the breaking of the sixth command and lust no breaking of the seventh command and rash swearing no breaking of the third command And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew doth vindicat the true meaning of the commandments from their false expositions And he testifies of them that they did abrogat the Law of God through their traditions and so in vain they worshipped God teaching for Gods Law which he calls doctrine mens precepts Mat. 15.6 which he proves there by an example of abrogating and annulling of that duty which we ow to father and mother commanded us in the fifth commandment by their tradition And therefore he gives charge to his disciples to beware of the leaven that is the doctrine of the Pharisies Mat. 15.6 Seeing then they who had their ordinary succession from Aaron erred how can the Doctors of your Church yea your Popes be priviledged from erring But it may be ye grant all this for how can ye deny it that the Church before the Law under the Law in the time of Moses in the time of the Judges in the time of the Kings in the time of the captivitie and in the time of Christ erred but yet the Christian Church hath greater priviledges and promises that it cannot err Let us examine this also whither the Christian Church be priviledged from erring or not And certainlie if any Christian Church at any time had this prerogative appearantlie the primitive Church which was in the dayes of Christ and of his Apostles should have had it But they had it not Therefore what Church since under the heaven can challenge it For in the time of Christs suffering the Apostles and Disciples who only then were the Christian Church yea after that they had been Apostles and after that they had been sent to preach the Gospel and work miracles yet in that time did they not err in the article of Christs resurrection Mat. 10 And erred they not concerning the estat of Christs kingdom after the resurrection Acts 1.6 and 11. And concerning the teaching of the Gentils after they had received the holy Ghost Acts 10. Gal. 2. And Peter himself as hath been shown And sundrie Papists as Alex. Hallensis in 3. parte quaest ult art 2. Johan de Turrecrem in lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 30. 1. Cor. 3. in lib. 3. cap. 61. saith that true faith remained only in the heart of Marie in the time of Christs suffering Was not here then an universal erring Now to go forward did not the Church of the Corinthians err in building hay and stubble on the foundation and in the use of the Lords Supper and some of them also concerning the resurrection of the dead 1. Cor.

26.26.27 bread and wine and having given (f) Luke 22.19 thanks to his Father of heaven (g) Mark 14.22 blessed the same by the which (h) 1. Cor. 10.16 blessing and heavenly words he made them his body and blood as I said before and (i) Luke 22.29 gave or offered himself then for them that is for his And last of all gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten which we call to (k) 1. Cor 10.16 communicat And when he had done the same he commanded his Apostles and by them the lawful Pastors of the Church till the worlds end to do the same for the (l) Luke 22.19 remembrance of him And seeing that our Priests do the same as our Savior did how can M. John say that our Religion in this was not instituted by Christ Master John Welsch his Reply I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass which suppose ye call blessed yet is it most abominable idolatry as by the grace of God shal be made manifest And first concerning the word it self MASS you are of such variety of opinions among your selves concerning it that (a) As Doctor Bellarmin in his answer to Duplessis Mornay de Eucharist lib. 11. cap. 1. Genebrard in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH Deut. 16.10 that properly signifieth sufficiency but Bellarmin refutes this lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some of you saith it is taken from the Hebrew some (b) Bulinger ibidem from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies a secret sanctificatiō from the which comes mystery from the Greek some (c) As Bellarmin ibidem and sundry others from mitto missio or dimissio from the Latin and (d) Some because the sacrifice and prayers is sent to God in the same as Hugo de S. Victor de sacram lib. 2. part 8. cap. ult some saith it is called the Mass for one cause and (e) Some because an angel as they say is sent unto the same as Lombard in 4. sent dist 13. Thomas part 3. quaest 83. And some because the people is dismissed and sent forth as Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some for another I will only speak this of it that it is usually taken by the ancient Writers for the dismission or skailing as we call it of the Church after the publick service was done to God as Bellarmin grants in the first acception of this word Mass And therefore in the end of your Mass the Deacon crys Ite missa est that is Go your way the Congregation is dismissed But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense for the skailing of the Church or dismission of the people after the service of preaching prayer and so forth but for that abominable sacrifice of theirs wherein as they suppone they offer up Christ his very body and blood in a sacrifice for the quick and the dead as M. Gilbert doth here And for this cause they call this sacrifice the Mass that is first sent from the Father to us that Christ his body and blood might be with us next sent from us to the Father that he may interceed and may be for us with the Father as Durandus lib. 4. ration divin testifieth But how can he be sent from them to heaven seeing he descends in the mouth stomack and belly of the Priest for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest to be sent up to heavē are things contrary So by this stile of the Mass as they take it it is plain that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Mass which some of them grants also Turrian 1 tract cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith That he sits at the right hand of h●s Father whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored Acts 3.21 or else their Mass-Priests dust and ashes are the creators of their Creator which is a blasphemy Thus much now for the name of the Mass which all Christians should abhor according to that of David That he would not take the name of false Gods in his mouth Psal 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith which is not found in the Scripture neither in proper terms nor yet in substance and by necessary consequence out of the same should be rejected by the Church of God as a profane and a bastard word But the Mass is such For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Article of our Faith and yet it is neither found in proper termes nor in substance nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture Therefore it should be rejected as profane and idolatrous by the Church of God This for the name Now to the matter This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us concerning your sacrifice of the Mass which as ye account it most heavenly so we account it most abominable as that which injures the Son of God which derogats from his death and passion which is injurious to his everlasting Priesthood which is idolatrous vain needless and fruitless which hinders and overthrows the true service of God all which shal be made plain of it by Gods grace The matter of our controversie therefore is Whither Jesus Christ God and man his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass as ye call it And whither this your sacrifice be a propiciatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead This your Church affirms and holds and this we deny Now let us see your reasons first and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary As to yours First ye say it way prefigured by the Law of Moses Next prophesied of by the Prophets And thirdly done and instituted by Christ our Savior and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world As to the first This sacrifice was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament for the which purpose ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20 Unto the which I answer That the sacrifices of the Old Testament were figures and shadows of that great and bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus ones offered up upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.25.26.27.28 and of our spiritual sacrifices and service to God whereof the Apostle speaks in these places here cited Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.15.16 The which also were fulfilled in that one and only sacrifice of himself upon the cross for the sins of the world and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves and of the calves of out lips continually But that these were figures of your abominable sacrifice in the Mass there is not a syllable in the whole Scripture to prove the same For that which was prefigured

Acts 2. and Thomas of Aquin 3. part quaest 52. art 1. 3. two great Papists and yet Bonaventure in 3. distinct 22. quaest 4. and Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. affirms the contrary That his soul was in the place of pain and yet suffered no pain Next Thomas of Aquin affirms 3. part qu. 52. That Christ descended only into that place of hell called Limbus Patrum but Bellarmin saith It is more probable that he went to all the parts of hell And this is the consent which you Papists have among your selves not only in this point but almost in all the points of your doctrine Now as to the places of Scripture which ye quote they serve nothing to this purpose For the 2. of the Acts it speaks of that bondage of the grave which kept him under until he rose again and therefore the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth death and not hell as ye translate it here and Peter saith whom God raised up The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ which had fallen and was raised up but it was the body only and not the soul which fell down and was raised up therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death whereby his body was kept in bondage and not of any local descension of Christs soul As for the places of the Psalms which ye quote here Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension as ye say whereof he makes no mention but to prove his resurrection as he saith in the 31. verse most plainly He knowing this before speaking of David spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul should not remain in grave neither his flesh should see corruption So if ye will believe the Spirit of God in the Apostle interpreting these places they speak of the resurrection of Christ and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell for he was in Paradise as he saith himself and it is the body that was raised and not the soul And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH which not only signifieth the soul but also the life as Gen. 37.21 Let us smite his soul that is take away his life And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life as Levit. 21.1.11 And this word Hell is SCHEOL in Hebrew which most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave So then the meaning is this The Lord will not leave his Nephesch that is the body wherein his life was in Scheol that is in the grave which speech is usual in the Scripture Now as to the other Psalm 29.3 it is spoken properly of David where he thanketh God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies which by a borrowed speech frequented in the Scripture is called the delivery of his soul from the grave As for the 4. of the Ephesians these lower parts of the earth is not Hell as ye expone it but the earth it self which in respect of the world is the lowest part and so it is taken in the Psalm 139 15. where David saith Thou hast fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth where here it is not taken for Hell as you take it in that place of the Ephesians otherwise ye must say that David was born in Hell which I suppose ye will not say So hereby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation So now to conclud this neither in these points M. Gilbert nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us is your doctrine agreeable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles as hath been I hope proved sufficiently You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armor and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine and uphold of yours then ye have done otherwise your shots will be but as shots of paper and your bulwarks but of intempered morter which suddenly will rush down at the light of the truth of God The Lord open your eyes to see the truth and suffer you not to continue any longer to cause the blind go out of the way as you have done Amen SECTION XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery and the Reformed Religion Master John Welsch ANd our Religion which we profess and all the particular heads of it was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles which I offer me also to prove either by word or writ against whosoever will plead the contrary The which if I fail in I will be content to lose my life therefore by his grace Master Gilbert Brown There is much promised here but nothing done and it is a thing impossible to him to do For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants differ from us is in denying abhorring or detesting as may be seen in their Confession of Faith which they compel all men to swear and subscribe As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God upon the Church the civil Magistrat c. except such things were expresly contained in the Word of God M. John Welsch his Reply As for my promise and performance I answere● 〈◊〉 that before and whither that be a thing unpossible 〈◊〉 or not let this my answer be a tryal thereof You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible but what have ye for you You say because the difference chiefly that we differ from you is in denying and abhorring What a raison is this Can we not prove our Religion out of the Scripture because we deny yours which is contrary to the same Is it impossible to prove the truth because falshood is denyed and abhorred What new Logick or Divinity is this I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner if your self had not bewrayed the same And certainly your Church is not beholden to you For if your reason hold forth it will follow that it is impossible to you or any man else to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture For in your Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux anno 1585. there they deny and abhor the Protestants and their doctrine and compel all men who desire the fellowship of the Roman Church and their absolution to abjure renounce and subscribe the same But I suppose your Church will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours And whereas you say that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying and abhorring c. of your Religion I ask you Doth not our Religion differ as far from yours as yours doth from us This you cannot deny For are not two contraries equally different one from another Doth not light differ as far from darkness white from black Christ from Antichrist as darkness from light black from white and Antichrist from Christ And are not yours and our Religions contrary one to another But your self will not deny and Bellarmin confesseth in

in their own name because they were not truly sent of God And this is that saih he which is said now meaning in this place if any shal come in his own name that he is not truly sent of God neither hath Gods power So then a false Prophet is said both to come in the Name of God and in his own name In the Name of God falsly vaunting so in his own name because God sends him not but he intrudes himself without a lawfull calling Now to answer you then I say the Pope comes in the Name of Christ as his Vicare I grant he and his Clergy so vaunt but falsly For the truth is he hath come and he comes in his own name and that truly because the Lord never sent him but he hath intruded himself without God his calling therefore this cannot free him but he may be the Antichrist But how prove ye that he comes in Christ his Name and not in his own name Because say ye he calls himself the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God A pretty argument He so calls himself Ergo he is so Who will credit either you or him in your own cause Is this all ye can do for your Pope He is called so Ergo he is so Augustin saith Non attendamus ad linguam sed ad facta Tract 3 in Epist Joan. Let us not take heed to the tongue but to the deeds For if all be asked all with one mouth confess Christ let the tongue cease a little ask the life Interroga vitam and again whosoever denyes Christ factis by his deeds is Antichrist The idolaters of Ephesus might have reasoned so for their great Goddess Diana Acts 19.27 She is called a great Goddess Ergo she is so indeed And what false Prophet yet ever came but they said they came in the Name of God they called themselves and were called by these whom they deceived the servāts Prophets of the Lord Jer. 23.25 Ezec. 13.6.7 and yet will you frame this argument for them as you do for your Pope All the false Prophets said they came in the Name of God were called by these whom they deceived the servants of God therefore they came not in their own name but in the Name of God Did not the false Apostles in Ephesus say they were the Apostles of Christ yet they were found liars Rev. 2.2 And did not the Synagogue of Satan call themselves Jews and yet they blasphemed in so speaking Rev. 2.9 Doth not the Harlot with whom the Nations of the earth have committed fornication say in her heart she is a Queen Rev. 18.7 and yet she is that great Harlot Rev. 17 4. And is not her cup of gold and yet the drink therein is abomination And should not the Antichrist sit in the temple of God and yet he is the son of perdition and an adversary to God and to Jesus Christ 2. Thess 2.4 And said not the Devil of himself that all the Kingdoms of the world were given to him and he would give them to whom he would Matth. 4.8 9 and yet he was a liar So if this argument of yours will follow The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he came never in his own name and so he is not the Antichrist you may with as good reason conclud that the false Prophets and false Apostles came not in their own name but in the Name of God because they are called the servants of God both by themselves and also by these who were deceived by them Yea you may with as good reason conclud that the Antichrist is not the son of perdition and adversary to God 2. Thess 2.3.4 that all the Kingdoms of the world are given to the Devil and that he hath the power in his hand of giving them to whom he will because the Scripture fore-told of the one that he should have horns like the Lamb Rev. 17. and the other ascribes this right and power to himself Matth. 4.9 It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichrist unless with him also you defend all the false Prophets false Apostles false Churches the Antichrist and the Devil himself from being the thing which they are indeed But who will venter the salvation of their soul upon this so silly and foolish a reason But I pray you M. Gilbert let me ask you this Is your Pope the servant of the servants of God and the Vicar of Christ as he calls himself Dare you avow this in the presence of him who shal judge the quick and the dead that he is so as he calls himself Did ever Christ Jesus either tread upon the necks of Kings and Emperors with his feet Or was he ever lifted up and carried upon the shoulders of noble-men Or did he ever give his feet to Emperors to kiss as your Popes have done as your own Histories do witness And have ye ever read what one of his own Archbishops of Colen one of his own Religion writes to Pope Nicolaus the first five hundred years ago Speaking to him he saith Thou pretends the person of the Pope but thou playes the tyrant we feel under the habit of a Pastor a wolf the stile belyes the parent Thou vaunts thy self to be God by thy deeds while as thou art the servant of servants thou contends to be Lord of Lords according to the discipline of Christ our Savior thou art the least of all ministers of the Temple of God but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine whatsoever likes thee is lawful Aventinus lib. 4. annalium This was evil in those dayes but there are worse since And what now Reader shal we say of the Pope since his own Archbishop hath so written of him You say he is the Vicar of Christ but Christ Jesus in his latter Testament did never leave him to be in his stead For in the 4. Ephes 11. He gave Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors for the work of the ministery and the building of the body of Christ But that he ever left a Pope to be head of the Church in his stead to be a Monarch in this earth to reign in Rome and to be Lord over the servants of God there is not a syllable in the whole Book of God to prove it And because you say he is the servant of servants what service I pray you doth he whereby he makes it manifest that he is a servant indeed For the principal service of the Ministery of the Church stands in preaching the Word which he neither doth neither thinks that it appertains to him to do Yea what is it that appertains to any Lord King or Monarch in the earth that he ascribes not to himself and doth not also practise Yea as though that were too little what either stile or properties or works which are peculiar only to

make them Intercessors but Mediators at whom and for whose merits they seek salvation And upon this ground came that Paganism which they have brought in the Church of God whereby every Nation Village Family every Estat and every malady or affliction have their own Saint to be a Patron for them Upon the which also hath proceeded this canonizing of Saints that is to make men Gods For they say that this canonizing of them is to let men understand that they should be adored and called upon as one of their own Archbishops Antonius saith part 5. summa tit 12. For he saith that seven things appertain to the canonizing of Saints 1. To be reputed publickly to be a Saint 2. To be prayed to by the Church 3. To have Temples and Altars 4. To have offerings and sacrifices offered to their honor 5. To have a festival day 6. To have an Image with a candle in sign of their glory 7. To have their relicks And they say That they may be directly prayed unto with the Lords Prayer which our Savior formed only to be said to God the Father Now how shal they be excused from vile idolatry in this Pope Innocent saith That to the worship which is only proper to God appertains Temples Altars sacrifices feasts And Durandus a Papist saith the same lib. 5. cap. 4. If this then be true which this Pope and this Papist say how then can they be cleared from idolatry that give unto Saints that service which by their own confession is only proper to God as Temples Altars Festival dayes c. And what shal we say to Franciscus and Dominicus two of their canonized Saints in whose persons they have done that lay in them to have abolished the merit the Name of Christ Of this Franciscus they say in their Book of Conformities That he is greater then John the Baptist And preferring him in many things to him they say That John received the word of repentance of Christ but Franciscus say they received it of Christ and of the Pope quod plus est which is more Of John it was revealed by an Angel to his father what he should be but of Franciscus it was revealed to his mother and his servants by Jesus Christ John was like the friend of the bridegroom but Franciscus was like the bridegroom himself They say He is better then all the Apostles for they left but their boats but he left all to his very hose They call him Typicus Jesus a typical Savior a singular crucified one who received in vision the same wounds which Christ hath suffered the same dolors who is the way of life who is the image of Christ as Christ is the image of the Father Yea which is more they prefer him to Christ Jesus They say Christ did but pray but Franciscus by prayer obtained They say The Baptism of Christ forgives original sin but Franciscus hood much more It is written also upon the port of the Cordeliers of Bloys of this Franciscus That his sin shal be sought for but it shal not be found which is only proper to Christ Now these are not particular opinions but approved by the Church of Rome For Pope Gregory the 9. Alexander the 4. and Nicolas the 3. ordained all the faithful under the pain of heresie to believe all Franciscus marks And their Books are set forth by their priviledges As for Dominicus Antoninus who was of that Order compares him with Christ and in a manner prefers him to him Hist. 3. pars tit 23. cap. 1. part 1. 3. Christ saith he did raise in all but three from the dead Dominicus raised three in Rome and by his prayer restored forty to life Christ after the resurrection being immortal went twise to his disciples the doors being shut but Dominicus saith he having as yet but a mortal body which saith he is more marvellous went into the Church in the night the doors being shut that he should not waken his brethren c. And such like of the rest of the miracles wherein he not only compares but in a māner prefers him to Christ Christ saith he said after his death all power is given to me in heaven earth This power saith he is not in a little cōmunicat to Dominicus above all heavenly earthly infernal things that in this same life for he had the Angels to serve him the elements obeyed him And in the end he applyes that which is only spoken of Christ in the 45. Psalm He is more beautiful then the sons of men Also he saith That there was two Images the one of Paul the other of Dominicus At the foot of Pauls Image it was written Per istumitur ad Christum By this man is the way to Christ At the foot of the Image of Dominicus it was written By this man the way is made easie to Christ And marvel not saith he at this for the doctrine of Paul and the rest of the Apostles induceth men to believe and to obey the precepts of Christ but the doctrine of Dominicus induceth men to keep the counsels of Christ and therefore the way to Christ by him is easier So he prefers him to Christ in miracles and to the Apostles But what shal we say to that that follows He is called saith he Dominicus because he is like our Lord and he hath possessive and in possession that which Christ hath absolutly and by authority Christ saith I am the light of the world The Church saith he sings of Dominicus Ye are the light of the world The Prophets testified of Christ and so did they also saith he of Dominicus and of his Order as in the 11. chapter of Zachary where it is spoken of Christ I have taken unto me two rods and I called one the staff of beauty and the other the staff of bands The staff of beauty saith he is the Order of Dominicus the staff of bands is the Order of Franciscus So they abuse the Scripture He compares him also with Christ and in a manner prefers him to him Christ saith he was born upon the bare earth but lest he had been over much hurt by cold he was put into the crib by his mother But Dominicus saith he being in the custody of his nurse even then abhorring the pleasures of the flesh was found oft-times lying upon the bare earth When Christ was born a star appeared signifying that he should illuminat the whole world But saith he when Dominicus was born his Godmother saw a star in his fore-head a prognostication of a new light of the world The prayer of the Lord was ever heard when it pleased him but yet did not ever obtain that which he prayed for as when in the garden he prayed that the cup might be transferred from him But saith he Dominicus desired nothing of God but that which he obtained perfectly according to his desire Christ loved us and washed us from our sins in his

Rome left off her Gentilism and yet this prophesie is not accomplished in her Unto these I joyn the testimonies of some of their own Monks Bishops Poets Friers Historiographers Emperors and Popes also whereby it will be verified that this harlot is Rome and the Popes thereof the Antichrist Bernard a Monk of Cluniak who lived about 400 years ago writing unto Peter the Abbot of that Monastery speaking of the tyrannous behavior of the Clergy and Bishop of Rome he accuses them of sacrilegious brybery of buying and selling of the Bishops Pall the Ring and of all Laws and equitie And he saith in another place Roma nocens nocet atque viam docet ipsa nocendi Jura relinquere lucra requirere pallia vendi Non Deus est tibi Jesus perfida Roma peristi That is This hurtful Rome doth hurt and teach to be wicked To leave all ●aw and gape for gain and sell a Popish Tippet A greedy gulf a griping grave a filthy jakes Both bottomless unfatiat and all alike she makes By drinking thou art dry and louder thou dost cry come bring me more I pray thee cry ho but thou saith no. I hunger sore I think thou makes gold thy God not Jesus Christ Rome what shal I say What shal I do or tell thee what is done Wealth weakneth thee wealth threatneth thee not to be Rome Then let me speak it and let me write it Rome once thou wast Then let me speak it and let me write it Rome thou art gone And John a Monk saith Curia vult Marcas bursas exhaurit arcas c. That is The Court of Rome doth aim at marks it souks the purse and soaks the arks If that you mind to spare your arks come not at Popes nor Patriarks But if you frankly give them marks and with good gold stuff up their arks I warrant then you shal be free from any kind of penaltie Who is within Who is there I. Why why what would ye Come in Bring you ought No. Stand still But I do Go ye then in The same Monk also saith Roma manus rodit quod rodere non valet odit Dante 's exaudit non dantibus ostia claudit Curia curarum genetrix nutrixque malorum Ignotos notis inhonestos aequat honestis That is Rome is a raket and spiteful hater of the empty hand She heareth the giver but others never but letteth them stand Her Court a cage of cares of mischiefs eke the mother She useth knaves like honest men and strangers like a brother The Archbishop of Golen and Traverse say to Pope Nicolas the first Thou pretends the person of the Pope but thou plays the tyrant We feel a Wolf under the weed of a Pastor The style belies the parent Thou by thy deeds makes show as if thou wert God While as thou art the servant of servants thou contends to be Lord of Lords According to the discipline of our Savior thou art the least of all the Ministers of the Temple of God Thou through the desire of ruling-goeth to perdition Whatsoever thing pleaseth thee is lawful is thee And Gregory a Pope saith I affirm this boldly upon good assurance that whosoever he be that calleth himself or is desirous to be called Universal Priest in that hautiness of his is a fore-runner of Antichrist in that by swelling pride he preferreth himself before others Arnulphus Arelatensis unto the Council of Rhemes testifigs this of the Pope Whom saith he Reverend Fathers think ye this man to be who fitting in an high throne shines in his purple and golden attyre to wit if he want love and be puffed up by knowledge he is the Antichrist fitting in the Temple of God showing himself as though he were God Bernard 400. years ago writing to Eugenius lib. 2 Pope of Rome in conclusion he breaketh forth in these words Thou hust more need saith he to have a rake in thy hand then a scepter to perform the office of a Prophet And in another place in his fourth Book to Eugenius after he hath described and detested the pride of the Bishops of Rome at last he concludeth the matter in these words saying to the Pope Herein saith he thou shows thy self to have succeeded not to Peter but to Constantin Peter is he who never knew what belonged to such solemn showing himself abroad in braveries of precious stones or silks or gold or ryding upon a white palfray or being garded with a troup of tall fellows or environed with a company of ruffling serving men Also in another place in his Epistle 230. speaking of the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome he maketh an exclamation in this sort At the first indeed saith he ye began to play the Lords but over the Clergy contrary to the counsel of Peter 1. Pet. 5.3 And within a while contrary to the advise of Paul Peters fellow Apostle you will have dominion over the faith of all men 2. Cor. 1.24 But ye stay not there ye have taken upon you more namely to have a peremptory power in Religion it self Now what remaineth whereon ye might further incroach except ye will go about to bring the very Angels under your subjection And in another place upon the Cant. serm 33. speaking of the behavior of the Romish Prelats Hence cometh saith he that whoorish tricking that stage-like attire that prince like pomp which dayly we see in them Hence proceeds the gold that they use in their bridles sadles and spurrs insomuch that their spurrs are more glittering then their altars Hence came their stately tables their variety of dishes and quaffing cups Hence issued their jonketting banketting their drunkenness and sursets Hence followed their viols harps and shalms Hence flowed their sellers and pantries so stuffed with wines and viands of all sorts Hence got they their lee-pots and painting boxes And hence had they their purses so well lined with coyn Fy upon it Such men they will needs be and yet they are our great Masters in Israel as Deans Archdeans Bishops and Archbishops These works of theirs are little inferior unto that filthiness which they committed in darkness And lastly he addeth these words For he is the very Antichrist Frederick the second fore-told the ruine of Rome more then three hundred years since in these words writing to Innocentius the fourth Pope Roma diu titubans longis erroribus acta Corruet mundi desinet esse caput That is Rome rowling long about in errors bound and thral Shal fall at last and cease to be the lofty head of all And in his verse written against the Pope he affirms plainly That he was that son of perdition and that head of the wicked fore spoken by Paul And in his letters to the Prelats of the world he calls the Pope That great Dragon that hath deceived the whole world that Antichrist and that counterfeit Vicar of Christ Eberhardus Bishop of Salsburgh above 380 years ago Aventinus lib. 7. speaking of the Bishops