M. Gilbert Browne.

Ane answere to ane certaine Libell or Writing, sent by M. IOHN WELSCHE to ane Catholicke, Tytle. as ane answere to ane obiection of the Romane Kirk. &c.

I receaued ane little skroll, whilk was sent to you by M. Iohn Welsche Mi­nister at Kirkeudbricht, in the whilk, there is meikle promised, and little done. And because it may appeare to some to be something, I will (God willing) an­swere the same in particular.

M. Iohn Welsche Reply.

AS to your iudgement and censure of this my answere to your obiection, wherein ye think there is meikle promised and little done: I doe not regard it, for so long as your harte is bewitched with the pleasures of Babell, your light is but darknes: so while the Lorde annoynt your eyes, with that eye-salue promised in the Reue­lation. 3. and purge your harte by faith, ye cannot discerne of thinges different, and giue vpright iudgement. What I pro­mised, I am now by the grace of God readie to performe. And whether it was some-thing or nothing, meikle or little, that I did, let work beare witnes, and let them that loues the trueth iudge.

M. Gilbert Browne.

First he titles his libell, Ane answere to ane obiection of the Romane Kirk, whereby they go about to deface the veritie of that onely true Religion whilk we professe.

God forbid that we Ye teach not the doctrine of Iesus Christ, therefore ye are not true Cath [...] ­lick [...]. Catholicks, whom he calles the Romane Kirk, se­ing [Page 2] that we are the onlie defenders The over­throwers of it & Impugners of it. of the trueth, as our predecessors the pastors of the true Kirk was before vs, suld go about to deface the trueth. But we go about to impugne all false doctrine repugnant to the trueth, as False for ye do not as they did. the halie fathers of the primitiue Kirk did before vs, against the heretickes in their dayes, as Irenaus, Cypriane, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Basile, Grego­rie, Chrysostome, with the rest of the true pastors of the Kirk. And seing that the Ministers We preach that same Euan­gell that is writ­ten in the Scrip­tures. of this newe Evangell hes not onelie inuented sum here­sies themselues, but also hes renewed many auld condemned heresies con­futed by them before (as they You speake heere against your conscience. can not deny) as I fall giue sum examples afterward, as the heresie of Simon Magus, of Manichaeus, Pelagius, Aerius, Io­uinianus, Vigilantius, with many vthers, what le [...] can wee doe nor impugne the same, as our predecessors did before.

M. Iohn Welsche his Replye.

As to your answere: firste ye denye it and detestes it as a blasphemie: Nixt ye goe aboute to cleare your selues from the suspition of it: Thirdly ye challenge vs and our doctrine with the crymes of noveltie and heresie: And so ye conclude yee could doe no lesse nor impugne it.

As to your denying of your defacing of the trueth of God, so doth the hoorish woman after she hes eaten, Pro. 30.20 she wypes her mouth and sayes, she hes not sinned, whilk is true as well in spiritual as in bo­dilie fornication: So not-withstanding your Kirk hes buried the trueth of God in the graues of darknes, and did ouercure it with their traditions and glosses thir many yeares bygane, yet you wype your mouthes, and sayes you haue not sinned. But look to it in time, for ignorance, and zeil without knaw­ledge will not excuse you in the day of the Lorde. Matth. 26.65. That you detest it as a blasphemie, so did the hie priest rent his cloathes and said Christ blasphemed, when he spake but the trueth. As for your golden styles whilk you take to your selues of Catholicks, defenders of the trueth, successors to the pastors of the true Kirk and im­pugners of all false doctrine. Your doctrine indeede could not de­ceaue so many, if it were not couered with thir styles; your poysone and abhomination would not be drunken so vniuer­sallie, Apoc. 17.4. if it were not in sick a golden cuppe as this. So these are the byssope wherewith ye would wash you from this iniquity, and clenge you from this sinne. Matth. 7.15. But may not false prophets come in sheeps clothing? And the ministers of Satā can they not transforme [Page 3] themselues as though they were the Ministers of Christ? 2. Cor. 11.13 14 Apoc. 24 & 8 Ioh. 8.37. Mat. 23.7 The Scriptures hes foretold it: & did not the false Apostles in Ephesus, call them­selues the Apostles of Christ, and yet they were found lyars? And did not the synagogue of Satan call her selfe the synagogue of the Iewes, (that is, the Kirk of God) and yet they were not so, but the synagogue of the deuill? yea and did not Abrahams seede, and they that sate in Moses chaire, Mat. 7.16. Ioh. 10.11 and was the successours of Aaron, condemned the Sauiour of the worlde? There­fore not by your styles, but by your fruites ye must be tryed. For if ye bee catholicks &c, ye will teach the doctrine of that good pastour, and chiefe sheepheard the Lord Iesus. So it is your doctrine and not your styles that must defend you.

And because (Christian Reader) by this style of Catholicke, whilk they ascriue only to their Kirk, they cause the simple to erre, and leades many blindlings to damnation, therefore I wil take this visard frō them. Ye are not the Catholick Kirk, as ye style your self, and thus I proue it. Pope Pius the fift, who write a Catechisme according to the decree of the councill of Trent. He there sayes that the Kirk whilk is called the bodie of Christ, Catechism. conc. Trident in expo­sitione symbol. whereof he is the head, is called Catholick, because it is spread in the light of ane faith frō the east to the west, receauing men of al sortes, containing all the faithfull whilk haue beene from Adam, euen vntill this day, The Kirk of Rome is not the Catholick Kirk or shall be hereafter to the end of the world professing the true faith, &c.

Now I reason thus. The Catholicke Kirk comprehends all the faithfull from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter to the end of the world, or else Pope Pius, and the fathers of Trent erres. But the Romane Kirk comprehends not all the faithfull from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter: Therefore the Romane Kirk is not the Catholicke Kirk. Choose you now whilk of these ye will denye. The proposition I trowe ye will not: for then ye should bring twa incōueniences, the ane vpon Pope Pius and the fathers of Trent, that they haue erred in defyning the Catholick Kirk, and so the Kirk & the Pope may erre. The vther is vppon your selfe, who saide that your Kirk hes not erred. And so ye lose your stile of a defender of the Catholick faith: for this is a chief poynt of their faith, that the Kirk cannot erre. I hope therefore that these are Laby­rinths [Page] whilk yee will not wittinglie cast your selfe vnto, and so you must hold fast the proposition. All the question is then of the assumption. Whether the Romane Kirk comprehends all the faithfull from Adam till now, and whilk shall be to the end of the world, or not. First I say, a particular Kirk compre­hendes not all the faithfull from Adam &c. But the Romane Kirk is a particular Kirk, or else the fathers of the counsell of Basile, [...]a [...]ien concil. epist. synod 3. Verratus, disputationum contra Lutheranos tom [...] de authoritate a [...]potest. vniuers. [...]ccles. cap. 1. and Verratus a papist erres, for they call the Romane Kirk a particular Kirk. We grant (say they) that the Romane Kirk is a principall Kirk among vthers, but while you commend a parte forget not the haill. And they say, the vniuersall Kirk cōprehēds the Romane Kirk. Chuse you then whether will you contradict the fathers of the counsell of Basile and a Papist Verratus, and be so absurd as to call the arme of the bodie the haill bodie, ane arme of the Oceane sey the haill Oceane sey, or to goe from your ti­tle that the Romane Kirk is not the Catholicke kirk. Secund­lie, the Catholicke Kirk comprehendes them that were be­fore Christ: But the Kirk of Rome comprehendes not them, for there was a Kirk, or euer there was a Kirk at Rome, and the Romane Kirk comprehends nane but them that acknow­ledges the Pope to bee the head of the Kirk. But those that were before Christ neuer did that: Therefore the Romane Kirk is not the Catholicke Kirk. Thirdlie, the Catholicke Kirk is invisible: for at the least, neither are they that ar glori­fied, neither are they that are to bee borne, visible. But ye wil not haue the Romane Kirk, but alwayes visible, therefore the Romane Kirk is not the Catholicke Kirk. Fourthlie, if the Romane Kirk be the Catholicke Kirk, then either it shall fol­low, that the Pope is the heade of the Catholicke Kirk, or else that the Romane Kirk wants a visible heade. Choose you whether of these ye will, for the ane ye must, if ye will haue the Romane Kirk to be the Catholicke Kirk. But to say that the Pope is the head of the Catholicke Kirk, I trowe ye dare not be so blasphemous: for the gloryfied Saints, & Peter him­selfe are of the Catholicke Kirk, or else (as I said before) Pope Pius and the fathers of Trent erres. And so then if ye will make him heade of the Catholicke Kirk, ye muste make him heade [Page 5] of the gloryfied Saints and of Peter also. So then choose you whether will ye leaue the style of Catholicke, whilk ye claime as proper to your Kirk, or will ye haue the Pope the heade of the triumphant Kirk in heauen: or last of all, will yee haue your Romane Kirk to want a visible heade: ane of these ye must choose. So to ende this poynte, this style of Catholicke it is like the numbering of the people by Dauid: for as it brought him in a wonderfull straite, 2. Sam. 14. when he sawe it behoued him to choose, either seauen yeares famine, or foure moneths flying before his enemies, or three daies pestilēce. So this title of yours if you will bide by it, brings you in a wōderful strait: for yee haue not the choise of ane of three euils, but these three things must ye either choose, or else let this style of Ca­tholicke goe; ane of you fighting against ane vther, the Kirk invisible, and the Pope not to bee the heade of the Kirk. Of the whilk, the least of these is more able to overthrow your Kingdome, then they all were able to haue ouerthrowne the Kingdome of Dauid, for they are the maine pillers of your Kingdome, your vnitie, your visibilitie, your Popes suprema­cie, all whilk you must either lose, or else let your style of Ca­tholicke goe from your Kirk. But howe will ye wrestle your selfe out of this? For if ye will beleeue the fathers of Trent, and Pope Pius, in defyning the Catholick Kirk, ye cannot eschew thir inconveniences. And if you wil not beleeue thē, that they spake trulie in that poynte, ye must accuse them of error. And so the Kirk hes erred, the Pope hes erred, and your selfe hes erred that said your Kirk hes the trueth in all thinges. Iohn. 11.50 And surelie as Caiaphas being hie priest that yeare, spake the truth when he said that ane muste die for the people, and not the the haill nation perish, suppose in [...] euill sense. So hes the fathers of Trent and Pope Pius here spoken trulie, Heb. 12, 23. Gal. 4, 26, both acor­ding to the Scriptures, for the Kirk is called the assemblie of the first borne, whose names is written in heauen. And that new Ierusalem whilk is from aboue, whilk is the mother of vs al. And also according to the fathers, Clem Ale [...]. strom. li. 7. & Bernard. cantic. 78. & August d [...] catechis. [...]nd. cap 20. & Gregorie & moral. in Ioh. li. 28. c. 9. who affirmeth that the Kirk is the companie of the predestinate, and all the elect are within the compasse of it, and are citizens of it. So as Mat. 1 [...].17. Christ said to the Iewes. If I cast out deuils [Page 6] by the prince of deuils, by whome then castes your children them out? So if we speake now by ane erroneous spirit, that sayes the Ca­tholicke Kirk comprehendes all the elect, that was, is, and shall bee, and the Kirk of Rome can not bee the Catholicke Kirk. By what Spirit hes your councill and Pope and thir fa­thers spoken the same? So not your children but your fathers shall be your iudges.

Ye did mark some contradiction as ye thought betweene me and some vthers, vnto the whilk I will answere in the owne time. Let me therefore marke this ane now, and marke it (Reader). Ye haue heard now howe that all these with ane voice hes saide, that the Catholicke Kirk comprehends all the elect, that was, is, and shall bee: Is it any heresie then to holde this poynte? I think you will not, nor dare not say it. What will you say then to your generall councill of Con­stance Sess. 15, art. 1. 6. who condemned Iohn Hus for the same Doctrine, the first, and sixt article, for saying that there is ane vniuersall Kirk, whilk is the company of the predestinate, and as it is taken in this sense, it is ane article of our faith. For these amongst the rest, was this pure innocent condemned and burnt as ane hereticke, and his doctrine as heresy: whilk of thir wil ye say now hes erred? whether the generall councill of Constance? or the fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregorie, Austine, Clement, and Bernard? For sure­lie if the latter erred not, then not onelie did the councill of Constance erre, but also hes broght vpō them selues innocēt blood, in condemning the innocent & y^e trueth in him. And if the council of Constance erred not, in condemning thir arti­cles of Iohn Hus, then haue they condemned the doctrine of the fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregorie, Austine, &c. and their persones, in the person of Iohn Hus. Choose whilk of them ye will. I speak the trueth to thee in Christ (Reader) be not de­ceaued. But open thy eyes and beholde the veritie it selfe condemned by a generall councill, & the professor of it burnt for ane heretick: But his Reuel. 17. [...] & 18.24 blood & the blood of the rest of the martyres of God is found in this whoore of Babell, and therefore ane day she shall be recompensed for all her iniquitie. Goe out of her there­fore and saue thy soule, Reuel. 18.45 that thou bee not tormented in the [Page 7] lake that burnes with fire and brimstone, with her for euer­more. Vtherwise I call heauen and earth to witnesse againste thee, that thou sall die in her sin, and the Reuel. 14. [...] smoke of thy torment shall ascend for euermore. What now will you say to these things, that your Kirk is not the Catholicke Kirk, but a parte of it onlie. And is onlie Catholick, because of the Catholicke doc­trine that she professes? But if this be true, wherefore then did your generall councill condemne it in Iohn Hus, and burne him for that doctrine, whilk both your self muste confesse to bee true, and is aggreable to Scripture, fathers, and your owne Popes. Next I say, suppose when ye are brought to this strait, ye muste say so: yet for al this, not onlie call ye your Kirk Ca­tholicke, because of the soundnes of doctrine whilk yee sup­pose she professes, but As appea­reth by the epist. of Cardinal Cu­sanus writing to the Bohemians. Cochlaeus histor Hussitar. lib. 12 also & speciallie to make the simple beleeue, that there is no saluation out of her. Therefore ye call it the onlie true Kirk, & y^e Catholicke Kirk: for out of the par­ticular Kirk there is Saluation, but out of the Catholicke Kirk there is no saluation. Thirdlie I saye, as the epistles of Peter, Iohn, Iames, and Iudas are intituled Catholick, not because of the soundnesse of their doctrine, whilk is common to the epi­stles of Paul also, and al the rest of the Scripture, whilk in that respect may also be called Catholicke, but because they are written generallie to all: So the Kirk is called Catholick pro­perly, not because of the soundnes of doctrine, for that is com­mon to all the particular Kirks, that hes the puritie of Religi­on, but because it comprehends all the particular Kirks and all the elect. And also to put a difference betweene the Kirk of the Iewes, whilk did comprehend but ane certaine peo­ple, & the Christian Kirk since the comming of Christ, whilk is not bound to any certaine place or nation, or people, but indifferently receaues al, both Iew and gentile that beleeues. & therfore is it called Catholick: & therfore in our beleef we say not, I beleeue the Catholick doctrine, but the Catholick Kirk. So by this she is properlie distinguished from particular kirks, as the Mother from y^e daughters, & the hail body from y^e particular members. So thē if you would speak properlie of your Kirk, & not make your styles snares, to catch y^e soules of [Page 8] the simple, call her but a particular Kirk, and a member of the Catholicke Kirk, but yet dead and rotten, as shall bee shewen afterward by the grace of God. Vtherwise, if you will but call her the Catholicke Kirk, you first rob the mother, for she is properlie Catholicke, and also iniures the reste of the daughters: For in respect of the soundnes of faith, they maye also challenge the same to them. And thirdly, ye deceaue the soules of the simple thereby, by making them beleeue there is not ane vther Kirk but yours. And last of all, you are sacrilegi­ous in decking ane adulteresse with the styles of the spouse of Christ.

As to the thirde poynte, wherein ye calumniate the trueth of God whilk we professe, in calling it ane new Euangell, and olde renewed, and new invented heresies of our owne. These are indeede heauie words wherewith ye Act. 18.6. & 19.9. blaspheame the word of the Lord, and speakes euill of it to the people of this coūtrie. And therfore as the Apost. saith of them that blasphe­med his doctrine. Rom. 3.8 Your damnation is iuste. For a woe by Gods owne mouth is pronounced against them that calles good euill, Isay. 5.20. Iude. 1. [...]. and euill good, trueth falset, and falset trueth, and darknesse light, and light darknesse: But as the Archangell when hee straue with Sa­tan about the bodie of Moses, did not blame him with cur­sed speaking, but said, The Lord rebuke thee, so we wil not blame you with cursed speaking, but the Lord rebuke you. For yee speake heere the vision of your owne harte, and not from the mouth of the Lord: And ye are not the first that hes blasphe­med the trueth of God, for so did the Iewes before you, call the doctrine of the Euangel a sect, a heresie, and the gentiles called it strange gods and a new doctrine, Act. 28. Act. 24. Act. 17. and the preachers there­of, a setter forth of strange gods, and of new doctrine, and a babler. The Iewes said that Christ had a deuill, and yet as our Lorde testifies, Ioh. 8.44. It was they that was the children of the deuill. Ye say that we preach ane new Euangel, & olde & new heresies; but this is the sinne and the doctrine of your Kirk: O [...]liel. de san [...]o a more, in his book de pericul. [...]iss. [...]empo. a l [...]arned man anno. 1192, [...] [...]. 5. For to let that passe of that newe and euerlasting gospell, whilk your fryats invented & deuised, wherein was contained sic blasphemies as the heauen and earth abhorres to heare them: That God the [Page 9] father reigned vnder the law: God the Sonne vnder grace. And the holie ghost was then that yeare to beginne his kingdome and to continue to the end of the worlde. And that Iesus Christ was not God, his Sacrament nothing, and his Euangell not a true Euangell. (O horrible blasphe­mie) The whilk if God had not raised vp some men in those dayes to haue resisted it, as the Waldenses and vthers whilk ye call heretickes and infamous men, the gospell of Christ had beene loosed, and in steede of it, we woulde haue gotten ane new Euangel: The dreggs whereof yet remaines in your Kirk. But I will let this passe, because the wise men of Babell (I meane your clergie of Rome) sawe that that was too plaine ane iniquitie, therefore they caused it quietlie to be remoued and buried, and yet they not condemned as heretickes that preached it. But by the contrarie, the Waldenses and vthers that withstoode it, was condemned as heretickes and their bookes burned. To let this passe (I say) whilk testifieth what the world might haue looked for at your hands, if the Lorde had not prouided better for his poore Kirk. Your haill doc­trine is Antichristian as shall bee proven heereafter, your Kirk Babell, Reu 17 your Kingdome that second beast Reuel. 13.11 that hes two hornes like the Lambe & yet speakes like the dragon, and your head the man of sinne 2. Thessal. 2 , and Sonne of perdition. And ye are they that hes renewed old condemned heresies, and hes inuented new of your owne, as shall be proued afterward, by gods grace.

M. Iohn Welsche.

Say they, our religion is so ancient that it hes continued euer by a lineall succession of Pastoures and Bishopes, from the dayes of Christ & his Apost. till nowe, neuer interrupted, neuer spoken against, but of late since Martine Luthers daies: But yours, say they, is newlie forged, and invented, neuer harde tell of but since Luther and Caluines dayes. Therefore yours can not be the true Religion, and ours must be the on­lie true Religion.

M. Gilbert Browne.

This obiection consistes partlie of ane trueth, and partly of an vntrueth. It appeares be this that either M. Iohn knowes not our preeues, or if he dois he [Page 10] alteres the same that he may the better oppugne his owne inuention.

Our obiection, or rather ane of our prooues, whereby we prooue that we Catholickes is the onlie true Kirk of Christ, and hes the onelie truth in all things, is this.

We haue aboundantly set downe to vs by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy write, that the kingdome and Kirk of Christ shall neuer faill in this earth and that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it. But shall bee perma­nent for euer, and shall haue alwayes the presence and assistance of the fa­ther, sonne, and holy ghost, who shall teach it all trueth, and remaine with it for euer, as may be perceaued be thir places noted here, whilks wereouer longsome to be set downe at length. To the whilks I adioyne some of the an­cient fathers exponing the same.

Out of the olde testament.

Psal. 60.5. read. August. vpon this. Psal. 88. v. 1.2.3.4.5, 29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38. read August. on thir places, Psal 104. ver. 8. read Aug. Ps. 110.9. Esa. 9.7. read. S. Hierom. on Esa. 51.7.8. read S. Hier. on Esa. 54.8.9. read Hier on Esa. 55.3.13. Esa. 59.21. read Hier. on Ier. 3 [...].3.36 read Hier. on Ezec. 17.25.26. Dan. 2, 44, Dan, 7.14.27. Miche. 4.7.

Out of the new Testament.

Luc. 1.33. reade S. August. vpon the 109. Psalme. Math 10.18. reade heire Sainte Hierome vpon this place Luke. 22.32. Iohn. 14.16.17. Iohn. 17.18.19.20. Math, 28.20. 1 Tim. 3.15. Act. 5.39.

Some of the ancient fathers.

[...]f ye take fai­ling for an vtter ouerthrow of the Kirk of the elect, it is truth: but if you take it for [...]rring, and ap­plyes it to the vi­sible particular Kirks then it is false. Hilari. de Trinitat. lib. 7. August. de vtili. credent. ca, 87. Ambros, lib. 9. cap. 20. Chrysost. in sermo. de pente. Clem. Alex. lib. 6. strom. in the end.

And because the Scriptures and the ancient fathers of the primitiue Kirk concurres and agrees in ane vnitie. I would wish M. Iohn to consider the same, that the Kirk of Christ be all mens iudgements shall neuer faill, nor be interrupted nor broken.

M. Iohn Welsche his Replye.

I will followe your foot-steppes and firste answere to that parte whilk ye say is true, and then vnto that whilk ye say is false: And as to the firste, the grounde whilk ye laide downe wherevpon ye goe aboute to builde the trueth of your religi­on, is the Kirk of Christ shall neuer faill nor bee interrupted &c. Athenaeus dip­n [...]so phist lib. 1 [...]. It is recorded in histories of one Thrasilaus a frantick man among the Greekes. Whensoeuer hee sawe any ships arriue at the hauen of Athens, he thought them all his owne, and tooke ane inuentarie of their wares, and met them with great ioye. Euen so it is with you, where soeuer you see the [Page 11] name of the Kirk in the holy Scripture, and the promises of God made vnto the same, ye take all to be yours, and books the treasures of it: And boastes thereof as though they were your owne. Crying, the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile a­gainst it. It shall neuer faile. It hes alwayes the holye Ghoste to leade it in all trueth. To remoue you therefore out of the hauen and to giue euery marchant his owne ware, and his owne ship, and to set the Kirk it selfe in possession of the Kirk we must distinguish the name of the Kirk. The Kirk there­fore is taken some-times for the companie of the elect and chosen, whereof a parte is in heauen triumphing with Christ their Lorde; a parte heere in the earth fighting her battels, lying in her campe & awaiting for the victorie. And these are termed the invisible Kirk, because gods election cannot bee discerned by the iudgement of mans sensis or eyes, and we can not knaw wha are his chosen. And vnto this Kirk, that is, to the chosen appertaines all the promisses set downe in the scripture, and in them onlie are they fulfilled: Mat. 3.12. & 13 24.25 And sometimes it is taken for the company of them wha professes the true religion, wherein both the chaffe and the wheat; the popple and the good seede; the dregs and the wyne, the good and the euill are mixed together, the whilk suppose they be in the Kirk, yet they are not of the Kirk, no more nor the superflu­ous humors of the bodie are true and liuelie members there­of. So then if ye meane by the Kirk, The Kirk of the elect, and if ye meane by this, That it shall neuer faile nor bee interrupted, &c. onlie this, That it shall neuer be vtterlie abolished, but shall haue alwaies the presence of the halie Ghaist to lead her in all truth, yea and in all halinesse also, in safarre, as shal serue for her saluation: We grant that with you, Lib. 3. de Eccles. mili [...]. cap. 13 as Bellarmine con­fesseth of vs. And therefore he saieth, That many of their nomber spend but tyme, while as they goe about to proue that the Kirk heir be­neath absolutelie cannot perishe, or make absolute defection: for Cal­uine (sayeth hee) and the rest of the heretiques graunt that, but they speak and meane (saieth he) of the invisible Kirk. So if ye meane no farther but this, then Bellarmine telleth you that all the te­stimonies of scripture and fathers, that yee haue heaped vp [Page 12] heere to proue the same, is but to spend the time, and so are fetched as needlesse witnesses in a matter that is not doubt­some or called in question. And if yee had vnderstoode his language, ye needed not to haue combered your selfe in fet­ching of this mortar and stane, to builde vp your Babel: for this was not requyred at your hands. Genes. 11.7. with Apoc. 14.8. & 17 5. & 18.2. But because it is Babel whilk ye are bigging, a towre of confusion, therefore the lord hath sent sic a confusion of language amongst you that fewe of you vnderstands what another sayes, when some cryes for mortar, others brings stone. Bellarmine, the great maister-buil­der, cryes for proofes to prooue that the visible Kirk heir beneth can not erre, neither in the matters whilk are neidfull to saluation, nei­ther in the matters whilk are not neidfull, whilk she propones to be be­leeued, or to be done, whether they be doctrine contayned in the Scripture or extra scripturam, that is, not contained in the scripture. He cryes to prooue that, and ye cumber your self in bringing in a nom­ber of scriptures to proue that the Kirk shal alwaies remaine till the ende of the world, wheras in the examination of your proofes it will be found, that they wil go no further with you. But if ye meane of the visible Kirk, that it shall neuer faile, &c. that is, it shall neuer faile in doctrine, nor be interrupted in the same, not onelie in matters neidfull to saluation, but in all truth, as ye affirme of your Kirk, and as Bellarmine sayes, as hath bene saide before, If ye go this farre, as ye doe indeede, and as Bellarmine does, and your self must doe, if ye be a right defender of your Catholicke faith heere, or else there is no grounde whereupon ye can builde the puritie and trueth of your Kirk and religion. Then I say, that your ground is als false and erroneous, as the stuffe that yee builde vppon it, for both they haue failed, and hes beene interrupted, as shalbee prooued afterwarde. And marke this, Christian reader, as the Philistims Kirk wherein they praised their God, Iudg. 16 & moc­ked Samson the Lords seruand, had two cheef pillers wher­on the haill house leaned and was borne vp, so hes the Kirk of Rome two cheefe pillers, whereon the haill wecht of their Kirk & religiō hings: y^e one whereof is this, that the Kirk can not erre: the other that the Pope is the head of the kirk. Take [Page 13] 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 Kirk of God, when she was in her greater puritie and sinceri­tie, they are compelled to lay this as a grounde to holde all their errors on, that the Kirk of Christ cannot erre: So take this ground from them, their Kirk and religion cannot stand.

Now, as to the testimonies whilk ye quote out of the olde Testament, and out of the first of Luke, vers. 33. in the new te­stament, they onelie prooue that the Kirk and kingdome of Christ shall indure for euermore, and that his couenant made with her, is euerlasting. The whilk cannot exeeme the militāt Kirk from erring in points of doctrine, for both the chaffe & euil seed in the Kirk, that is, these that are called, but not cho­sen, may erre, and that to death and damnation, and yet his Kirk and kingdome, and his couenaunt, remaineth sure, stable, and inviolate: for the Lord onelie offers his couenant vnto them, and they through incredulitie reiect it, and so he is not bund to sanctifie or saue them, meikle-lesse to keip them from error. And as for these who are called & cho­sen, all these promises are made and performed in euerie one of them, and the couenaunt of God is so sure in euerie one of them, that our Sauiour sayes, None of them can perish. Ioh, 10.28 And yet for all this, euerie one of them may erre in doctrine, suppose not to death and damnation, whilk ye will not deny. And gif ye would, infinite examples not onlie of the Saints of God, of the laickes (as ye call them) but also of the Priests, Prophets, Apostles; yea, and of Popes also, and of your owne Doctours and Bishops, as a cloude of witnesses, would stand vp and a­vowe the same in your face. Nowe I gather, seeing that the militant Kirk heir on earth hath but two sorts of persons in her, these that are called and chosen, and these that are onelie called but not chosen, & both may erre in points of doctrine, the one finallie to death and damnation: the other may erre, suppose not finally to death and damnation, & yet the coue­naunt of God remaine sure, euerlasting, and inuiolate with [Page 14] his Kirk. Therefore, I say, the promises of the stabilitie of Christs kingdome, and the perpetuitie of his couenant made with her, cannot exeeme the militant Kirk from erring in points of doctrine: sa ye haue lost your vantguarde. Let vs cum to the rest, and see if they will fauour your cause any bet­ter nor the former hes done.

The next place ye quote is the 16. of Matthew, ver. 18. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will builde my Kirk, and the yets of hell shall not preuaile against it. And because ye trust that there is not a testimonie of scripture whilk shall feight mair for you nor this: let vs therefore try it to the vttermoste, and see how far it can be streatched out. What argument will ye frame out of this place? for, if you gather no more but this, Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against the Kirk that is builded on the rocke, that is, on Christ: Ther­fore the Kirk that is builded on him, shall neuer be alluterlie exstinguished and abolished by Satan. Then Bellarmine telles you that ye spend but time in proouing of this, for we graunt it, That the Kirk of the chosen shall neuer perishe. But if you go farther, and say: That the Kirk of Christ shall neuer erre, because Christ hath promised that the yettes of hell shall not preuaile against it: then, I say, either that exposition is false, or els y^e gates of hel shuld haue preuailed long since against your kirk: for whē it preuailed against y^e rock wheron the kirk was builded, it preuailed against the Kirk. For, raze & ouerturne the foundation of a house, the house cannot stand, seeing the standing of the house consists on the firmnesse and surenesse of the foundation thereof. Nowe the rocke whereon ye say the Kirk is builded vnto whome this promise is made, is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome, for so ye all with one consent expones the same. [...] mists annotation vpon this place. Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Kirk, as ye say, and the yets of hel hes preuailed against them, as I shall proue by the grace of God: it must followe, if your exposition be true, that the gates of hell hes preuailed, not once onlie, but at manie times against the Kirk. For, first Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine, when hee thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ, [Page 15] the kingdome of Christ not to be heauenlie but earthlie, Act. 1.6. not spirituall, but like the kingdomes of this world, proper to Is­rael, not common to all by vertue of the promise: and also he is commanded to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles, Act. 10.20 doubting nothing. Whilk testifies, that he doubted before whether the Gospell shuld be preached to them or not, & therefore erred in a matter of faith, & that after he had receaued y^e promise of y^e haly Gaist. Ac. 10.14 And also he erred in the abrogation of the Cere­moniall Lawe: for he beleeued that some meates were vn­cleane after the death and resurrection of Christ, and there­fore he refused to eate thereof. And this was a matter of faith also. And last of all, the halie Ghaist testifies, Galat. 2.11 that he went not a right foote to the truth of the Gospell, and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paule to his face. And as for them whome ye call his successors the Popes of Rome, not onlie may they be he­retickes, but also some of them haue bene heretickes. And therefore if your argument be good, the gates of hell both may, and haue preuailed against them. That they may be he­retickes, I wil fetche no other witnesses, but your owne coun­cils, Canons, Cardinals, and your owne Popes: for they shall be your iudges in this matter. Lib. 7. de Rom Pontif. cap. 30 Bellarmine sayes, that the Pope being a manifest hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, and to be head of the Kirk. De authoritate Papae, & Consilii cap. 20. & 21 Caietan a Cardinall saith, That the Pope beeing a manifest here­ticke, should be deposed by the Kirk. Lib. 4. part. 2. cap. 20 Iohannes de Turre cremata a Cardinall saieth, That when the Pope falles in heresie, he is deposed of God. Lib, 1. cap. 2 Alphonsus de Castro, saith that the Pope as he is a Pope may be an hereticke, and teach heresie, whilk also hath sometimes (saith he) faln out in them. Serm. 2. de consecr. Pontificis. Innocentius the 3. and Hadrian the 2. Popes, as also the 6. and 8. Synode, and their owne Canon Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa lawe, doe testifie, that they may be heretickes. And also Pope Ha­drian 6. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Romano Pontif. cap. 2.

And some of them haue bene heretickes also. Tertul. ad prax. Zepheri­nus a Montanist. Damasus & Consil. Sinues­sanum. Marcellinus, ane that sacrificed to deuils the idoles of the Gentiles. Athanas. in e­pist. ad solit. vita. Hieron. in catal. scrip. fascic temp aetate sexta. Hermannus contractus. Marianus Scotus compila­tio chronologies Supplementum chronie. Platina Liberius ane Arrian, that deny­ed the godhead of the son. Platina in [...] Anastas. & sup­plement chronic & distinct. 19. c [...] ­put Anastas [...]s falcic. tempor. Anastasius a fauorer of the Ne­storian heresie. Liberatus in Bre [...]atio, [...] Vigilius ane Eutychian, whose heresie was, that after the incarnation of Christ, there was but one nature [Page 16] in Christ, made of his diuinitie and humanitie, whilk ouer­throwes the foundation of our saluation. Honorius a Monothe lite, and therefore damned and accursed in the 6. counsell of Constantinople. Act. 13. Ocea [...]. in o­pere 93. dicrum. Adrian de confirmatione circa fi­nem. Gerson in sermone de pa­scha. Iohn the 22. held that the soules of the blessed being separate from their bodie, did not see the Lord before the resurrection. Sessione 11. Concilii Con­stan. Iohn the 23. denyed eternal life, whereof he was accused, and deposed in the councill of Constance. Sessione 34. Eugenius the 4. deposed in the counsell of Ba­sile for heresie. I omit the rest. Seing then these whome ye call the rock and foundation of your kirk haue erred, & that in matters of doctrine & religion, and in the principal points thereof, and that by the testimonies both of the scripture, & of your owne councils, doctors, Cardinals, and Popes. Ther­fore, if your argument hald forth, then, I say, the gates of hell hath preuailed against your kirk, because they haue preuailed against the rocks & foundations thereof, for they haue erred as hath bene prooued, the whilk, I trowe, ye will not graunt. And therefore, the farthest that ye can gather heir, is but this: That the gates of hell, that is, the power of condemnation shall not katischyousin, that is, totallie and finallie ouercome: so that suppose they may ischyousin, that is, be strong, & make them to fail in manie things, yet they cannot preuaile totally and finallie against the kirk of God, that is, the elect and cho­sen, who are builded, not on the Pope, but on the immoueable rock the Lord Iesus. I say further, this promise is made and performed in euerie one of the elect: For, the yettes of hell shall not preuaile, that is, get the finall and full victorie ouer anie of them. And therefore our Sauiour sayes, None of my sheep shall perishe, [...]ob. [...]0. [...] and yet ye will not deny, but euerie one of the e­lect may erre. Therefore this promise doth not priuiledge the kirk of God from erring, but the chaffe and euill seede, that is, these that are called and not chosen, may erre, and erre fi­nallie, [...] 7 because this promise is not made vnto them, for they are not builded vpon this Rock: but vpon the sand: for none is builded vpon this Rock, but these who are blessed, and heareth the worde, and doeth it, as our Sauiour testifies. And the good seede whilk are these that are called and chosen, may erre, [Page 17] suppose not finallie and totallie.

The next place whilk ye quote, Matth. 26. is that prayer of Christ for Peter, Luc. 22.32. But I haue prayed for thee that thy saith saile not. It is true he prayed: It is true also that Peter faith fayled not: but yet it swouned, as it were, when he denyed his Lord and that by mainswering and cursing of himself: and yet he erred, both in the qualitie of Christs kingdome, Act. 1. & 10 Gal. 2 in the calling of the Gentiles, and in the abrogation of the Ceremonial law: as also, he went not rightlie to the truth of the Gospell, as hes bene proued. So this prayer was not that he should be kept absolutelie from all erring, for then it shall follow, that Christ obteined not that whilk he prayed for: seing he erred (whilk is impious to think) but that his faith should not decay final­lie and totallie. Secondlie, the Lord Iesus prayed also for all the beleeuers, Ioh. 17.18.19.20. whilk place ye also quote, and yet there is not one of the beleeuers but they may erre, as your selues cannot deny, & we haue proued by examples of your owne Popes: for if any were exeemed from erring, in your iudgement it should be these that are the foundation of your kirk, whilk ye call your Popes, but they may erre, and haue erred, as hes bene proued. Thirdlie, I say, it wil not fol­lowe, Christ prayed for Peters faith that it should not faile: Therefore he prayed for the Popes, whome ye will haue to be successors to Peter, that their faith should not faile (for that is the thing ye would be at) for their faith hes failed. 1. Timoth 4 For if by faith ye vnderstand the doctrine of the faith of Christ, as it is taken sometimes in the Scripture, then I say your owne Doctors, canons, councils, cardinals, and Popes themselues as they haue bene cited before, testifies that not onlie they may erre, but also that some of them haue erred, and haue beene hereticks. And if by that faith whilk our Lord prayed for, ye vnderstand that lyuelie faith, that embraces the promises of Gods mercie in Christ, whilk works by loue, & shawes forth the self by good works: Rom. 3.25 Galat, 5.6. 1. Iohn 2.4 as by keeping of Christs commande­ments, and by louing ane another: Then I say, your own wri­ters, friends, fauourers, & cardinals testifies of them, Platin, Gene­brard, Cran [...] in that they haue gone from Peters steps, that they gote the Popedome by bryberie & [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] [...] [Page 19] barganing with the Diuell, That they were monstrous & prodigious men yea, rather beasts and monsters. So that of all men that euer pro­fessed the faith of Iesus, they haue failed moste foullie in that lyuelie faith, as I haue prooued in another place concerning the Antichrist.

As to that place whilk ye quote in the 14. of Iohn, ver. 16. and 17. Where the Spirite of Christ is promised to the Apostles, to dwell with them, and to remaine with them for euer: and in the 16. chap. ver. 13. that he shall lead them in all trueth. I answere. First, that was the Apostles prerogatiue, the maister-builders of the kirk of Christ, that in writing and teaching the doctrine of saluacion, they should bee led in all trueth, and in none euer since promised nor performed in that high measure. Second­lie, this promise of the spirit of trueth to dwell and remaine in them for euer, and to lead them in all truth, is made and performed in al the beleeuers, in so farre as may sanctifie them and saue them: & yet ye wil not denie, but that euerie one of the beleeuers may erre. Therefore this promise will not reach so farre as to keip the kirk from impossibilitie of erring.

As to that place in the 17. of Iohn, I answered to it before.

As to the 28. of Matthew, I will bee with you to the ende of the worlde, I answere the same thing to it, whilk I answered to the former: that this promise is made, not to any visible and ordi­nar succession, (for that is to tye the promises of God to per­sons & places) but to the Pastors of the kirk whome he sends forth, and to all the faithfull: and is performed in them in so farre forth as may saue them, and inable them for his worke. But yet this will not exeeme them from all possibilitie of er­ring.

As to that in the 1. Tim. 3. ver. 15. the kirk is called the pil­ler and ground of truth, therefore ye gather, It cannot erre. First, I wil aske you to whome the Apost. speakes so, & vpon what occasion he speakes it? Ye must say, To Timothie, that he might know how to behaue himself in the house of God, 1. Timoth 3.14 whilk is the Kirk: for so the Apost. wrytes. Then I aske, Is not that kirk wherein Timothy should haue behaued himself, called the ground & piller of truth? So the Scripture calles it, and ye cannot deny it. Nowe this [Page 18] kirk was the kirk of Ephesus, then the kirk of Ephesus is called the ground and piller of truth. But first, the kirk of Ephesus fell from her first loue, and the Candle-sticke is threatned to be remoued from her, Reuel. 2.5 vnlesse she repent: She did not repent, but in time became worse and worse, and so heaped fault vpon fault, till Christ hath now remooued his candle-sticke from her, and delyuered her o­uer to darknes and death, by taking his owne elect to him­self, and giuing ouer the reprobate that hated the truth to the blindnesse of their owne minde: so that cietie is left desolace to the impietie of Mahomete, and she that was once called by Gods Spirit the piller and ground of truth, hath now lost the truth. Now, I say, that whilk may befall one kirk, may befall anie other kirk. Then that whilk is befallen to the kirk of E­phesus, may befall any other: But the kirk of Ephesus was first craised, and then by little and little quyte ouerthrowne: and beeing bereft of the light of Christ, is nowe a kirk no longer. Therefore, I say, that there is no kirk on the face of the earth, howsoeuer they flatter themselues with glorious styles of Ca­tholick, pillers and ground of the truth: whose bodie, that is, the elect and chosen in it, may not bee ouershadowed with darknesse, and ouertaken with faintnesse: whose chaffe, that is, the hypocrites in it, may not bee haillilie consumed with rottennesse and destruction, and whose whole frame and out­ward gouernment, may not loose both their strength & bew­tie. Thirdlie, I say, If the kirk cannot erre, as ye say, because it is the ground and piller of truth: and if the kirk of Ephesus be called the piller & ground of truth, as the scripture sayes; and seeing the kirk of Ephesus with all the kirkes of the East, (as ye cannot deny) hath condempned the Popes supremacy as heresie: Therefore one of these two must follow, either that the kirk, that is, the piller and ground of the truth, not onely may erre but hes erred, or els it is an heresie cōdempned ma­nie hūdred years agoe, that the Pope is the head of the kirk, & so Papistrie is heresie. Iudg ye whilk of these ye wil choose. Laste of all, I say, Philip. 2.16 the kirk is called the piller and ground of trueth, because it is her office and dutie to holde out the worde of trueth, as lanternes and lights, by preaching it and practising it; as [Page 21] the Priest is called the Messinger of the Lord of Hostes, Malac. 2.7. because his lips should preserue knowledge, and declare the message of God. But as there was Priests whilk shewe not foorth the message of God, but caused manie to erre in the law, and corrupted the coue­nant of Leui: so there may be kirks, and haue bene, whilk haue not vpheld, and maintained the truth, but haue fallen there­from.

Nowe I come to your last testimonie of Scripture, Act. 5.39. In that counsell of Gamaliel to the councill of the Scribes and Pharisies, that if the doctrine of the Apostles be of God, that it cannot be destroyed. What do ye gather heere? That the truth doth remaine for euer? Bellarmine telleth you, that ye spend but time in prouing that, for we graunt it vnto you. It cannot (I graunt) be destroied, but yet it can be persecuted and re­mooued out of places where it was before, and obscured and corrupted by mens glosses and traditions, as it hath bene this thousand and fiue hundreth yeares by the Iewes, to whome this was spoken. That if the doctrine of the Apostles was of God, they could not destroy it: and yet (as was saide) they banished it, and made the Lord to depriue them thereof, and to giue them ouer to the blindnesse and hardnesse of their hearts, because they would not embrace the trueth when it was offered.

Seeing then there is not a sillab in Gods word, that wil vp­holde this maine foundation of your kirk, (that the Kirk can­not erre) take heede to your self, (M. Gilbert) in tyme: & build not the damnation of your owne soule and the damnation of the soules of manie others, vpon a point of doctrine that hath not God to beare witnesse to it in the whole scripture. I might end heere, but because this point, (as I said before) is the main piller that vpholdes the whole weight of their kirk and religi­on: therefore I will vtterlie ouerthrowe the same, and I will proue out of the worde of God that the kirk in all ages, both may erre, Marc. 10.18. Rom 3.4.9 10.11 12. & 19. ver. & hes erred. And first the Scripture testifies, that it is onlie proper to God alone by nature to be perfitelie holy, and true and free from all errors. And contrariwise man by nature is vnholie, a lyar, prone to deceaue, and to be decea­ued: [Page 20] so that by nature he is nothing else but a masse of blind­nesse and corruption: so that the light he hath, he hath it by free grace, by Gods Spirit, to make him see so meikle of his light in the face of Christ, as may saue him. But yet so long as they are in this house of clay, they see but in part: 1. Cor. 13.12. and that part whilk they see, is but obscurelie and dimlie, as the Apostle speakes. So that as long as they are in this worlde, they are subiect to sinne, ignorance, and errors. But as there are two sorts of men in the visible Kirk: some called and chosen, some called, and not chosen: and as in the diseases of the body some are curable, whereof men recouers, some are deadlie whereof men dyes: So is it in the errors of the militant Kirk, some are deadlie, & some are curable. The chosen that are called may erre but their errors are nor deadlie, as the errors of the Act. 1.6. Act. 10 Act. 11. Galat. 2 Reuel. 19. & 22 A­poles were, they recouered by grace from them. The called that are not chosen, may erre and erre deadlie, and neuer re­couer: as these of whome 1. Iohn 2.1 [...] Iohn speakes: They went out from vs (sayes he) because they were not of vs, &c. Now seeing the visible Kirk heir beneath stands but of these two sorts, to wit, of these that are called and chosen, and these that are called but not chosen, and both may erre. Therefore it is manifest, that the Kirk militant heir beneath, may erre. And to prooue this more amplie, that she hes erred before the Law, vnder the law in Christs time, and after Christ. First, Adam being made in perfite holinesse and integritie, how foullie did he erre when contrarie Gods commandement, giuing more credite to the Diuell nor to his maker, he brake that first couenant. For, Contra Marcio­nem lib. 1 Ter­tullian sayes Who wil doubt to call Adams fall ane heresie? Nowe if Adam in his full light did not stand but so foullie erred, whilk is he that is come forth of his loynes, borne in ignorance and blindnesse, that dare challenge this prerogatiue to himselfe, Genes. 4 that he cannot erre, except the man of sin and sonne of per­dition: that is the Popes of Rome. Now, he being thrust out of Paradice hath two sons: the elder Cain, for the murther of his brother is accursed of God, and the author of the Syna­gogue of Babel, that is the wicked. The Kirk of God remay­ned in the posteritie of Seth, Genes. 5 and at the last Religion began to [Page 23] be so prophaned, that at length it grew to sik a height, that Religion being contracted onelie in the familie of Noah, it could be punished with no lesse nor with ane vniuersall Genes. 6 destruction of all liuing creatures by the floode, except onely these y^t were preserued in the Arke with him. Of Noahs 3, chil­dren two of them fel, both themselues & their posterity. The true Kirk and Religion remained in the familie of Sem. And neither were they free from Idolatrie, God calling Genes. 12 Abra­ham out of his owne countrie, seruing Iosu 24.2. & 3 strange gods. His el­dest sonne Ismael being Genes. 21.12 Genes. 25.23 Genes. 31.34. & 35.2. circumcised, is commanded to bee casten out of the Kirk of God. Isaac hes two sonnes, the elder is refused, the youngest is chosen, and so the elder with his posteritie fel away. Iacobs familie was not cleane neither from Idolatrie, being polluted with strange gods by his wife Rabel, till he clensed his house. And as for his posteritie, what stif­neckednes, what rebelliō, vvhat idolatrie vvas amongst thē, so that no threatning, no blessing, no correctiō nor teaching, could keepe them in the puritie of Gods worship and religi­on. Exod. 32. In the Kirk vnder the Lawe, the people are Idolaters, the hie-priest Aaron the maker of the Idole to the people. In the time of the Iudges after the death of Iosua, Iudges 1.12.13 they vvorship­ped Baal and strange gods, and euerie man did that vvhilk seemed good in his owne eies, vvhen there was not a king in Israel vvhilk vvas verie oft in these daies, and therefore they are giuen ouer to the crueltie and tyrannie of their enemies round about them. 1. Samuel, 3.1 Proverb. 29.18 1. Chro. 13.3. In the time of Heli, there was no open vision. And Salomon sayes, where there is no visiō the people perish. In Sauls time the Arke of the Lord was not sought, and so there wan­ted a cheefe parte of the publike vvorship of God: for God vvas consulted at the Arke. And in the time of Salomon in his old age, vvhen his heart was turned from the Lord, the Scripture testifies, 1. Kings 12 that they forsooke the Lord, & worshipped strange gods of the Ammonites. Such like in the time of Rehoboam Salomons sonne, Iuda committed Idolatrie, and builded hic places, wherein they worshipped contrary to Gods commandemēt. Iehoram King of Iuda, 2. Kings 14.22.23. 2. Chro. 21.11 & [...].10 [...] made Iuda and Ierusalem to commit spirituall fornication and Idolatrie, as the house of Ahab [Page 22] made Israel to commit idolatrie. Seing then the worship of God was corrupted both in Iuda and in Israel, and there was na other visible Kirk is vpon the earth, except in Iuda and Israel, will it not followe then, that all the particular Kirk is on the earth may erre, and fall also to idolatrie? Siclike in the time of Ahaz, 2 King. 16.10 11. &c a strange altar is placed in the temple of the Lorde, at the commandement of the king, by Vriah the Priest: & the king with the whole people at the kings com­mandement, offers vppon that aultar, and the aultar of the Lord is remoued out of his place. In the time of Ioash, 2. Chro. 24.8 both the king and the nobilitie forsakes the house of the Lord and worships Idoles, so that the hote wrath, of the Lord was kind led against Iuda and Ierusalem for their idolatrie. Siclyke in the time of Achaz, he made hie places in all the corners of Ie­rusalem, and in all the cities of Iuda, 2. Chro. 28 & there burned incense to strange gods. In the time of Menashe, the whole publike worship of God was so defaced, and idolatrie so vniuersallie set vp, that the scripture testifies, Iuda sinned more hainouslie nor the verie nations did, whome the Lord cast out before their face. 2. Chr. 33.9 The whole hoste of heauen was worshipped in stead of the true God. I beseek thee (Reader) to read this chapter, and there thou shall finde that there was not sa meikle as ane outward face of a Kirk at that time. Yea, 2. King. 12.3.4 2. King. 14, 4 in the verie time of good kings, as Ioash, and Amatzia, who both in the beginning em­braced the worship of God, but yet made defection in the end. The hic places were not remoued, whilk was ane error in the worship of God. The scripture testifies that the feast of the Passeouer was not kept so preciselie, 2, Chro, 35, 18 according to the word of God since the dayes of Samuel, no not in the reigne of the best kings, as it was in the 18. yeare of Iosias, and there was 400. yeares and more betwene. Nehem. 8, 18 Also the scripture testi­fies, that y^e feast of the Tabernacles was not so kept, as it was thē, since the dayes of Iosua, whilk was more nor 1000. years. And all the time of the captiuitie, where was there any pub­like face of the Kirk of God, with his publik worship vncor­rupted in all things as the Lord commanded it? As concer­ning the kingdome of Israel from the time of their renting a­sunder [Page 24] by Ieroboam from the Kingdome of Iuda, they neuer had the worship of God in integritie: but first worshipped God in the places where they shoulde not haue worshipped him, and after ane other manner, and by other Priestes, nor they were commanded. Next, they fell to the worshipping of Idoles, till they were transported out of their land, and scat­tered vpon the face of the earth. What, shall I pursue the sayings of the Prophets, howe the onelie visible Kirk in the world is called an harlote? Esai. 1. Ier. 7 Esai. 57.10.11 Ho [...]a 2 the Temple a denne of theeues: the Prophetes all blinde guides, and dumb dogs that cannot bark.

Nowe, when God of his infinite mercie sent his onelie be­gotten sonne in the world, the light, the life, the saluation of the world, what did the Kirk and the Cleargie, the Scribes & the Pharisies that sate in the Mat 23 chaire of Moses? Surely Christ had none so great enemies, as they were, who were the Do­ctors, the lights, the successors of Aaron, to whome the lawe was concredited. When Christ testified of himself that hee was the light of y^e world, they said, his Ioh. 8.13 testimony was not true. When others beleeued in him, they said Ioh. 7.47 they were deceiued. They ordaine Ioh. 9.22 that if any man should confesse Christ, he should be excommunicate. So that Ioh. 12.42 many that did beleeue in him durst not for them confesse him. They Luk. 6.7 watched him of purpose that they might haue matter of accusation against him. And when he cast out diuels, the Marc. 3 22. Scribes and the Mat [...]. [...].24. Pharisies saide that he did cast out deuils by Beelzebub the prince of deuils. Luk. 23.2. They said they found him a man peruerting the nation, and forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar. They Marc. 14.64. condemne him in a solemne coun­cil as worthy of death. Yea, as Christ testifies of them, Math. 23.13. they neither entred in the Kingdome of heauen themselues, nor suffered others to enter in. And yet they are these that if ye looke to their an­tiquitie, they haue their beginning from Abraham: if to their succession, they succeeded to Aaron: if to their callings, they were Scribes and Pharisies, Math. 23 and sate in the chaire of Moses: If to the place, it was the house of God. If to the people whome they taught, they were the onelie people of God. If to their prerogatiues, to them appertained the adoption, and the glorie, & the couenant, Rom 9.4 & 5. and the giuing of the lawe, and the seruice of God, and the [Page 25] promises, of whome are the Fathers, and of whome is Christ according to the fleshe, who is God ouer all blissed for euer, Amen. And if ye will looke to their Councel, 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 Lawe, (as some of you sayes) But first, Moses did write of Christ, Iohn. 5. [...]6. Rom 10.4. and Christ is the end of the Law: So that if they had not erred in exponing of the Lawe, they had not erred in the person of Christ, because the Lawe testified of Christ, and he was the end of it. Next, Math. 5. the Scripture testifies that they erred in ex­poning of the Lawe, that they both brake the Lawe, and teached others so to doe. And therefore Christ sayes, Math. 5.20. Except your righteous­nesse exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisies, ye cannot enter in the Kingdome of heauen. For, whereas the Lawe of God counts hatred murther, and lust adultery, and rash swearing vnlawfull swearing, and our enemies our neighbours, whom we ought to loue and to doe good vnto: They by the con­trary taught that our friends was onlie our neighbors whom we should loue, Vers 43. and therefore they said that we should hate our enemies: that hatred was not the breaking of the sixt com­mand, and lust no breaking of the 7. command: and rashe swearing, no breaking of the third command. And therefore the Lord Iesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew, doth vindicat the true meaning of the cōmandements from their fals ex­positions. And he testifies of them that they did abrogate the Lawe of God through their traditions, Math. 15.6. and so in vaine they worshipped God, teaching for Gods Lawe (whilk he calles doctrine) mens precepts, whilk he prooues there by an example of abrogating & an­nulling of that dutie whilk we owe to Father and Mother, commanded vs in the fifth commandement, by their tradi­tion. And therfore he giues charge to his Disciples to bewar of the leauen (that is the doctrine) of the Pharisies. Seing thē they who had their ordinary succession from Aaron, erred: Math. 16 6, 10. how can the Doctors of your Kirk, yea, your Popes be priuiledged from erring? But it may be ye graunt all this; for how can ye de­nie it? That the Kirk before the Lawe, vnder the Lawe, in [Page 26] the time of Moses, in the time of the Iudges, in the time of the Kings, in the time of the captiuitie, and in the time of Christ erred: but yet the Christian Kirk hes greater priuiledges & promises that it cannot erre. Let vs examine this also, whe­ther the Christian Kirk be priuiledged from erring, or not. And certainlie, if any Christian Kirk, at any time had this praerogatiue, appearandlie the primitiue Kirk whilk was in the dayes of Christ and of his Apostles should haue had it. But they had it not. Therfore what Kirk since vnder heauen can challenge it? For, in the time of Christs suffering the A­postles & Disciples, who onlie then were the Christian Kirk yea, after that they had bene Apostles, and after that they had bene sent to preach the Gospel, and worke miracles, yet at that time, did they not erre in the article of Christs resur­rection? Matth. 10 Act 1.6 Act 11 Act 10 Gal. 2 Alex. Habensis in 3. parte quest. v [...]t. art 2. & Iohan. de Turre Crem. in lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 30. 1. Cor. 3 & in lib. 3. cap. 61 and erred they not concerning the estate of Christs kingdome after the resurrectiō? And cōcerning the teaching of the Gentiles, after that they had receiued the holy Ghost And Peter himself, as hath bene showne. And sundrie Papists sayes that true saith remained onlie in the hart of Marie in the time of Christs suffering, was not heir then an vniuersall erring? Now to goe forward did not the Kirk of the 1. Cor. 3 & 11 & 15 Corinthians erre in building hay & stubble on the foundatiō & in the vse of the Lords Supper, & some of them also concerning the resurre­ction of the dead? And the Kirk of Galat. 1. & 3 Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospell, and in ioyning the Cere­monies of the Lawe with grace in iustification? And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius (who denied Christ to be the sonne of God aequall to his father) spred the self so far that it is testified that the Bishops of the haill warld became Arri­ans, Theodo. hist. Ec­cles. lib. 2 and Hie [...]d al contra Lucis. cap 7. & in c [...]on. [...]thanas. ep [...]st de Synod. A [...]. & Scleue. that the haill warlde did grieue and wonder at it selfe that it was becum ane Arrian. What will ye say vnto all the Christian Kirks of the East, Grecia, Asia & Africa, Kirks planted by the Apostles: I meane not now of them that hes professed Maho­metisme but of thē that admits the scripture, acknowledges Christ their Sauiour who hes their ordinar succession of Pa­triarckes and Bishops aswell as your Kirk of Rome hes, who in nomber far exceeds these Kirks whilk acknowledges [Page 27] your Pope to be the head of the Kirk. For first yours is but in Europe, except ye will claime to the newe found land, & not all Europe, for all the Kirks in Greece, whilk is a great part of Europe, acknowledges not your supremacie. Nowe take the Greeke Kirks from you, next the reformed Kirks in Scotland England, Germanie, Denmarke, France, Zea­land, Holland, and other places, whilk hes gone out of Ba­bel, whilks are all in Europe, your nomber will not be many that acknowledges your supremacie. And next take all A­sia and Africa from you, whilk is the two part of the worlde, your nomber will be small in comparison of these that are a­gainst your supremacie. Nowe all these detests your supre­macie as tyrannie, and the worship of Images, your transub­stantiation in the Sacrament, the Communion vnder one kinde, the single life of Priests. Either therefore ye muste graunt that the greatest nomber of Christian Kirks hes er­red and does erre, or else that your Romane Kirk does erre and your supremacie, yea your religion whilk depends vpon your supremacie is the head of heresie. But it may be ye will say, that all vther Christian Kirks may erre, but that it is on­ly proper to your Kirk not to erre. First therefore, let mee aske at you what can be the cause of that singular priuiledge whilk the Kirk of Rome hes beside all vther Kirks whilk e­uer hes bene, is, or shalbe? Yea, aboue Adam when he was in his integritie (for he erred:) yea, aboue the Angels, for they remayned not in the trueth. Aboue the Patriarckes, Abraham, Iohan. 8 I­saac and Iacob, yea, aboue Aaron, & the Kirk in the wildernes aboue the Kirk vnder the Lawe, yea, aboue the Apostles, & Peter himself before Christs suffering, in the time of his suffe­ring, after the resurrection, after the receiuing of the holie Ghost: for they erred in all these times, yea, aboue the Chri­stian Kirks that hes beene founded by the Apostles aswell as yours: that had the promise, the couenant, the seruice of god once in as great puritie as euer yours had, that hes their or­dinar succession, their antiquitie, their vocation ordinar as­well as yours hes vnto this day. Great surelie must be that priuiledge giuen vnto the Kirk of Rome that hes exeemed [Page 28] her from errour, all by hauing erred. What is then your pre­rogatiue aboue all other Kirks. I knowe that ye will say be­cause of Peters chaire that was there wherein the Popes sits after him. First, then if Peters chaire hes such an prerogatiue that the Pastors who sits in it and the Kirk that cleaues to it. can not erre. I think surely the Lords chaire whilk was at Ie­rusalem, whilk was called the Temple and seat of God, and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharises sate should ra­ther haue that prerogatiue to freeth the Kirkes and Pastors sitting in these chaires from erring, yea the kirk whilk the trueth it selfe Iesus Christ founded whom he taught with his owne mouth, and among whom he was crucified shuld with far greater right clame to that prerogatiue. But since al their seats hes erred, for the Temple became a den of theeues: The Scribes and Pharises that sate in Moses chaire condemned the Lord of glorie: and Ierusalem it selfe cried out Crucifie crucifie him. And the christian Kirk gathered there are long since far from the way of saluatiō. So that if neither the chair of God, nor Moses freed the Kirk of the Iewes frō erring, nor the chaire of Christ freed the christian Kirk there gathered from erring. How then can Peters chaire haue this preroga­tiue aboue them al as to exeeme that Kirk and Pastors that sits therein from possibilitie of erring? What is this but to prefer him before them all, whose seat hes a priuiledge that neither God nor his sonnes, nor Moses seat had? O high blas­phemie to be detested and abhorred of all christian hartes. But let vs see if it hes this prerogatiue whilk they ascriue vnto it, or not. And first if it could haue exemid any from er­ring, should it not haue exemed himself especially from er­ring? But as it hes bene showen he erred. Therfore it can not exeeme neither his successors, Act. 1.6. Gal. 2 nor yet the Kirk that ac­knowledges them, from erring. Secondly if it had exeemed any Kirk from erring, should it not haue exeemed the Kirk of Antiochia especially, for surely Antiochia hes better right to clame to this prerogatiue, Galat. 2 11. nor your Kirk hes. For first it was Peters first seat. Next the Scripture bears witnes to it, that he was there. But neither was Rome Peters first seate, nor is [Page 20] there so much as a sillabe in al the scriptures, to proue that e­uer Peter was in Rome. But suppose Peter was there (for we wil not examine this now) whether is this prerogatiue (not to erre) giuen to your head, that is, to the Popes, or to the bodie, that is, the people, or to both? If ye say to the heade, (as ye doe indeede,) then what will yee answere to your owne writers and Fathers, to your owne councels and Popes. To your owne cannon law, affirming that Popes may erre and bee heretickes and should be deposed, and are deposed when they are mani­fest heretickes (as hes beene proued before.) And what will yee say to your Popes that hes beene heretickes indeede, one of them an Arrian, another an Eutychian, the thirde an Nestorian, the fourth a Montanist, the fift deposed as an heretick. The sext denying that the soules of the children of God sawe Gods face whill after the resurrection. The seuenth denying life euerlasting, and others giuing themselues ouer in the hands of the Deuill for the Popedome, others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their prede­cessors. Others sik monsters and beasts, so cruell to the dead and to the liuing, that your owne friends calles them monsters and affirmes of one Iohn the 12. o [...] after some the 13 car. Tu [...]ecre summa de eccles. li. 2. c. 103. of them that the deuill shot him through whill he was abusing another mans wife, and so dyed with­out repentance. Dare you say, and would ye haue the salua­tion of mens soules, to leane to this poynte of doctrine that they cannot erre which is the rocke and foundation of your Kirk, whilk aboue all others hes erred most foullie. O mali­cious and cruell man that woulde deceaue the poore flocke of Iesus Christ, for whome he shed his blood, with such here­sie & abhomination. Then this prerogatiue is not graunted to your Popes the heade and foundation of your Kirk. And surely if the foundation may be turned vp side downe, and the head may become sensles and deade, I see not howe the house can stande, and the bodie can bee whole, and one of your greatest Papistes Bellarmine plainely confesseth, that if the Pope erre, of necessitie, tota ecclesia errabit. That is, Lib. 4. de Rom. pontifice cap. 3. the whole Kirk shall erre. Vpon the whilk I reason, If the Pope may erre, and hes erred, then the whole Kirk may erre, and hes erred: (so Bellarmine one of the learndst papists that euer was, writ:) [Page 30] But the first hes bene proued by your owne Doctors, Cardi­nals, Popes, councels, cannon law: Ergo, by your own doc­trine the whole Kirk may erre. Here we might stay now and goe no further: for this sufficiently ouerthrowes this poynt of your doctrine, that the Kirk cannot erre, & that be the con­fession of the learnedst of your side. But yet I will persew the rest. If you say it is granted to the body, then it is either gran­ted to the people or to the Clergie. To the people, I trowe ye will not; for if your Popes may erre, much more may your people erre: And if he Apostles & other famous Kirks may erre, much more may your people erre: yea, if not, it should followe that your people were aboue their head the Pope, whilk I trowe ye will not say. If yee say the Clergie, then ey­ther it must be your Doctors seuerally by themselues, or as they are gathered together in a councell. But as they are se­uerall ye will not say. For your Bellarmines controuersies would conuince you to the face: for almost there are few controuersies whilk he handles (and he handles more nor 300) but hee brings in some of your owne writers dissenting from him, and whome in many places he confutes. And I think if Popes hes not this priuiledge, surely the Doctors of your Kirk seuerally hes not this priuiledge. But because (as Bellarmine confesseth if a generall councell erre, then the whole Kirk maye erre, [...]ib. 2, de author concil. cap. 11 for it represents the whole Kirk. And therefore hee brings this in as a reason to proue (that generall councels can not erre, because the whole Kirk can not erre, for (saith he) the general councell represents the whole Kirk, therefore it can not ere. Let vs ex­amine this: for if it be found that generall councels may erre surely your cause is gone. First then what will ye say to thir­teene generall councels whereof seuen is vtterly reiected, and the other six are in part allowed, and in part reiected, whilk al hes erred as Bellarmine confesseth. De conci [...]s lib. 1 cap. 6 & 7 But it may be you answer that these was not approued by the Popes of Rome, & therefore they might erre, Bellarm. lib. [...] cap. 2 & 5 and hes erred, but these coun­cels that are altogether allowed of him can not erre, nor hes not erred. Indeed it it true that this is your doctrine that nei­ther generall nor prouinciall councell can erre that is allowed by the [Page 31] Pope, & that generall councels lawfullie conuened may erre, vnles they followe the instructions of the Pope. Cap. 11 And therefore Bellarmine sayes that they may erre three māner of waies, 1. in defyning of anything the fathers of the councel dissent from the Popes legates. 2. If it be a­gainst the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the legates of the councell agree together. 3. They may erre before they haue receiued the Popes confirmation and iudgement, suppose all both fathers and le­gates consent together, because (sayth hee) the Popes iudgment is the last from the whilk no man may appeall, and he may approue and dis­proue the generall councell notwithstanding of their consent with his owne legates. And therefore he sayes in another place that the whole strength or certainty of lawfull councels depends only of the Pope. Lib, 4. de Rom. Pout side cap, 3 So then this is your last refuge. All depends on his instructi­on & confirmation, he hes a priuiledge that he can not erre and the generall councels receiues the same through his ap­probation and confirmation. But I answere: The Pope can giue no greater prerogatiue to others, nor he hes himselfe: But (as hath bene proued before) the Popes may erre, and haue beene hereticks: Therefore they cannot giue this pre­rogatiue to others. And if ye will say (as some of you does) that the Pope suppose he may erre priuatly as he is a priuat man, & as a priuat teacher, yet he cannot erre as he is Pope in his office iudiciallie. Whereunto I answere firste, That some of your owne Kirk, as De potestate Ecclesiae Gerson and Almane, Lib, 1, cap, 2 contra here. Al­phonsus de Castro, Loci Theolog lib, 6. cap, 1 Canus, and Pope Adrian the sext: all these teaches That the Popes may erre and teach heresie as they are Popes: Either therefore the Popes may erre as they are Popes iudi­ciallie, and teach heresie, or else not onlie these Doctors of your owne Kirk, but also the Pope himself hes erred, & that in a point of doctrine: and so howe euer it be, the Popes as they are Popes, iudicially may erre in points of doctrine. Se­condly, I say, besides nine Popes whilk haue bene hereticks, and that when they were Popes, sundrie of them hes made decrees not only contrary to Gods word, but also contrary one to another, and that in matters of doctrine. As for ex­ample. Pope c, laudabilem de conversione insidelium and Alphonsius a Pa­pist confesse [...] that this Pope erred in desining a matter of faith, and Lyes he saw this decreet ex­tant in the olde Decretals aduer. here [...]. lib, 1. cap. 4. Celestine the third made a decree that when of maried persons the one falles in heresie, the marriage is dissolued, and [Page 32] the Catholicke partie is free to marrie againe, Math 6. Math 9 9. contrary to the trueth of God. And also contrary to the lib. 4 decretal. cap Quanto decreet of Pope Innocentius the third. Thirdly, either your Cannon Law erres, or els Causa 12. quest 1. Dilectissimis Clements decreit that all things should be common, and that wiues also should be common. Gelasius De conscerat. cap. Competi­mus Pope affirmes that the mysterie of the bodie and blood in the Sacrament cannot be deuided & that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind onlie without great sacriledge: and yet the Councell of Trent hes decreed the con­trary, and the whole Romane Kirk practises the contrary. Pope Dist. 50. cap. Qu semel Martine decreed that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may neuer be admitted to anie degree of the Priest-hoode againe. Pope Distinct. 82. cap. Qui [...] Syricius, & Pope Distinct. 82. cap Presbyter Calixtus hes decreed the cōtrary. Pope Gregorie the thirde hee permits one to haue two wiues if the first be siklie, Decret causa 32. quest. 7. c Quod prop [...]su sti contrarie both to the gospell [...]atth. 19 and to ane other Dec [...]tal [...]b 4. tit. 9. cap. Quoni­am decreet of the cannon lawe. Pope Dist. 40. cap. A quodam Iudaeo Nicholas saith, that that Baptisme which is ministred without expresse mention of the three persons of the Trinitie, is firme & sure ynough. But Pope Dist eadem de consecrat. cap. in Synodo Zacharie hes decreed the contrarie. All these decreites are set downe in their cannon law, and hes the strength of a law in the Romane Kirk, not as priuate mens, but as Popes decreits. And yet some of them are di­rectly repugnant to the word of God, that thēselues cannot deny but they are heresies, and some of them so directlie re­pugnant to the decreits of other Popes, that either the one or the other must be heresie. But it may bee ye will answere that suppose the Pope may erre as he is Pope, and that in matters of doctrine, yet he cannot erre with his councell, either prouinciall or generall (as Bellarmine saith). Where­vnto I answere, first if general councels lawfullie conueened together, may erre in matters of doctrine, vnlesse they bee confirmed by the Pope, as Bellarmine grants: And if the popes may erre themselues alone, and that iudiciallie in matters of doctrine, as hes bene proued. Why maye they not erre also being ioyned together, seing councels hes this priuiledge onlie by his confirmation and allowance? As Bellarmine saith lib. 4. de Rom. pontisi. cap. 3. Secondly, I say, either Pope Steuen the 6. with his councell erred in condemning of Formosus & [Page 33] his acts whilk he made as pope, Sigebert in [...] nico. Platina in vita harum & in decreing his ordinatiōs to be void & null, because the man was wicked by whom he was ordained: whilk is ane error of the Donatists, or els Pope Iohn the 9. with his councel of 72. Bishops, erred, in iustifying Formosus and his decreetes, and condemning the actes of Pope Steuen with his councell. Last of al, since general coun­cels that hes bene confirmed by their Popes hes erred, In epist. ad Th [...]a clum quae estin 2. actione 7. Syn. Canon 2 the sixt generall councel confirmed by Pope Hadriane hes sun­dry errors whilk they themselues will not defend, as the re­baptising of heretickes. For the counsell of Cypriane is confirmed there, wherein this is decreted. Canon. 13 And also it is ordeined that Elderis, Deacons, Canon. 67 subdeacons should not separate from their wiues contrarie to the canon of the Romane Kirk, as is saide there. And the mariage of catholickes and heretickes is iudged null and voyde, 1. Cor 7.13 Canon. 12 whilk your selfe can not denie to be an error contrary to the expresse trueth of God. And the forbidding of ministers to remaine with their wiues contrarie to the sixt canon of the Apostles. Either therefore a generall councell confirmed by a Pope hes erred, or els the Apostles hes erred in this canon, for they iudge them to bee the canons of the A­postles. Bellarm lib. 1. de conciliis cap. 5 The first generall councell of Constantinople and the generall councell of Chal [...]edon whilk are both by their owne confession approued by the Popes. And yet both these hes decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue e­quall priuiledges of authoritie honor and dignitie in eccle­siasticall affaires with the Bishop of Rome, saue only the first place or seate the whilk by their owne confession is an error. Therefore either lawful general councels confirmed by the Pope, hes erred; or els the Pope is not the head of the Kirk, and hes not a preheminence of authoritie ouer the rest, for they haue made the Bishop of Constantinople equall with him, or els there ar two heads of their Kirk, the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishop of Constantinople, I omit the rest. Augustine saies that prouinciall councels may be corrected by generall councels, and of generall councels the former may be amended by the later, De baptisme contra Donatistas lib. 2. cap 3 if they may be mended then they may erre. And here he speaks not of a matter of fact but of a matter of faith, for he speakes of [Page 34] the baptisme of heretickes. Now to conclude seing the Kirks in all ages, before the law, in the time of the law, and in the time of grace, yea and the Apostles and Peter himselfe hes erred; and seing the Kirk of Rome that claimes this priui­ledge of not erring aboue all other Kirks, hes erred also, and that not only her people whilk they call Laicks, but also her clergie seuerally & together in councels, aswell prouinciall as generall. And seing the head whilk as they say is the rock and foundation of the Kirk hes erred in life, in office, in matters of faith and religion, not as priuate men only, but as Popes, both by themselues alone, as also with their coun­cels, aswel prouincial as general. Seing, I hope I haue proued all these things sufficiently, then may I not with the iudge­ment of al men safely conclude, that that maine piller wher­upon the whole weight and piller of your religion depends (that the Kirk cannot erre) that it is an error, and such a dange­rous and damnable error, whereupon all the errors of your religion is builded, that whosoeuer will beleue it, they hasard the endlesse saluation of their soules. Ground then (christian reader) thy saluation not vpon this, that the Kirk cannot erre: for that is false: but vpon this, that as long as she stickes to the word of God written in the olde and new Testament she erres not, & when she swerues and it were but an inche braid from the Scripture, then she erres. And therefore two learned Papistes De examinat. part. 1. consid. 5. Gerson and Panormitan affirmes the one saith simplici non authorizato sed excellenter in sacris literis erudito &c. Extra de elect. cap. Significasti that is, that more credite is to be giuen to one vnlear­ned & simple, but yet excellently besene in the holie write, in a poynt of doctrine: nor to the Pope. And such a learned man saies he ought to oppone himselfe to a general councel, if he perceiue the greater part to decline to the contrarie of the Gospel either of mallice or of ignorance. The other saith that more credite is to be giuen to an vnlearned and simple man that bringes for him the Scripture, nor to a whole generall councell. And this for answer to the testimonies of Scripture whilk yee cited.

Now, as concerning the fathers testimonies whilk ye [Page 35] bring in, they will serue you no further nor the Scripture hes done, for they will goe no further with you nor this that the Kirk of Christ and his couenant with her shall endure for euer, the whilk we grant, and they that will read them will finde them so. And if yee proue anie further out of them it shall bee answerd by Gods grace, for it were too fashions to the reader to set downe here the particular sayings of e­uerie one of them. And if ye had formed your arguments out of them, I should haue formed my answer by the grace of God to euerie one of them. And this much concerning your ground, and the proofes of it. Now I come to that whilk ye gather of it.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Of this we collect that our Kirk must be the only trew Kirk, and not theirs, Proue this by the Scripture M. Gilbert, and take it to you. But this you are not able to doe, for your Kirk hes failed in the substantial points of religion therefore it is not the onlie true Kirk. It onlie suffices to proue this by the Scripture False, M. Gilbert because ours hes neuer bene interrupted, nor hes failed in anie substantiall poynt of faith & religion since Christ & his Apostles dayes, and theirs hes done. To confirme this, I say, that Maister Iohn, nor no minister in Scotland can be able to assigne to vs the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion: That is to say,

1. The authour who first began out Religion.

2. The time when it was begun.

3. The place where it began.

4. The true Kirk who said against the same.

5. The matter it self whilk was changed or begun.

6. Nor the faithfull nomber from whome they departed.

All these things we shall assigne to their Religion, and that since Christ and his Apostle,.

1. The first authour of their Religion, albeit not in all things, False, he neither inuented it, nor first preached it. was Mar­tine Luther an Augustine Frier.

2. He began his Religion in the yeare of God 1517.

3. He began the same in Saxonie in the countrie of Almanie.

4. The Kirk of Rome, Italie, France, Spaine, Scotland, England, not the true kir [...] but those who was drunken with your abho­minations. And iustlie. Den­mark, Swaden, Pole, an great part of Almanie, with the east and west In­dies whilks were the trew Kirk, said against him.

5. The heades of Religion whilk he first said against were Pardons. He affirmed that man was onlie iustified by Faith. He denied the Supper of our Lord to be an sacrifice, &c.

6. He departed himselfe from all the Christian Kirks in Europe, Fal [...] in the Indies and other places, and therefore he had no predecessors of his owne Religion, as we Ther is a dark­nes faln vpon your eies, for there is no sik thing there. read in the Apologie of the English Protestants, that he and Zuinglius were the first that came to the knowledge of the Euangell, & [Page 36] therefore none immediatlie before them.

False, for he had all these who professed the true religion to be his predecessors. Matth. 28.20. Then seing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediatlie, neither visible nor inuisible, he and his could not be the Kirk of Christ: for it hes euer stood, and neuer failed, no not the space of one day vniuersallie, because our Sauiour sayes, I shall be with you euery day to the consummation of the world.

M. Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As to your collection, the forme of it must be this. That Kirk onlie must be the trew Kirk that hes neuer bene inter­rupted, nor failed in any substantiall head of faith and reli­gion since Christ and his Apostles. But say ye, yours is such, and ours not: Therefore your Kirk is the true Kirk, and ours not. The proposition I graunt. But all the controuersie lies in the probation of your assumptiō. Yea, in stead of prouing ye say it is not possible to mee, nor to na Minister in Scot­land to assigne to you the circumstances of all mutations & changes in your religion, as the person, time, place, &c. And then ye attempt to assigne al these circumstances of our re­ligion, vpon the whilk ye conclude the falset of it. So we wil first see how ye proue your owne, and then see howe ye dis­proue ours. Indeed this argument of yours is of sik accompt with you, that there are not manie of your writers, but they haue set it, as it were, in the vaunt-guarde of their hoste, and amongst the greatest of their strengthes and bulwarks, for to vp-holde their ruinous Babel. So Hammilton and Hay, in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland, so Campion, so Duraus Scotus against Whitaker in his defence: Vpon the 28. of the Acts. and on 1. Ioh 1. Bellarm lib. 4 de Eccles cap 5 so your Rhe­mists: and so Bellarmine. Whereby it may be seene of what accompt this argument of yours is in the iudgement of your Kirk. But to answere to your argument: first, I say, If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion since Christ & his Apostles, then your religion and doctrine will be one with that quhilk is set downe in the Scripture of God. For you will not deny, I hope, but the Scripture doth sufficiently testifie, what doctrine and religion was in Christs and his A­postles dayes. And so let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture, and tryed thereby, and then I hope it wil sone be [Page 37] made manifest how far it is changed. So, and you dare, M. Gilbert let once your Religion be set vpon the Pannel, and let it once haue an assyse of the Scripture, and then the plea will end, I hope. Next I say, it will not follow, We cannot assigne all the circumstances of changes in your Religion: Therefore your Religion is vncorrupted. For it sufficeth if we can proue the first onlie, that is, the matter or doctrine it selfe whilk is changed, and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God, suppose we could not assigne all the rest of the circumstances of the mutation: as the time, place, au­thor, and so forth: for the changes of manie things are moste notorious, and yet all the circumstances of the change ther­of not knowne. We say then it is not needfull to seeke the beginnings and circumstances of the decayes and corrupti­ons in your Kirk, when the corruption and change it selfe is so manifest, by comparing your doctrine with the written worde of God, that it cannot be denied. For will you say, that he who is deadlie diseased, is whole and sound, because I cannot tell you the first article of time, the place, and first occasion of the disease? When it is manifest that a citty is full of misorder and confusion, wil ye say that ye wil not be­leeue it to be so, vnlesse you knowe the first beginnings and progresse of these misorders. If you sawe a ruinous house, would ye say, Proue me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it, otherwise I will not beleeue it? Will ye de­nie that a ship could be drowned, vnlesse it were tolde you all the circumstāces of the change of the lecke where-throw it drowned. If any found a man faln in a pit, shall he not be­leeue that he is faln, whome neuerthelesse he sees to be ther, vnlesse it were tolde him, when and by whome he was caste into the same: Euen so, will ye not beleeue, or wil ye hinder al others to beleeue that your Kirk and Religion is ruinous, consumed, rotten, dead, drowned, & full of misorder, heresy, and confusion, vnlesse the first beginnings of these changes can be tolde you? We say therefore it is sufficient to proue the ruine and consumption of your Kirk and Religion, if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the scrip­ture, [Page 38] we make euident the direct opposition betwixt them, suppose wee coulde not assigne all the circumstances of the change of it out of the histories, leauing it free to Historio­graphers to write what they please, and omitte what they please. Thirdlie, it is manifest, that the Kirk of the Iewes in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine & manners from that estate that it was in the time of Aaron, Eleazar, and sundrie others: and also the Kirks of Galatia and Corinthe that they were changed from the estate wherein they were. And yet I trow that neither ye, nor any Papist in the earth is able to assigne to me all the circumstances of the mutations and changes in the same, as the first authours, time, place, &c. & yet there was a great change in Doctrine and Religion in al these Kirks, as hath bene proued before. And we read that our Sauiour and the Apostles, conuicted them of a change, and yet they designed not the first authours, time, and place and so forth. The like I say of the Kirk of Greece, Asia and A­frick, which in nomber exceedes yours. That there is a won­derfull change in their Kirk and Religion ye will not deny, or els your Religion is heresie: for (as said is) they acknow­ledge not your Popes supremacie, Transubstantiation, &c. And yet I trowe ye, nor na Papist in the earth is able to as­signe al the circumstances of changes in their Kirk, and Re­ligion which they haue presentlie: yea, more vnable to doe this, nor we are able to doe the same in yours. I meane not the heresies of Arrius, Samosatenus, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sergius, and the rest, whilk long ago were damned by the Councels of the Greek Kirks. (For I trow ye shal not be able to proue that they now maintain these heresies, whilk they condem­ned and refuted long agoe.) But I meane of the present er­rors and corruptions in their worship and Religion, whilk now they maintaine and professe. If then ye iudge the kirks of the east heretical, because they are not aggreable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome, and yet not be able to as­signe the circumstances of the changes and mutations of the same? Will ye not grant the same libertie to vs to accompt and iudge your kirk and Religion failed, because it is not a­greeable [Page 39] to the doctrine of Iesus Christ, set downe in the Scripture, suppose we could not assigne to you the circum­stances of the changes of the same.

Fourthlie I say, if you haue read Epiphanius, there ye shall finde many heresies, whilk I omit for shortnesse, whilks he accompts heresies, whose beginnings and authours are vn­knowne.

Fifthlie, there is sik ane vniuersall complaint of the mon­strous abhominations and decaies in your Religion, disci­pline, & manners, & that by your owne Concil. Con­stant. les 4 5. Trident. ses 6 Basil ses. 2. 3 councels, Bernard. in Cant. 3 [...] Fa­thers, Popes, Cardinals, & Fryars, that I would haue thoght it vncredible vnlesse I had read them, that either your owne mouthes should haue so condemned your selues, or else that the posteritie afterward shoulde haue bene so shamelesse as to haue boasted of the puritie of their Kirk and Religion. Therefore the Councel of Trent hes proclaimed it to the world in write, that the Kirk hes need to be reformed in the head and members. Nowe, I aske that of you concerning these abuses in discipline and manners, whilk ye aske of vs concerning your doctrine. Show me all the circumstances of mutation and change distinctlie, if yee can, what tyme, what place, by what authour &c. sik monstrous abhomina­tions first brake in in your Kirk & religion. Now seing there is no man who hes a sparke of iudgement, that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and discipline in your Kirk, and yet the circumstances of the changes vnknowne: thinke ye then that ye shall assure men that no changes culd fall in your doctrine, vnlesse we knew the circumstances of the changes of the same?

Sixtly, Matth. 13.27.2 [...]. the Scripture testifies that euē the tares whilk is the euill seede doth not appeare so soone as they are sowne, and that neither the times, nor the first author of them was knowne, no not to the most diligent laborers of the Lordes ground at the first: and yet it was enough to know them to be euill seede, by the difference that was seene betwixt them and the good seede, suppose the time, place, & author was vnknowen at the first. So it is proofe enough against [Page 40] your doctrine, that it is but tares, if the difference be made manifest betwene it and the Lordes trueth in the Scripture, suppose the circumstances of the changes of it, can not be assigned.

Seuenthly, theirs is likened to leauen and a canker, whilk doth not all at once infect the whole masse, and feister the whole bodie; but peece and peece: so your corruption came not in all at once, but peece and peece infected your Kirk & feistered your religion. And therefore it is no wonder sup­pose the beginnings of infection and circumstances of it, hes not bene marked: for if they had broken in all at once, and in a suddentie ouerthrowne the whole Kirk, it had bene no difficultie to haue assigned the circumstances of the ouer­throw of it. For if any hauing a whole constitution with an stroke were slaine, if an ship with an waue were drowned: it were no difficultie to assigne the circumstances of the sud­den changes. But in a consumption, and in a leck that hes come in peece and peece in the body & in the ship, the be­ginnings thereof cannot be so easily perceiued: for a little leck in proces of time will sink a great ship. And if it be so hard to discerne the beginnings of these things whilk our senses may grope, how much more hard is it to perceiue the beginnings of these spirituall corruptions whilk cannot bee perceiued by the natural man, but only by the light of Gods spirit by the spirituall man.

Eightly, if now it be so in other heresies as the Scripture testifies of them that their begining are oft-times vn­knowne, euen vnto the moste diligent labourers of the Lordes husbandrie and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once, how much more is this true in your Antichristian religion, whilk (as it was fore-tolde) should deceiue all nations and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication. 2. Thes. And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture an iniquitie, but an secret iniquitie: an vnrighte­ousnes, but yet an deceiuable vnrighteousnes: a delusion, but yet a strong delusion; Reuel. 17. an abhomination and spirituall fornication, but yet put in a golden cup, that is, hauing the shewe of godlinesse [Page 41] and religion, and your Kirk is called a harlot: but yet finelie decked in purple, &c. not like a harlot, but a Queene. Your kingdome is called a beast that speakes like the dragon, but yet like the lambe in his hornes, resembling the power & authority of the Lord Iesus. Seeing then your Kirk, kingdome & doc­trine is such a mysterie of iniquitie, hes such a shew of godli­nes, hes such a resemblance with the lambe, hes such cloakes of styles is so deceiuable, and is such a strong delusion, as the Scripture testifies of it: is it any wonder, suppose the begin­nings of this mysterie, & of the whoredomes of this queene be not distinctly marked and set downe?

Ninthly, it is likely ynough that the great credite where­in the first Bishopes of Rome was for their pietie and godli­nes, and the loftie estate of their successors after them, toge­ther with their crueltie & tyrannie did so dazell on the one side the eyes of the godly, that they were not inquisitiue in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions, and so brideled the mouthes of other some that they durst not write the thing they saw, and if they write any thing, they write it but barely & corruptly, for the tyranny of your kirk was such, that none durst mutter against your Kirk and religion, but he was taken without further as an hereticke and condemned and executed where euer your tyrannie reached.

Last of al, suppose they had bene written by the histories of euerie age, and that distinctly; yet considering the vni­uersal power, craft and pollicie of your Kirk and kingdome, is it any wonder suppose they be not now extant at all, but either burnt, or els so falsifyed and corrupted that the begin­nings thereof should not haue bene perceiued. For seing in the purer times when the power and dominion of your Kirk was not yet come to the height, Concilii Carthag 6 The [...]o [...]es one after another Zozimus, Bo­nifacius, Cael [...]sti [...]us, anno. 430. such was the ambition & falshood of your Popes that in the presence of a council of 217. Bishops in Carthage, wher Augustine was present, they did alledge a false canon of the councill of Nice, for to haue established their supremacie, and vnder one of their handes sent it to the councell by their legates: the whilk was espied [...] [Page 42] and found out by the whole councell, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that councell he should haue no prerogatiue ouer the Kirkes of Asrik, and that none should appeale to him vnder the paine of deposition and excom­munication: but also he was rebuked by the fathers of that councel in their letters to him. If he was so bould then, what maruell suppose since he hes falsifyed and corrupted euery historie & writing, that he saw might beare anie wayes wit­nes of the corruptions, tyrannies & abhominations of that Kirk and religion of his. And hence it is, I am sure, that we finde so little written of the beginnings of their corruptions, & of them that resisted it. And your Index expurgatorius deui­sed in the councel of Trent for blotting out euerie thing in the writing is of men that might testifie of your corruptions, doth also sufficiently witnes vnto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclude this, suppose we could not assigne to you the circumstances of the changes of your reli­gion, yet it followes not but your religion and Kirk may be corrupted and decayed.

But to satisfie your demand, (suppose I hope the thinges alreadie said, will satisfie the consciences of the godly) what craue you? That all the circumstances of changes in your re­ligion may be assigned to you? First then, I say, there is no­thing that may serue either to make the man of God wise vnto saluation, or yet that may make him perfyte in euerie good work, but the Scripture testifies: for it is able to do both these. If these circumstances then serue either for saluation or perfection, I say they are set down in the Scripture, so that we neede not to goe to hystories to search the same.

The first then ye craue, is the time when the change be­gan. The Scripture tells you that the mystery of iniquitie began to work euen then in the Apostles dayes, and that it doth alreadie worke, and so grew on from degree to degree till he that with-held it was remoued, that is till the Empire of Rome began to decay, and the seat of it remoued from thence, as the fathers ex­pounded it, Augustine, Chrysost. Hiero. & so the citie left to the Pope the man of sinne for him to set his th [...] [...]ne there: for [Page 43] Rome that seuen hilled citie behoued to be the seat of the An­tichrist, as it was foretolde by the Scripture. So, Reuel 17. if you wil beleeue the Scripture, you haue the time. What craue you next? The place? Lib. 2. de Roma­no Pontisi cap. 2 Reuelat. 17. I say the Scripture testifies of the same that that mystical Babylon, whilk Bellarmine your chiefe campion grants to be Rome, that sittes vpon seuen hilles, that had the domi­nion ouer the Kinges of the earth, that is the place where first your Kirk and religion began to decay. So there the place if ye will beleeue the Scripture. What craue you next? Reuel 11. & 17 Reuel. 13. & 1 [...] The author? The Scripture also hes foretolde that the beast that came out of the bottomles pit, and slew the witnesses of God and made warre with the Saintes, and ouercame them, & made all to worship the image of the beast, and the harlot Babell, (the citie of Rome) the mother of whordomes, who made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that is your head and Kirk, they are the au­thors and mothers of this decay and corruption. What is the fourth thing ye require? The Kirk that said against the same? The Scripture will tell you that too: Reuel. 11. & 10 & 13. & 14 the two witnesses of God whom she killed, the woman that fled in the wildernes, the Saintes with whom she made warre, & who would not worship the beast nor re­ceiue his image, the hundreth fortie and foure thousand that Iohn saw standing with the Lambe in mount Sion, who was not defyled with your idolatrie, but followed the Lambe whithersoeuer he went. These then are the true kirk whilk spak against your corrupti­ons, who are like vnto Eliahs seuen thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baall. What craue you more? The matter it self they said against? The Scripture and ye will beleeue will satisfie you in this poynt also. The doctrine then that was said against was that mysterie of iniquity, 2. Thessal. [...] Reuel. 13. Reuel. 17.18 1. Timoth. [...] that deceiuable­nes of vnrighteousnes, that strong delusion, that doctrine of the Dragon, that spirituall idolatrie and abhomination, that doctrine of Diuels in forbidding mariage and commanding abstinence of meate, & so forth of the rest. What craue you last? The number from whom they departed? The Scripture will also beare witnes of this, seing your religion is a departure from the faith, 2. Thessal. [...] then all these that euer professed the faith of Iesus set dovvne in his written word, euen the Lord Iesus the head, the Apostles, [Page 44] the layers of the foundation, the primitiue Kirk, the woman that fled in the wildernes, the Saintes with whom ye made warre, and all the elect and chosen of God that abhorred your idolatrie: These are the true Kirks from whome you departed. What now craue you more? Will not the abun­dance of the riuers of the Scriptures of God quench and sa­tisfie this your desire, but that you must goe vnto the vn­pure fountaines of mens writings, as though the Scripture were not sufficient not only to make a man wise vnto salua­tion, but to make him perfite in euerie thing? These thinges I am sure will satisfie the soules of them that loues the trueth. But because you giue no credite to the Scriptures, but counts them as a nose of wax, Leo. 10. and as one of your Popes speaking to Bembus a Cardinall called them a fable of Christ, and yet such a fable as hes inriched your treasures. And Syl­uester Prierias writing against Luther, saies that the Roman Kirk & Pope is of greater authoritie then the Scriptures. O horrible blas­phemies of the holy trueth of God. Therefore we will goe to the histories, and se what they haue testified of these circum­stances. And although all things heere be not expressed to the full, yet there is so much left vncorrupted and vnscraped out (by the gracious prouidence of God, that would not want his witnes in all ages) out of the fathers and your own writers, that I hope wil satisfie the consciences of al the mo­dest & godly. Lib. 1. [...]om. Clemēs Alexandrinus saies that the Apostles suc­cessors receiued the doctrine from them, as the sonnes from their fa­thers. But he subioynes that there was verie few children that was like their fathers. Lib. 3. cap. 16. Aegesippus as Nicephorus reportes, saies that the Kirk remained a pure virgine as long as the Apostles liued vnto Traians time, but they being dead, he writes that it was spedily corrup­ted. So if ye credite the testimonies of these men, ye se the Kirk remaineth not long in her integritie. And if you would heare ought of your Rom. Kirk, Lib. 7. cap. 11. Socrates sayes that Celesti­nus your Pope past the boūds of his preisthood. Read cap. vlt. Basilius de spiritu sancto, & there ye may se what change of religion was in his time. epist. 1.9 c. 19 Augustine testifies that the multitude of ceremonies grew so in his time, that the condition of the Iewes seemed to be more [Page 45] tollerable, nor the condition of the Kirk. Now did not this sicknesse trow ye, grow be time? And to come to your owne wryters. in Canti 33. Bernard sayes, that y^e Ministers of Christ (meaning of the Romane Kirk) serues Antichrist. And to the Pope himselfe, Eugenius 3. he sayes Lib. 4. And thou the shepheard goes forth being clothed with a glorious attyre, if I durst say it: these are the feeding places of Deuils rather then of sheep: thy court is accustomed rather to receiue good men, nor to make them good: not the euil profites, but the good decayes there. And in another place he sayes, From the sole of the foote (spea­king of the Kirk of Rome) to the crowne of the head there is no health, nor soundnesse. And in another place he sayes, De c [...]n Pauli. Psal. 91 ser. 6. What remaynes now (speaking of the corruptions of that Kirk of Rome) but that the mā of sinne be reuealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modò diurnum, sed & meridianum, that is, a deuilrie not only in the day tyde, but in the very noone-tyde. And to Fugenius the Pope he sayes, Lib. 4. In these secular attyres and powers thou hes not succeeded to Peter, but to Constantine. The day would sooner faile mee, nor the wryting of his complaints against the Kirk of Rome.

Pope Hadrianus the 6. in his instructions to his Legates whilk were sent to the councel of Noremberg, he graunts and bids them say to the councel, that We know that in this chaire, (meaning Peters Sea in Rome,) for certaine years many abhominable thinges hes bene in it: the abuse in spirituall things, the excesse in com­mandements, and in a word, all things are changed in a worse. And the councill of the Cardinals to Paule the third: they say, Out of this fountaine (holy father) as from the Troian horse, Dele [...] card. hes broken so many abuses in the Kirk of God, sik heauie diseases, whereby we see now that she is dispaired almost of health. Aeneas Syluius a Cardi­nall, who also was Pope afterward, sayes of your Kirk, That al faith hes perished in her, & loue is growne yee-colde. Ex epistola. 54. ad Caspar. Schlicke. Oratio. Cornelii epi. Bitóti 3 dom aduent, whilk was spoken in the councel of trent. And Cornelius Bitontinus Bishop, who was present at the councell of Trent sayes, Would to God (speaking of your Kirk) that vnanimes velut prorsus &c. all with one heart alluterlie they had not declyned from Religion to superstition, from Faith to infidelity, from Christ to Anti­christ. (What would ye haue more? will ye yet be so shamlesse as to boast of the puritie of your Kirk?) and from God to Epicurisme. I leaue the rest, as Platin, Genebrand, Frier Mantuā, Nicolaus Clemangis, [Page 46] Franciscus Petrarcha, Auentinus, and a nomber of others who are full of complaints of the abhominations of your Kirk of Rome, that certainlie I cānot but wonder at your shameles­nesse in opening of your mouth, and saying, that your Kirk had the trueth in all things, and neuer failed nor was inter­rupted, against sik a cloude of witnesses, whose testimonies ye dare not refuse. But I leaue you to the Lord. The lippes of a lyar is abhomination to the Lord. Prouerb. 20. So your owne mouthes shall rise vp in the day of the Lord, and condemne you that saies, Your kirk hes not failed in any substantial point of Religion. But you craue more distinctly the time, place, and persons, and so forth, that hes brought in this mutation and change. If these are to be accounted authours of your erroneous do­ctrines who were the chief defenders thereof: then I say the Popes of Rome (for the moste part) are the authours of the same, for they were the chief defenders thereof, suppose they had not bene the first teachers thereof. For, otherwise Luther cannot be saide to be the authour of our Religion, as ye say, because he was not the first that taught the same, and that by your owne confession. For ye say, that sundrie other he­retickes before Luther taught the same heades of doctrine whilk he taught, & whilk we professe now. As, that Fasting should be free, that onely Faith iustifieth, that man hes not free wil, &c. Next, because it were too longsom to go throw the whole heads of your Religion, therefore I wil onlie bring a fewe examples, and that in some of the substantiall points thereof. As for the sacrifice of the Masse, and the ceremonies thereof, I haue showne the authors thereof in another place therefore I omit that now. The first that euer tooke vppon him to exercise iurisdiction ouer the Kirks of the East, was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who tooke vpon him to excō ­municate the Bishops of the East, because they would not followe his fashion in the celebration of Easter. There the person, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. [...]5.26 time, and place, resisted by Irenaeus bishop of Lions in France, & the Bishops of the East, & the brethren there, Polycarpus and sundrie others. The first that took vpon him the style to be called vniuersall Bishop, was the Bishop of [Page 47] Constantinople, anno 581. Resisted by Pelagius, and after him Lib. 4. epistola 3 [...].38.39 Gregorius Bishops of Rome. And yet for al this, Boniface Platina, Sabel­licus, Manarus Scotus. Platina in vita Bonif. the 3. anno 607. obtained this style of Phocas the Emperour, the murtherer of his predecessor, complained of by the Kirk of Rauenna in Italie, and resisted by sundrie as shalbe prooued afterwards. The first that Euseb. lib. 5. cap 17 appointed lawes of Fasting, was Montanus the heretick, anno 145. accounted heresie by Apolonius and Augustine, against the fasting of the Manicheans The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministred the Communion vnder one kinde, as the Papists does now: and so forth of many other olde condemned heresies whilk your Kirk hes renewed, as shall be proued afterward. The firste that gaue inckling of Transubstantiation, was Mark a nota­ble Magician anno 115. who by his inchantment hauing first caused a cup of white wine to beare the coullour of blood, made his followers beleeue that by his inuocation ouer it, that grace whilk is aboue all things, had powred his blood into the cup, refuted by Heres. 34 Epiphanius and Irenaeus. The first that decreed Transubstantiation in effect, Lib. 1. cap. 8. was Pope De consecrat. Distinct. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius Nico­laus the 2. anno 1090. in causing Berengarius to recant, but yet it was not decreed as an vniuersall doctrine, before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a councel of Lateran anno 1215. as de Sacrament. Tonstall witnesses. The Greeke Kirk neuer consented to it, Bertramus, Berengarius, Waldensis withstoode it. The firste that decreed the worshipping of Images was Hadrian in the 2. councell of Nice, against the expresse Scripture, after the example of Marcellina an heretick, who worshipped the I­mage of Iesus, resisted by sundrie Fathers and Concil. Elibez. Concil. Constant Conc. Francof. councels, The first Distinct 82. cap Proposnisti that imposed single life and condemned mari­age in their Cleargie was Pope Syricius anno 390. as the Ma­nichees did before him, resisted by Sigebert & [...]. Mutius sundrie. Let these ex­amples serue as a taist to the reader.

How stronglie nowe yee haue manned and fortified your own Kirk & Religion by your proofes, let the reader iudge. Now let vs see, how ye disproue ours. The question nowe comes in of the truth of our Kirk and Religion, whether it be from Iesus Christ, or not. You say, it is not from him, but [Page 48] from others since his time. If ye had gone the straight way to haue proued this and to haue satisfied the consciences of men, you would at the nearest haue runne to the Scripture, and by the same haue disproued it. But you insteede of this goe a farre by-way, and would father our religion on fleshe and bloode, dust and ashes: in poynting vs out Martine Luther to be the father and author of the same, as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon vnto, nor had not the beginning & foundation of it, from the roote of Iesse, the bud of the Lord from whome it hes sprung. And for to get your self the better credite you busie your self in marking the circum­stances of his preaching, as time, place, matter, opposition, &c. Now that ye are so skilled and acquainted with that hi­story of Martine Luther, that you can assigne al these circum­stances, it is no wonder, for that was the most notable and markable period of the decaying of your Babell, and of the erecting vp againe of the kingdome of Iesus Christ, whilk your head & clergie had stampt it vnder foote for so many yeares, whilk suppose the beginning of it was but like a little leauen, and as a graine of mustard-seed whilk of all seedes is the least. Yet now since it hes so sowred almost the whole masse, euen the most part of the kingdomes of Europe, whilk once was vnder your spirituall bondage, and hes growen vp into sik a high tree hauing faire and great branches, vnder the whilk the Lords sheepe may get reste and warmnesse, and in the whilk his soules that mounts vp-wardes to that kingdome, doth builde their nests, so that neither can all your purgati­ons, nor yet all your axes of fire and sworde, of buls and par­dons of preachings and writtings, stay the spreading of the one▪ nor cut downe the branches & roote of the other. That M. Luther began at that time, and in that place, and preached against these doctrines, we do not deny, and that is not con­trouerted: But heere lyes al the questiō, whether if that do­ctrine that he preached against, was antichristian or not, & whether that religion whilk hee neither invented, nor yet first preached (for sundrie before him did preach that same doctrine, whose names I set downe in my answere to your [Page 48] obiection) but only raised it out of the graue of darknes wherein ye had buried the trueth of God. Heere then (I say) is the question whether that religion whilk he preached hes the warrant from Iesus Christ in his Testament or not? the whilk if ye euer disproue by the written word of God, then shall we grant you all that ye say, the whilk is as impossible to you to doe, no not suppose your King would call all your wisemen & cleargie together, Daniel 2 as it was to all the wisemen of Babell to tell and interprete Nebuchadnezar his dreame: yea, suppose your King would reward yow gloriously with honor and riches yf ye could do it, yet are ye not able to win your wages. Yea, suppose he would riue you in peices and make your house a iakes vnles ye did it, as the wisemen of Babell was, because they could not tell and interprete the Kings dreame. This is therefore the poynt whilk lies in question betwixt vs, whilk ye shuld haue proued if ye could. But know ye for a trueth, that suppose he raised out of the graue the trueth of God whilk ye had buried, yet was he neither the inuenter nor the first preacher of it, but it hes for y^e beginning & author of it, Iesus Christ the Son of God, and the foundation of it in the new Testament of his holy Scripture. This for the author, time, and place whilks ye assigne.

Now, to the Kirks that spake against him. I answere: they were but sik as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication, and deluded by your strong delusions, being de­ceiued by the golden cup, Reuel. 17.4 wherin you propyned them to be drunken out, as it was prophecied of you. But the measure of your iniquitie being full, and the time of the lurking of the trueth of God being runn out, God of his infinite mercy by his ministry, and the rest that followed since, hes opened the eyes of a great part of these kingdomes who first sayd a­gainst him, to se your Kirk to be the whore: Reuel. 17.1. & 13 11.2. Thes. 2.3.4 11. Reuel. 18.4 your kingdome to be the beast: and your head to be the Antichrist: your doctrine to be delusions, and your Rome to be that mysticall Babilon. And so the Lord hes made them beleeue and giue obedi­ence to that commandement of his, goe out of her my people &c. [Page 49] That ye call these the true Kirk that spake against him, that lies in the weights and ballance yet betwixt vs, for or ye proue them to be the true Kirk, ye must fi [...]st proue your doctrine whilk they then professed, to haue the warrant out of the word of God. So, let them haue the name of a Kirk, but of an impure and corrupted Kirk: of a Kirk infected by the pest of your doctrine, oppressed by the tyrannie of your Pope and cleargie, and consumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatrie. So then it was not the true Kirk, that is, the called ones by the light of the Gospell (for they are the true Kirk) that spake against him, but only these that were infect­ed and poisoned with your abhominations, the whilk I grant did ouer-spread these nations as it was fore-told of her. Reuel. 17.2. &. [...]. 3. &. 13.14. And as for these first heads of religion whilk he oppugned: Of your pardons, iustification by works, and the sacrifice of the masse, there condemnation is set downe in the great register and Testa­ment of Iesus Christ the Lord of life as shall be proued here­after. So that he was not the first that oppugned them. Now as to the last the Kirks from whome he departed, he depar­ted not from their bodie, but from the consumption of your heresie, that consumed the body: not from the Kirk, but from the corruptions of your Idolatrie and abhominations in the Kirk. Not from the common-weale of Israell, but from your tyrānie & oppression of the cōmon-weale. Not from the ci­tie of God, but from the pest of your doctrine, that infected the citie. And last of al not from the spiritual communion & societie of the Saints of God in these partes, but from the cōmunion with Babel with Antichrist, with the beast, & with y^e Dragon, & that at the 1. Tim. 6.3 4.5. Matth 7.15. Act. 19. & 8 v. 1. Cor. 10.14. 2. Cor. 5.14.15 16.17.18. Hosea 4, 15. Reuel, 18 4, cōmandemēt of the Lord flie from Idolatrie; goe out of Babell my people. Nowe after you haue assig­ned the mutations of our religion since Christ and his Apo­stles (as you think) you gather the whole force of it together & makes the streame of your argument to runn as strongly as it can vpon our Kirk and religion, that the face and forme of it might be so washen away that it be not knowen to be a true Kirk. Your reason then is this. The true Kirk of Christ hes neuerfailed vniuersally for the space of one day, because our Sauiour hes promised to be with it to the end of the [Page 50] world. But our Kirk was neuer before Martine Luthers daies, therefore it is not the true Kirk of Christ. As to your propo­sition, if ye sake failing for erring in matters of doctrine, then I denie your proposition for I hope I haue proued suf­ficiently before that the Kirk both may erre and hes erred in all ages. But if you take failling to be vtterly abolished and rooted out of the face of the earth, then I grant your proposition, that God hes euer a Kirk, the Kirk of his elect, with whom he will be to the end of the world. And as to your assumption, that our Kirk was neuer before Martine Luthers dayes, I deny it. Let vs see howe ye proue it. There was none (say yee) before his daies neither visible nor inuisible that professed his religion. But howe doe ye proue that, for that is still denied to you? For if our religion hes the olde and new Testament to beare witnes to it, and Iesus Christ to be the author of it in euerie poynt, as shall be made manifest by the grace of God, then I say whosoeuer they were from the beginning of the world to this day visible or inuisible that professed the true Iesus, the true Sauiour, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherin religion stands, they are our prede­cessors, and are of our profession and religion: so then ye should first (if ye had gone squarely to work) haue disproued the heads of our religion not to haue their warrand from the tables of Christs Testament, or ye had concluded that we had none of our profession and Religion before Martine Luther. And this is the point you should haue begun at, for it is not the Kirk that makes the religion, but the religion that makes the Kirk. Haue we a warrant out of the word of God for our religion, then are we the true Kirk, and the succes­sors of all them who euer from the beginning of the vvorld hes professed the same. Haue vve not this vvarrant then I graunt you vve haue no true Kirk. So there is the point of our controuersie, vvhether our doctrine be from God, out of his vvord or not. But hovve proue ye that Martine Luther had none of his professiō before him? First you gathered vp­on the former things that all the true Kirks saide against him, and that he departed from them, vnto the vvhilk I an­svvered [Page 52] before that these was not the trew Kirk, but only so many of euery natiō who was deceiued by your doctrine, & whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his ministry, & by the ministrie of others whome the Lord did stirre vp since, so that neither did the trew Kirk who saw the trueth, speak against nor yet did he depart from their societie. [...]. Reg 19.10.18 Next as the lord had a true kirk in Israel in the time of Elias, euen these 7000. whilk did not bowe their knee to Baal, who was neither known to Elias the Prophet nor yet to the per­secuters: so did the Lord in the midst of your darknesse and Idolatry reserue to himself a true Kirk, euen these hundreth fortie and foure thousand whilk Ihon saw standing with the Lamb on mount Sion, Reuelat. 14.1 who did not defile themselues with your Idolatrie and did not worship the beast and receiue his mark: whilk suppose neither ye nor we had knowen, yet the Lord did reserue them as he promised.

Thirdly, I say Martine Luther had sundry who professed his religion immediately before him, who was euen knowen to the world, as I shall proue afterward.

Your next proofe is taken from an testimonie of one of our owne writers where ye alledge that it is written of Mar­tine Luther and Zuinglius, that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospell. I say ye are not faithfull in citing of this testimonie, for it saies not that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospell, but these are the wordes that it was an easie thing to them (meaning of your Kirk) to deuise against vs (meaning the English Protestants as yee call them) these cursed speaches, when Martine Luther and Zuinglius first came to the Gospell. The Latine wordes are, cum Martinus Luther et Zuinglius primum accessissent ad Euangelium. So it saies not that they were the first that came to the Gospell, but that it was easie to you to spew out cursed speaches when they came first to the Gospell. So that this worde primum that is, first, is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospell before, but in comparison with that time in the whilk they themselues knew not the Gospell. It is an aduerb of time, and you take it for an adiectiue noune. But there [Page 53] is a vaile ouer your eyes Maister Gilbert that yee can neither see vvhat vve or your selues writes: So then to conclude, seing the religion whilk Martine Luther taught, hes the warrant from Christs Testament; and seing all that euer professed the trew religion, that hes Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture, visible or inuisible, are his predecessors: Therefore the religion whilk Martine Luther taught was the trew religion. And seing your religion hes not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament, but is that apostasie & defection, that Antichristian kingdome that was forespo­ken of in the Scripture: Therefore I conclude that your Kirk and religion whilk he oppugned is not the true Kirk & re­ligion, but that Antichristian kingdome. And this for the first part of your obiection. Nowe we come to the se­cond.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

As for the other part of the obiection whilk he alledges to be ours: that is, that our religion was neuer saide against, we say not so: Matth. 13.4 for why all here­tickes and others infected with false doctrine hes euer saide against the same, almost at all times. A d therefore wonder not M. Gilbert suppose your mysterie of iniquitie so sone began. For how soone that Christ our Sauiour plan­ted the trueth: the Diuell immediatly sewe Popple in the same, according to the parable set down in S. Matthew.

Maister Iohn Welsche, his Reply.

I come now to that part whilk ye say is vntruly alledged of you, whilk moued you to say that either I knew not your proofes, or if I knew them that I altered the same, that I might the better oppugne my owne inuention. Of my knowledge of your proofes I will speak nothing. But let vs see whether this be my inuention or not, or rather your own proofe. You, for the confirmation of the trueth of your Kirk and religion brought in this as a proofe, that I, nor no Mini­ster in Scotland was able to assigne the trewe Kirk that spake against it. Either then yee proue nothing, or els this must be one of your proofes, because it was neuer spoken a­gainst by a true Kirk. Now compare these words with mine, and see whether I speake ignorantlie or vntrulie of your proofes. I said, that ye affirmed your religion to be trew, be­cause [Page 54] it was neuer spoken against. Here our words are one, except this that ye ad (be a true Kirk) I vnderstād the same, and therefore I gaue the instances, first of Christ and his A­postles next of the primitiue Kirk, thirdly of these that li­ued in Poperie whilk spake against your religion; all whilk I appeale your conscience whether think ye that I iudg them a true Kirk or not. Now in that ye expound it otherwise of heretickes, this is neither my words nor meaning, but your owne inuention. So that by this it may appear that either ye haue not vnderstood my words alledging your obiection, or els ye haue altered the meaning of the same, that ye might the more easily answere to your owne inuentions, & gaine say my words.

Maister Iohn Welsche his answer to the obiection.

Your religion of the Romane Kirk was neuer instituted nor preached neither by Christ nor by his Apostles, as I offer me to proue by their writings: whilk is the only touchstone whereby all religion should be and must be tried.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

I think in this Maister Iohn takes vpon him an impossibilitie, for it is said that it is impossible to proue a M. Robert saie you is contrarie to this, that the word except it be preached is but a slaying let­ter, therefore say you t cannot be iudge to the christian religion. Sermon vpon Esai 1 & 6. Answe c. You belie M. Robert Bruce, for there is not sik a word of his in these sermons: this is twise that you haue falselie forged our testimonies. Ergo, it is impos­sible to proue your Popes not to be the Anti­christ by your reson negatiue propositiō, except it be set downe in the word of God, whilk is of authoritie: and that I am sure he cannot finde, because Papistrie by him is not so olde as the word of God is. But in the mean time Maister Iohn proues nothing He off rs very faire, and when euer he proues any thing contrary to vs, w th Gods grace he shall get an answer. And note here that Maister Iohn can say nothing to our argument, for to it he giues no answer.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

In your answere to this section, first ye thinke it impossi­ble because of the forme of it. Next, ye say it is but an offer & I proue nothing. Thirdly that I answere nothing to your argumēt, nor can answere nothing. Now, of al these in order. And first to the forme: ye thinke it impossible to proue be­cause [Page 55] it is a negatiue proposition. Is not this a negatiue pro­position that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist; you can not deny it. Againe, I ask is this sentence to be found in the vvhole Scripture; I trovv ye vvil neuer be able to finde it. Then I say if it bee true that ye say, Bellarm lib. 3 de Rom. Pontif. Sanders 40 de­monstrations. then ye your selfe in your booke and this your ansvver, and Bellarmine and Sande­rus and all the rest of you that takes in hand to proue the Pope not to be the Antichrist, takes in hand in your iudge­ment an impossibilitie (and so doe ye indeede, not because it is a negatiue proposition, but because he is the Antichrist in verie trueth.) What vvould the Pope your head thinke of you, if he heard you say so? Certainly I think he would not inroll your name among the defenders of his catholick faith vvhereof this is the foundation. Secondly, is there not many formall syllogismes that hes the proposition or assumption negatiues, and wil you say they cannot be proued if the mat­ter be true, because they are negatiues? What is this but to raise the foundation of Logick and Reason? Logick is not Rhethorick, & Physick is not Logick: both these are nega­tiue propositions, & I trow neither of thē are so found in the Scripture, and vvill you say that it is impossible to proue them, because they are negatiues? What you meane by this I vnderstand not, Tim. 2.14. vnlesse you doe [...] striue about words, proue & improue, forbidden by the Apostle. Third­ly, ye except these negatiue propositiōs, whilk are set downe in the word of God, whilk hes authoritie as ye say, I assume. But your religion in substance is condemned in the word of God: Therefore by your owne confession it may be proued, suppose it be negatiue: For Nazianzene saies, that these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessarie consequence are of the same trueth and authoritie with these sentences that are expresly set downe in the Scripture. Lib. 5. de Theologia. And wheras ye say Papistrie by me is not so olde as the Scripture, I grant that. What then? There­fore it is not condemned in the Scripture; I deny that: for Antichrist and his kingdome are not so olde as the Scrip­ture, and yet the Scripture condemned it. For not only con­demns it present heresies, but also the heresies that was to [Page 56] come. And seing Papistrie is that Antichristian religion, as shall be made manifest by Gods grace: therefore it hes the expresse condemnation of it in the word of God. The forme therefore of it, no wayes will make it impossible to be pro­ued. As for the next thing, that I proue nothing, but offers verie faire. I answer it was not my purpose then, but I hope ye shall haue a proofe now of that whilk I offered then. As to the third then, that I can say nothing to your argument whilk ye would haue the reader to marke: vvhen I red this, I marked this, that ye would earnestly haue the reader per­swaded of the inuinciblenes of your argument and my ina­bilitie to answere. But what bring ye with you to perswade him of the same? Your reason is, because I haue not answered it. Will this follow, I haue not (suppose it were so as yee say) therefore I cannot? It will not follow (M. Gilbert) I haue not answered, I cannot answere to it. But as ye haue a new Theologie, so haue ye a newe Logick. But said I nothing to your argument? What is not ansvvered sufficiently in the same? Your argument vvas the antiquitie of your religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineall succession neuer interrupted, &c. And the noueltie of ours. My answer vvas: yours vvas not institute by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours vvas, and yours vvas gainesaide in the cheif poynts by the testimonies of the fathers the first 600. yeares, and the principall points of our religion confirmed by sundrie of their testimonies. Thirdly yours vvas that An­tichristian apostacie that the Scripture fore-tolde should come, and in the height of your tyrannie and Idolatrie vvas gainsayed by many before Martine Luther, and ours vvas professed by sundry before him vvhose names I set dovvne, all vvhilk I offered to proue, and novve shall doe by Gods grace. Novv you say this is no ansvvere. But is that no an­svver that cuts the verie throte of your religion if it be vere­fied, & hoghs your argument, that it doe neuer stand vp to vnder-propp your religion againe? For that religion vvhilk is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture, vvhose maine foundations is gainsaide by the testimonies of sundrie of the [Page 57] fathers of the first 600. yeare whilk is Antichristian, and whilk was gainesaid by the Saints that they persecuted and slew, hes not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succes­sion neuer interrupted nor spoken against by a true Kirk till Martine Luthers dayes. This I am sure ye will not deny. But your religion is sik as I offered then to proue, and now hes in some poynts, and shall in other some poynts by Gods grace. The whilk if it be verifyed, then I hope ye will not de­ny, but that your religion hes neither antiquitie, continu­ance nor succession from Christ til Martine Luthers dayes. And that religion cannot be newly forged and inuented since Martine Luthers dayes, whilk hes the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture &c. This you cannot deny. But our religion is sik, as then I offered to proue and now hes done in some poynts and shall doe in other some poynts by Gods grace. Therefore our religion cannot be newly forged and inuented &c. but is the only true religion. So that this an­swere if it be proued, doth sufficiently vindicat our religion frō noueltie. Now if this be no answere to your argumēt, thē I say no more, but ye will answer it the sooner. And because ye formed your owne argument your selfe in your answer to me, & I haue answered to it els; therefore I wil now insist no further vpon it. And as for your lineall succession of Bi­shops it will come in question afterward, therefore I omit it now.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

As for the written word, it is true that it is a most faithfull witnes (& it be not corrupted) to Christ & his Kirk, as our Sauiour testifies him selfe: Iohn. 5, [...], of the whilk opinion there is sundry Protestants, chiefely young Merchiston in his discourse vpon the Reuelation in the 21 Proposition, and other places. 2, Cor, 3, 6. Iohn. 6, 63, Iohn, 14.15, 16. But that it ought to bee iudge to decide all controuersies in religion, Maister Iohn hes no Scripture for the same. It is the holy Ghost that must be iudge, and the holy writ must beare witnes thereto. For this cause the holy Ghost was giuen to the Kirk by the Father and the Son, that he might teach it all trueth This holy Ghost giues iudgment by the Pastors of the true Kirk, as he did by the Apostles and Priestes at the councell of Ierusalem. Act, 15, 1 [...], 2 [...], It hes pleased the holy Ghost and vs (sayes the Apostles) and so he hes euer done since the beginning of the Kirk, when it was trobled with heresies and false doctrine As the councell of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You first here decline the Scripture as iudge, to decide all controuersies in religion. And you are not the first that hes done this, but all your Romane clergie with you. And sup­pose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your religion that it is not found in the booke of God: yet this is a great presumption that ye giue out of it your selues. For what may all men think of the same, but that if ye were perswaded in your conscience to iustify your religion to be from Iesus Christ in his writtē word, ye would neuer decline the iudicatorie of it, and the declining of the same is an euident demonstration that yee are priuie with your selues in your own consciences that it is not from God in his writtē word. But wherfore say I that ye are priuy with your selues of this? Yee haue made it knowen to the world by your confessiō in your own bookes, that many of the cheife poynts of your religion controuerted betwene you and vs, whilk yee maintaine, hes not their originall be­ginning, nor author in the Scriptures, but in your vnwritten traditions. So Petrus a Soto a papist of great name confessed. He cals all these obseruations Apostolicke traditions whose beginning principium, In his booke a­gainst Brentius origo, & auhor cannot be found in the whole scripturs and then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their religion, saying, of the whilk sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar, the inuocation or praiers to Saints, the prai­er for the dead, the supremacie of the Pope of Rome, the consecration of the water in baptisme, the whole sacraments of orders, matrimonie, pennance, confirmation and extreame vnction, the merits of works, the necessitie of satisfaction, In his Catechism cap. 5. de precep­tis Ecclesiae. the nombering ouer of the sinnes to the Preist. Canisius a great Papist sayes, that the worshiping of images, the set fastes and the sortie dayes of lent, and all that are done in the sacri­fice of the masse, praiers and oblations for the dead, & alia and others, he saies all these are traditions because they are sik that they cannot be defended by the scripture. Lib 4. Panopliae cap. 100. & in si­ne illi [...]s libri tab. 6. And Lindanus another great defen­der of your Romishe faith and religion, he reckons out for Traditions, that there are seuen Sacraments, the consecration of the water and oyle in Baptisme, the reall presence of Christs fleshe and blood in the Sacrament, Communion vnder one kinde, that the Lordes [Page 59] Supper is a Sacrifice, that it should be kept and adored, priuate Masses, Confession of sinnes to the Priest, Satisfactions, Pardons, Purgatorie, Part 3. & that Peter was in Rome. Martinus Peresius another Papist nom­bers the single lyfe of Priestes amongst the vn-written Traditi­ons. The trueth is strong, that hes so farre glanced in the cō ­sciences of some of you, and hes opened your mouthes to confesse and to set it downe in write to the worlde, that the principall heades of your Religion, yea the very foundation and ground of it, (as the supremacie of your Popes, and the Sacrifice of your Masse and the rest) are vn-written Tradi­tions whilk hes not the beginning, nor originall, nor autho­ritie in the Lords written word: and whilk cannot be defen­ded by the same, as some of your selues haue confessed. So it is no wonder, Maister Gilbert, suppose ye refuse to haue the controuersies of Religion decyded by the same. Let the rea­der nowe iudge what he may thinke of your Religion, that hes not God in his Scripture in the principal & maine foun­dations thereof, as some of your selues haue confessed, to be the authour and beginner thereof. So what needes anie fur­ther proofe against their Religion? out of their own mouthes the falset of their Religion is convicted. This therefore was the true cause (Maister Gilbert) wherefore ye refused to haue the controuersies of religion decyded by the Scripture. And for this cause also hes your Kirk heaped vp so manie fals ca­lumnies, accusations, and blasphemies against the same, cal­ling it obscure, Hosius lib. 3 de authorit. Ec. con­tra. script. Andradius lib. 2 orthod, explic. Lindanus in Panoplia sua lib. 3. cap. 6 darksome, doubtsome, Bellarm de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 4. not necessarie but onlie profitable, imperfect, Iuel pag. 521. Defens. Apolog. & Lodouicus a canon a dead inke, a dumb and dead thing, Pigius contro. 3 de Ecclesia. dum Iudges, Eckius. a black Gospell, an inkine diuinitie, Pigius hierarch lib. 3 cap. 3. a nose of waxe that may be drawne euerie way, Foxe pag. 804. containing in them diuers erroneous & damnable opinions, Hermannus a Papist. whilk were of no greater authoritie nor the fa­bles of Aesope without the approbation of the Kirk, and by the Pope Leo the 10. ex Iucl. defen Apolog. pag. 273 Pope himself a fable of Christ. And for this cause also, did they hyde it vp in an vn-knowne language, forbidding the tran­slating of it in the vulgar language, and the reading of it by the people in their mother tongue, least they should haue perceiued the falset of their religion, & so it should haue lost the credite at their hands. So ye haue bene wise in your ge­neration, Sed Veritas tandem vincet: but the trueth shall ouer­come [Page 60] at the last. You graunt it to be a witnesse, but yet you deale subtillie, while as ye put in an exception, if it be not cor­rupted. Canus lib. 2. cap. 13, de locis The­ologicis Lindanus lib. 1. c. 11, de optimo genere interpret Andradius def. fid. Trid, l. 4 Pagnin in epist, ad Clement, sep Arias Montanus tom, 8. Biblii Re­gi [...] in praesati [...]e. For if you be of that minde with your Kirk, and espe­ciallie with Canus, Lindanus, & the Colledge of Rhemes, you thinke the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines of the Scripture to be corrupted. And therefore it is decreed in the Councell of Trent, the olde Latine vulgare translation to be authen­ticke, whilk notwithstanding by the confession of some Pa­pists, as Andradius, Pagnine, and Arias Montanus, it hes missed the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost sometimes. So you not onelie put the Lord in his Scripture out of the benche, that he should not iudge & giue out the sentence of doome against your doctrine, but by this exception also ye remoue him from the barre, that his testimonie in the Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines against you, should haue no credite. Let all men iudge now what preiudice ye giue out against your owne religion, when as yee will not admit the Lord in his word in the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines neither iudge nor witnes. But you say, I haue no Scripture for mee, that the Scripture ought to be iudge. What will ye say then to Iesus Christ in the 12 chap. 48. verse of the Gospell of Saint Iohn, speaking to sik as ye are, He that refuseth me and receiueth not my words, hath one that iudgeth him, the word that I haue spoken it shall iudge him in the last day. Vnlesse now ye be a man of per­dition, ye must confesse that the word of Iesus Christ, (wher­of so much is written as may make a man beleeue, and by beleeuing to get eternall life) is iudge and iudges presentlie, and shall iudge also in the latter day.) Therefore the Apostle sayes, that God shall iudge the secrets of mens hearts by Iesus Christ, accor­ding to his Gospell. So the Gospell shal be the rule of that great iudgement in that great day and so is it the rule of his wor­ship while we are in the way to that iudgement. Suppose you nowe decline the iudicatorie of the same heere, because in your conscience ye knowe, and your owne mouthes haue confessed it, that ye are not able to iustify your religion ther­by, yet nil ye will ye, ye shalbe iudged by the same worde in the last day. But whome will ye haue to be your iudge? Ye [Page 61] say, the holie Ghost. Bellarmine sayes, that we and your Kirk aggrees in that, L b. 3. de verbi interpret, cap, 3. that the holy Ghost should be supreame iudge of all controuersies. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts owne infallible voice and breath? So then when the Scripture is iudge, the holy Ghost is iudge, because the Scripture is the immediate voice of the holy Ghost, & the holy Ghost hes gi­uen out, and giues out his iudgement in all controuersies of religion in and by the Scripture: 2, Timot [...], 3 16 Roman, 1 [...]. [...] and the holy Ghost illu­minates the eyes of these that are fore-ordained to life, to se the trueth in the Scripture: and workes in their heart faith to apprehend it and beleeue it: and formes a spiritual iudg­ment in their hearts to try and iudge, 1. Corinth. [...].1 [...] for the spirituall man iud­geth all things. And all this he workes by the meanes of the Scripture: for it is the onlie meane and instrument whereby the holy Ghost workes faith in our hearts. Thus I reason therefore: He onlie can be iudge in controuersies of religiō whose authority is sik that none may appeale from the same whose iudgement is infallible true, who will not be partiall nor fauour parties: and who is able to conuict and perswade the conscience of the trueth, and make the partie to rest in the same: But only the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture hes these properties, and no other: Therefore the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture is only iudge.

And whereas you say, that the holy write must beare witnes to it, Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius, Canisi­us, Lindanus, and Ma [...]t, Peresius quoted before what will you say then to all the chiefe points of your reli­gion almoste, whilk the learned and great defenders of your faith hes confessed, are vnwritten traditions whilk hes not their be­ginning nor authoritie from the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same? Vpon the whilk I reason thus: That doctrine is not the holie Ghosts, whilk the Scripture beares not witnesse to: this ye say your selfe, for ye say, the Scripture must beare witnesse to it: But al the chief points almost of your religion, as the su­premacie of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Masse, inuocation of Saints, the fiue bastard Sacraments, the worshipping of Images, Transubstantia­tion, Communion vnder one kinde, Satisfactions, Pardons, Purgatorie, merites of workes &c. hes not their authoritie from the Scrip­ture, nor cannot be defended by the same, as your owne Ca­tholickes [Page 62] (as ye call them) testifies: Therefore your doctrine and religion is not the holie Ghosts, and that by your owne testimonie. Nowe truelie (Maister Gilbert) I feare ye tyne your style, if you defend your religion no better nor this.

And whereas you say, that the holy Ghost giues out his iudgement by the Pastors of the true Kirk: I graunt indeed that the Pastors giues out publike sentence in controuersies of Religion, be­cause they are the Lords witnesses, messingers, and mouthes to testifie, proclaime, interprete and discerne his truth from falset. But first, the rule of this their iudgement shoulde be the word of God, vnto the whilk they are bound in all their testimonies and iudgements, from the whilk if their iudge­ments swerue but an inche-broad, they are not the iudge­ments of the holie Ghost: so that all their decreetes and de­terminations in the worship of God, and man his saluation, should onlie be receiued accordinglie as they aggree or dis­sent from the same. For the Apostle Galat. 1.8. pronounces him ac­cursed suppose he were an Angell that woulde preache another Gospell then that quhilk he preached, and he preached Act. 26, 22. nothing but out of the Scripture. But your Romaine Kirk by the contrarie sayes, That their decreets and sentences should be taken without all tryall & examination because whatsoeuer they decree (say they) in manners or doctrine, Bellarm. de Ec­clesia lib. 1. de concil. cap. 18. & lib. 3. cap. 14 whether they be comprehended in the Scripture, or not, they cannot erre.

Next if it be asked of you whome ye iudge to be the Pas­tors of the true Kirk, you will answere (as ye do) that your Kirk is the only true Kirk, and your Bishops and Popes the only true Pastors, so that they only must be the iudge to end all controuersies. Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbi interpret. cap. 5. & 9 & lib. 4. de Romano Pontif. cap. 2. And Bellarmine is plaine in this: for he saies the Pope is chiefe iudge in all controuersies in religion, either he him self alone or with his councell, and that in his iudgement and sentence all men should rest, & he should be obediently heard of all the faithfull in all matters of controuersie, whether he can erre or not: and their ca­non law hes decreted that no man should rebuke him, suppose he should carrie with him innumerable soules to hell. Dist. 40. cap. Si Papa Bellarm. lib. 1 de concil. cap, 18. and Rhemist an­notat. in 1. Thes. 2. ver, 12. & Ioannes Maria vert [...] tus editus anno 1561. & Hosias lib, de expres. ver. Dei pag. 97 And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whether they be aggreable to the Scripture or not: but that they [Page 63] should be receiued, as the expresse word of God and the Gospell. But first iudge thou (reader) in what suspition they haue their religion in their owne harts, they haue declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, and that not only as iudge, but in the authentick Greeke and Hebrew as wit­nes. So their religion cannot stand, if the Lord be either as iudge in his Scripture to giue out sentence of it, or as witnes in the authentick copies to hold his hand at the bar and de­pone against it. Now whome would they haue as Iudges? Their owne Pastors and the Pope, and all their determina­tions to be receiued without a triall, as the Gospell and ex­presse word of God as though their religion could not bee iustified, vnles the Fathers and forgers thereof, the Popes & Bishops of Rome were set on the bench to be Iudges there­of. Now what a vnrighteous thing is this, both to be partie and Iudge? For the chief controuersie is of themselues, whe­ther he be the Antichrist or not? and his Ministers and Kirk Antichristian or not? But what shew of reason can you haue for this? The prince of life, the sonne of God, who is the righ­teous Iudge of the whole world, in that great controuersie wherein it is called in question whether he was the Messias or not, desired not to be the Iudge, Ioh, 5, 3 [...] for he saide if I testifie of my self (much more if I iudge of my self) my testimonie is not sufficient but referred this controuersie to the Scripture saying search the Scriptures &c. And yet you that are but fleshe and blood, Ioh. 5.39 dust and ashes, yea monsters and incarnate diuels, as your owne writers and Councels hes testified of some of your Popes (Concilium Constantiense) who may erre and hes bene heretickes, as some of your Popes hes beene, and that by your own testimonie, you wil not only beare witnes of your selues, but also be Iudges in the controuersies of your selues, reiecting the iudgment of the holy Ghost in the Scripture. Al men, saies the Apostle, are lyars, how then shal I certainly know but they may lie: how shall my conscience rest in their iudgment: shall I haue no better warrant for my saluation nor the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes who are but men and so may lie, who are party and so neuer will [Page 64] condemne them selues, and who of all men hes moste foul­lie erred? What is this but to make the voyce of your Bishops and Popes of greater authoritie nor the voice of God in his Scripture? for seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controuersie, and the sense of the Scripture, is the Scripture it self: and your doctrine is that I must em­brace sik and sik interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controuersie, and my conscience must rest in the same, without further tryall, because he hes so decreed it: What is this, but not onelie to make him equal to the lord? (For God onlie hes that priuiledge to be beleeued, because he so speakes; mans testimonie so farre onelie is to be credi­ted as it may be warrāted by the scripture:) but also to pre­ferre his authoritie to the voice of God in his scripture, see­ing he is iudge of the same, and not that onelie, but to hang my saluation vpon his voice and testimonie? And seeing ye will haue them iudges, what is the cause that their Canons, lawes, and determinations, are not as authentick as the Scripture, and insert in the Canon of the scripture? But let vs see your reasons. First you say, That the holy Ghost was giuen to the Kirk by the Father and the Son, that he might teach it all truth. I grant this, that the holy Ghost is giuen to euery one of the elect, aswel Pastor as people, to lead thē in all truth in so far as may bring them to saluation. And yet ye will not make euery one of thē iudges: next eueryone of the elect may erre notwithstāding of this promise, suppose not totally & finally and therefore cannot be Iudges of religion. Secondly, you alledge the example of the councell of the Apostles and El­ders. It is true in that controuersie that arose among the Christians concerning the obseruing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Kirk after reasoning defined the same, & writes the same to be observed by the Disciples euerie-where: but first they were Apostles and was infallibly gouerned by Gods Spirit that they could not erre in teaching and writing: but your Pastors are not Apostles and may erre. Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Kirk, and all with one accord [Page 65] defines. Act. 15, 12, 22 23 Bellarm. lib. 1 de concil. cap, 1 [...]. You in your councell excludes all except your Bi­shops to be ordinarie Iudges to giue out iudgement and your Popes, neither Elder nor bretheren hauing power of voting with you. Thirdly, Act. 15. ver. 15. they define according to the Scripture (saying (a) as it is written &c.) This controuersie to make vs to vnderstand and wee will not bee more nor blinde, that this rule should be followed in all councels to determine in controuersies according to the Scripture. Vp­on the whilk I reason if the Apostles who had that high mea­sure of Gods spirit whilk neuer man had since, so that in writting and teaching they could not erre, if they, I say, did determine the controuersies of religion according to the Scripture, how much more then are all Pastors since who may erre both seuerally and ioyntly together in a councell, bound to follow the same rule? And whereas ye call their El­ders Preists you stile them, not as the holy Ghost hes stiled them there, so their they are called [...] that is, Elders, and not [...], that is, sacrificing Preists as ye sup­pone. Your third reason is, the practise and custome of the kirk in deciding the controuersies of religion in councels: we grant that this is a verie cōmodious meane to search & find out the trueth by the Scripture: for first the more they are that seekes the trueth, it is the more easily found. Next the consent of many in determining a trueth wil be of grea­ter authority to repres heretickes nor if it were aggreed vp­on only by a few. But yet they should determine nothing but that whilk is warranted by the Scripture, and their de­terminations only in so far forth to be receiued as is aggre­able to the same. And this we grant hes bene done in the councel of the primitiue Kirk. And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the fathers of the councel of Nice saies sunt libri Prophetici et Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit, do­cent &c. That is, there are the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles, who teacheth plainly what we should beleeue. [...] All contention therfore laid aside, let vs take the soueraigne decision of these thinges whilk are called in controuersie, out of the scriptures whilk are inspired by God. And this we [Page 66] grant, and this we craue. But that councels ought to deter­mine any thing of their owne authoritie in matters of religi­on whilk binds the conscience, without the warrant of the word, that we deny.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

The iudgement of God in cau­sing sik a dimnes and darknesse to fall vpon your eies, it is to be wondered at. It is an wonder that Maister Iohn will refer any thing to the written word, seing that he and his hes no warrant that the same is the word of God but by the authoritie of the Romane or Papists Kirk. For vnderstand there was no Kirk worthie of credite, immediatly before Luther, but that Kirk.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture. But what a wonder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me whilk Abraham hes done, Luc. 16 29. Ioh, 5 39. Act. 26.22. Rom. 12. & 6.26 2. Tim. 3 16 2 Pet, 1, 19 Apoc 1.3. cap. vlt whilk the Prophets hes done, whilk our Sauiour and his A­postles hes done, and whilk the fathers hes done (for all these haue referred the infallible testimonie and decision of the wil of God concerning his worship vnto the Scriptures,) yea whilk your selfe also hes done, for ye make it a witnes. But what hes moued you to think this a wonder in me, whilk so many and your selfe also hes done before me? Because (say ye) that he and his (that is, our Kirk) hes no warrant that it is the word of God, but by the authoritie of the Romane or Papist Rirk. I grant in deed (Maister Gilbert) that you and your Kirk are plunged in this blindnes and miserie that all the warrant that you haue not only of the Scriptures them selues, that they are inspired of God, but also of al your doc­trine and religion is the testimony of your Romane Kirk, that is, Bellarm de sacr. lib 2. cap. 25 Lib. 1. contra Whitak. de au­thoritate scrip. cap 10 of your Pope and Cleargie (for so ye interprete the Kirk) so Bellarmine grants that all the certaintie of all doctrine de­pends vpon the authoritie of the present Kirk (meaning the Pope and his Cleargie) and Stapleton saies that it is no absurd thing not to beleeue God but for the testimony of the Kirk. Pigius saies, that it is not needefull to beleeue all that Matthew and Iohn write in their Gospels to be true, because that they might faile in memory & lie as al men may doe. Ecclesiast. hierarch. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermanus saies that the Scripture would be of no more authoritie then the fables of Aesope were not the testimony of the Kirk. And so blind and mise­rable [Page 67] must you be that hangs the certaintie of all religion, and of man his saluation vpon so small a threed as the testi­mony of your Popes and Cleargie. What peace in consci­ence can any man haue that professes your religion, whilk teaches that the certaintie and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture, and the Scripture it selfe, that they are of God, but the testimony of your Popes and Clergie? What is it to expone the certaintie of the Lords scripture and of al religion comprehended in the same, to the mocking & deri­sion of the wicked, if this be not? Yea, is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Cleargie to the voyce of God him selfe? For what is the testimony of your Kirk, but the testimony of men? And is not the scripture the testimony and voyce of God him selfe? Do ye not therefore lift vp the authoritie of your Kirk, that is, your Popes and Clergie aboue the authoritie of God in his word whilk as you say, that there is no other warrant of the Diuinitie of the scripture, but only the testimony of your Kirk? But God be thanked in Christ Iesus who hes deliuered vs from this blindnes: for we haue other warrants (Maister Gilbert) whereupon the certaintie of our saluation and the Diuinitie of the scripture depends, nor by the testimony of the true Kirk much les the testimonye of your Kirk whilk is Anti­christian, and giuen ouer of God to beleeue lies, and so worthie of no credite. But how proue ye it? Ye say there was no other Kirk immediately before Luther, but that of yours; vvhilk was worthie of credite. Wherevnto I answer: first that is false: for there was a true Kirk immediately before him whilk ye persecuted, as I haue proued els where. Next I say, your argumnt will not follow: there was no other Kirk im­mediately before him &c. Ergo, we haue no other warrant that the scripture is the written word of God. For we haue also the testimony of the Kirk of the Iewes concerning the olde Testament, and of the primitiue Kirk in all ages, con­cerning both the olde and new Testament, whilk are not only other warrants nor the testimonies of your Romane Kirk, but also worthie of more credite. Next, I say we haue [Page 68] many more principall and more effectuall warrants that the scripture is of God, nor the testimony of the Kirk, either past or present: as first the testimony of the holy Ghost, cry­ing, testifying, and sealing vp in all consciences of the god­ly, not only the trueth of the doctrine contained in them, but also the diuinitie of the scripture, Lib. 1. de authorit scrip, cap. 1.6.7 1, Ioh, 5, 6 whilk Stapleton denies not, and therefore the scripture sayes that the spirit (that is the holy Ghost) bears witnes that the spirit (that it is the doctrine) is truth.

Secondly, the testimony of the Scripture it self warrand­ing and testifying of it selfe, the whole Scripture is inspired of God. The olde Testament warranted both by the testimony of the selfe, 2. Timoth. 3 the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses, and also by the testimonye of the new Testament both in 1 Pet. 1, 19. Luc, 24, 44. Luc, 16, 19. Ioh 5.39 generall, and also in Matth, 5, Math 19.7. & cap, 22 Ioh, 3, 14 particular as the books of Moses and the historical bookes, as the history of the Queene of Matth. 12 Saba, and of the widdow Luc, 4 of Sarepta, and of the Act, 2 Act, 13 Psal­mes, in sundrie places, and of sundrie of the bookes of the old Heb [...]. 11 Testament, and Matth. 1 Ruth also. And out of Esay, Ezechiell, and Ieremie, manie testimonies are cited, and out of the bookes of the smal Act, 7, 42 prophets. And sik like the new Testa­ment hes the confirmation of it out of the olde Testament: for whatsumeuer thing were prophecied in the olde Testa­ment concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the new Testa­ment, so if the old Testament hes authoritie, the new Testa­mēt also hes authoritie. And sik like 2. Pet, 3, 16 Peter by his testimonie confirmes the Epistles of Paull to be the written worde of God. Thirdly, the maiestie of the doctrine whilk shines in it, the simplicitie, puritie, and heauenlynes of the speache therein, whilk is not to be found in any other writings what­soeuer, the ancientnes and antiquitie of them, as the bookes of Moses far ancienter then any other writing. 1. Kings 13 Psal 44 The accōplish­ment of the prophecies and oracles in them as they were fore-told, their miracles and wonders whereof they testifie. The testimonies of the holie Martyres that shed their blood in the defense of the trueth of them, thei [...] wonderfull preseruation notwithstanding of the rage and crueltie of sundrie tyrants who sought them out most diligētly to haue [Page 69] destroyed them, all testifying of the diuinitie of the holie Scripture. So then to conclude this, seing we haue the testi­monie of Gods Spirit, sealing vp the trueth of them in our hearts, aad the testimony of the scripture it self, testifying of the self so many manner of waies: and sundrie other argu­ments out of the scripture it selfe: and the testimony of the Kirk in all ages, all warranting to vs the diuinitie of the ho­ly scripture, I cannot but wonder at the vnsearchable iudg­ment of God, in blinding you so far, that ye haue set it down in writ, that we haue no other warrand of the holy scripture but the authoritie of your Kirk.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

And albeit heir it were not necessarie to me to proue any heades of our Religion by the worde of God, because Maister Iohn hes promised to im­proue the same by the word, whilk he is no way able to performe: yet to sa­tisfie the Christian Reader, and that he may know that the word of God is onlie on our side and with vs, so that their exposition and notes be ta­ken from the same: I will set downe (godwilling) some heads for examples cause, that that same doctrine whilk we teach and practise, is the same that our Sauiour and his Apostles preached before, and is written in the same that he calles the touchstone.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Howsoeuer ye say this (Maister Gilbert) that that doctrine whilk ye teach and practise in your Kirk, is that same whilk our Sauiour and his Apostles teached before, and is written in the Scripture, yet in very trueth there is nothing lesse in your conscience. For if you and your Romaine Kirk were so perswaded, wherefore then should ye haue declined to haue it tried by the same? and wherefore hes some of your owne chiefe pillers and defenders of your Romane religion who knowes the certaintie of the same, wherefore (I say) would they haue proclaimed it by write vnto the worlde, that the most part and the principall heads of their religion, are vn­written traditions, whilk hes neither their originall, begin­ning, nor authoritie in the Scripture, nor cannot be defen­ded by the same? And wherefore would your Romane kirk [Page 70] haue heapt vp so many fals accusations and blasphemies a­gainst the same? and wherefore last of all would ye haue set vp your Pope & his bishops to be supreame and soueraigne iudge ouer the same, as you doe? But this you doe, because you knowe that if ye reiected the Scripture as far in worde, as ye do in deed, the consciences of the poore people would at the last withdrawe themselues from vnder your tyranny, and would goe out of your fellowship for the safety of their soules: so vnder the cloak and pretence of the Scripture, ye keepe them in your communion. And surelie, were not for this cause onlie, you would regarde no more of the testimo­nie of the Scripture, nor of the testimony of the fables of Aesope. For, Bellarm. de sacr. lib. 2 cap. 25 Stapl. lib 1. cont. Whitaker. ca, 10 the chief authoritie and all the suretie and certainty of all Religi­on with you, as Bellarmine and Stapleton confesses, is (not the testimony of the Scripture) but the authoritie of your owne Kirk. So I assure thee, reader, it is but for a shew that they bring forth the Scripture to proue the heads of their religion. Let the mat­ter therfore be tried betwixt vs by these examples whilk ye set downe heere.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Epist. 28. ad Hier. 1. We say with Saint Augustine that the Sacrament of Baptisme is so necessarie to infants, that they cannot come to heauen without the same, whilk is contrary to their negatiue faith, where they call it the Popes cruell iudgement against infants departing without the Sacrament. First, I say, that Christ taught the same doctrine in these words, Except a man be borne again of water and of the Spirit, Ioh. 3.5 he cānot enter in the kingdome of God. We say this is spoken properlie of the Sacrament of Baptisme, because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirite of God, but in Baptisme. The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also. When they exspected the patience of God (sayes S. Peter) in the dayes of Noe when the Arke was building, 1, Pet, 3, 20, 21 in the whilk, few that is eight soules, were saued by water, whereunto Baptisme being of the like forme now saues you also. Galath. 3 27 Act. 22.17. Act. 2 38 And Saint Paule sayes. For as many of you as are baptized in Christ, haue put on Christ. And Ananias saide to Saint Paule And now what tariest thou, rise vp and be baptized, and washe away thy sins, inuocating his name. T [...]t. 3.5. Rom. 6 3 4, 1, Cor 6, 11 Mat, 16, 16 And Saint Paule himself in another place, Christ hes sa­ued vs by the lawer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost. I thinke there is no Christian reader that sees these places, but he must say that Bap­tisme is most necessarie to infants, except he will beleue rather the exposi­tion of the Ministers, nor of the word of God.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

First, ye begin at the necessitie of the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, whereof ye affirme that it is so necessarie, that infants cannot come to heauen without the same. As for Baptisme we graunt that it is a most effectuall seale and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Iesus, and of the remission of our sinnes through his blood, & regeneratiō through his Spirit, so that either the neglect or the contempt of it, (because it is the neglect and contempt of the couenaunt it selfe, and of Christ Iesus the foundation of the couenant) is damnable. But that it is so absolutelie necessarie to infants, that without it they cannot come to heauen: to wit, these whome he hes prede­stinate, it being neither neglected nor cōtemned, but death preuēting the receiuing of it: that we allutterly deny as im­pious, vngodlie, and cruell. For first I say there is none that is in the couenant of grace, & who hes God to be their god, and are holy, that can perish. This you cannot deny. But the children of the faithfull who are of his secret election are sik before they be baptised. And this I proue. The Lord promi­sed to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seede. Gen, 17, 17 Act, 2, 39. 2, Cor, 7, 14 And this Peter also testifies, The promise (saieth he) is made to you & to your children. And the Apostle sayes, that the children of the faithfull are holie: Therefore the children of the faithfull who are of Gods secret election, suppose they die without Bap­tisme, doth not perishe. Secondlie, if Baptisme were abso­lutelie necessarie to saluation, then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament. This cannot be denied. But your Maister of sentences sayes, that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments, and it is impious so to thinke, that Gods free grace and saluation is bound to the instrument. Thirdlie, if Circumcision was not absolutely necessarie to saluation in the old Testament, then Baptisme is not absolute necessarie now, because Circumcision was as straitly enioy­ned to them, as Baptisme is enioyned to vs, and Baptisme is succeded in the roome of the same, but Circumcision is not absolute necessarie. For Lombardus is rebuked by the Do­ctors of Paris because he so thought. And Dauid doubtes not [Page 72] to say of his childe who died the seuenth day, and so before he was circumcised, I shall goe to him, &c. and so he pronoun­ced that he was saued: and al the time that they were in the wildernesse, almost 40. yeares, Circumcision was neglected, whilk plainlie showes, that it was not so absolute necessarie, that saluation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptisme is not so absolute necessarie to saluation, as ye sup­pose: for the grace of God is of no lesse force in the new Te­stament, nor it was in the olde. Fourtlie, we read of sundry that receiued the holy Ghost before they were baptized, & seing the holy Ghost where he is, regenerates to eternal life: Therefore life eternall is not bound absolutelie to Baptisme Fiftlie, what a crosse and disturbance is this, that your do­ctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents, whose children hes bene preuented by death, before they could be offered to be baptized? if they beleeue your doctrine, how often will this come in their minde, that their children are damned. And seeing the infants themselues are not in the cause that they are not baptized, but their death preuenting by Gods prouidence, or the Parents neglecting or contem­ning the same, or persecution, or one impediment or other hindering, wherefore are ye so cruell to iudge them to bee damned for that, whereof themselues are causlesse? And last of all, if ye be acquainted in the histories of the Kirk of God in the first age, ye will finde many that delayed to be bapti­zed, vntill their latter age, whilk they would neuer haue done and they had thought it simpliciter necessarie to salua­tion as ye doe. And Ambrosius doubts not to say that Valen­tinian wanted not the grace of Baptisme, suppose he wanted Baptisme it self: the whilk he would neuer haue saide, if he had thoght it absolutely necessarie to saluation. And Bernard sayes, I can not altogether despaire of the saluation of them who wants Baptisme not through contempt, but onlie through impossibilitie to get it. And in that same place hee sayes. So also if our Sauiour Christ for this cause. When he had saide, hee that beleeueth and is Baptised shall bee saued: did of purpose in repeating the sentence, omit to say: Hee that is not Baptised, but he that beleeueth not shall bee damned, for hee saw [Page 73] that faith only might suffice to saluation, and without faith nothing can suffice. Iustly then might your Popes sentence and your own be said to be cruell, in our confession. But how proue ye this doctrine of yours to be Christs? Ye cite the three chap­ters of Iohn where our Sauiour saies, Except a man be borne a­gaine &c. vvhilk say ye is properly meaned of the sacrament of baptisme. Vpon the whilk ye infer the necessitie of the same. Whereunto I answere that interpretation of yours is false: for our Sauiour speakes not here of the sacrament of Baptisme: and that for these reasons: firste, our Sauiour speaks here generally of al men, and not of infants only, and therefore he sayes, Except a man be borne &c. speaking to Ni­codemus who was a man and not an infant, so that if your ex­position were true all men that died without baptisme and not infants only, are excluded from heauen. But that is false: for first the good theef was not baptised with water, and yet our Sauiour saide to him, this might thou shalt be with me in pa­radise. And therefore our Sauiour speakes not here of the sa­crament of baptisme: for he speakes of that new birth by water and the spirit without the whilk none can be saued: but this theefe and others were saued without the baptisme of water: therefore he speakes not here of it. Next our Sa­uiour in that place speakes of that new birth by the spirit & water whilk is so absolutely necessarie to the saluatiō of al men that it admits no exception. This cannot be denyed. But Bellarmine makes two exceptions against the absolute necessitie of baptisme: one of martyrdome, the other of true conuersion and pennance, Lib, 1, de Baptis, cap. 6 whereof (sayes he) either of them supplies the want of baptisme. Therfore our Sauiour speakes not here of the sacrament of baptisme. Thirdly if we will be­leeue Christ Iesus expounding him-selfe, and Scripture ex­pounding Scripture, I say, by water is not alwaies meaned the sacrament of baptisme: but the purifying grace of Christ whilk is called the water of life, so our Sauiour speakes in the 4. chapter of Iohn verse 11. & 7. chapter verse 38, And in that same sense water is here added to the spirit to ex­pound the more sensibly the efficacie of the spirit in wash­ing [Page 74] and clensing vs, as fire is added to the spirit in the 3. of Matthew. 11. vers. He will baptize you with the spirit and with fire, whilk is not properly vnderstoode of any naturall fire, but taken figuratiuely to expound more sensibly the force and eficacie of the spirit in burning vp our corrupti­on.

Fourthlye, what an absurd thing were this whilk shoulde follow if your exposition were true, that for the want of the sprinkling of a little water, the infants should perishe that are in the couenant, seing they were not the cause of the want of it. Further, I say, that suppose baptisme were here meaned: yet there is no sik necessitie as ye suppose, for if martyrdome and pennance may supply the want of this wa­ter (as Bellarmine confesses) how much more may the holye Ghost supply the want of the same in infants: and if anye thing may supply the want of it, then it is not so absolutely necessary that al these infants are damned that wants it.

Ioh 22.6.53 2. Our Sauiour speakes as generally and absolutely, Vn­lesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood, ye haue no life in you, whilk ye interprete of the other sacrament, so that if your interpretation were true, the Eucharist shuld be as absolutely necessarie to the saluation of infants, as you say baptisme is. But the first you wil not grant. Therefore the o­ther must also be false. 3. If here ye would infer a necessitie of baptisme, then I say at that same time it began to be ne­cessarie: for he saies not, he that shal not be borne againe &c. But he that is not borne &c. Lib. de Baptisme cap 5 But Bellarmine saies it was not necessary while Christs death, yet not while the Pentecost fiftie dayes after his death, therefore it is not like that any necessitie of baptisme is here vnderstanded: for it had bene good reason that Christs baptisme whilk was ministred while he liued in the flesh should haue bene as necessary as the Apostles bap­tisme whilk was ministred afterward. But the first was not absolutely necessarie, as Bellarmine testifies, therefore neither is the second. And last of all, least ye should say all this is our exposition, Se [...]. lib 4. distin. 4. cap. His autem the Maister of the sentences expounding this place, who suppose he be of this iudgement with you con­cerning [Page 75] infants departed, yet he saies that this place is to be vnderstanded of them who might haue bene baptized, but contemned the same: therefore this place imputes no abso­lute necessitie of it. As for the rest of the places of Scripture whilk ye quote, they serue nothing to prooue sik an absolut necessitie of baptisme, as ye suppose, but only sets downe the effects of the same whilk are sealed vp in the harts of the be­leeuers by the holy Ghost, as the inwarde worker, and bap­tisme as the outward instrument, 1. Pet. 3.20.21. Tit. 3 5. Mar. 16 16 as our saluation through the death of Christ, our Gal. 3.27 vnion with Christ, and Rom 6 3.4 with his death, & Act. 22.17. & 2.38 1, Cor. 6.11. remission of sins, regeneration, mortification of the olde man. And therefore circumcision in whose roome baptisme is succeeded it is Rom. 4 called the seale of righteousnesse whilk is by faith. Take away therefore your exposition from these places, and there will no sik absolute necessitie of bap­tisme follow here as ye suppose. And therefore Lib. 1. de sacr. Bapt. cap. 4 Bellarmine the learnedst of your writers, because he knew that these places whilk ye quote here could not proue sik an absolute necessitie of baptisme, nor haue no appearance to proue the same, doth not cite one of them for the proofe of the necessi­tie, except only the third of Iohn leauing all the rest. And as for that of Augustine, we grant he was of that mind that bap­tisme was necessarie to infants, but he was also of that iudg­ment that the Eucharist was necessarie vnto them, and yet your Romane Kirk, nor you neither, I hope, wil subscriue to this error of his. Seeing therefore you dissent from him in the necessitie of the one, and that vpon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we also dissent from him in the o­ther hauing so many groundes and reasons out of the word of God to the contrarie, as hes bene sayd? And this for the first point. Now let the christian reader iudge vpon whose side the word of God is.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

2 Our doctrine is, that ane man by the grace of God may keep the commands of God, and obey him, whilk is contrarie to their confession of faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Christ saies, Matth. 19.17 If you will enter into lyfe, keepe the commands. And againe, If ye loue me keepe [Page 76] my commands: Ioh, 14 15, 24 Mat. 21, 29, 30 And in another place, He that loues mee not, keepes not my wordes, &c. Also, Take vp my yoake vpon you, &c. For my yoake is sweet, and my burthen [...]ight. Now I beleeue that no man can deny, but this yoake and burthen of Christ is his commands and Lawes. This same doctrine the A­postles teached. Saint Paule sayes, I can doe all things in him that comfortes mee: Phil, 4, 13, & 2, 13 1, Ioh, 5, 3 and before, For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will: and Saint Iohn sayes, This is the charitie of God that we keep his commandes, and his commands are not heauie Now farther nor these, we read that Gen, 6 9 Noe, Ge. 26.5 Abraham, Iob. 1, 22 Iob, were iust men, and o­beyed God: and Saint Luke sayes, that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife, were both iust before God, Luc, 1, 6 3. Kings 14 8, 4, Reg, 8, 3, 4. Reg, 20, 3, 4, Reg, 23, 25, 2, Par. 15, 15, and walked in all the commands, and iustifica­tion of our Lord without blame. I here are many other places in the olde Testament of the same matter, of the whilks I haue noted som on the mar­gent. Now holde away from these places the Ministers commentaries, and I beleeue that all men wil confes, that our doctrine in this, and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

It appeareth that Maister Gilbert is loath that the secrete of the doctrine of his Kirk should be knowne to the people, because he knowes in his heart they would abhor the same: their owne harts and consciences witnessing to the contra­rie. Therefore he hes hid vp the poison of it, and couered it as secretlie as he could. But that wherein you are darke, the rest of your Romane cleargie are plaine. For first, whereas ye say, that a man by the grace of God, may keepe the com­mands, Lib. 4. de Iustifie, ca. 10. Gratia Dei adiunante Bellarmine expones more clearlie & sayes, By the helpe of the grace of God. And the Monkes in that forme of abiura­tion set out anno 1585. sayes, that man by the new strength of grace infused in goodwill, may keepe the command. So that wheras your words would seeme to import that the grace of God is the onlie cause of this obedience to Gods commandements in the faithfull, and so I thinke euerie one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Romane Kirk wil take it, and so it may be ye teach them. The rest of your brethren are more plaine, in halfing it betwixt Free-will, and the grace of God helping Free-will, as though the strenth of na­ture were the more principal cause, & the grace of God but a helper to it. And secondlie, whereas ye say, that a man by the grace of God may keep the commandements of God, & [Page 77] obey them, Bellarm. cap. 19 pag. 364 Ex integro boro. & lib. 2. de Iustif cap. 3 Bellarmine sayes more plainlie that the Law of God is absolutelie possible vnto them, and they may absolutely fulfill the Lawe, and keepe the whole Lawe, and that the works of the righteous are absolutelie and simpliciter righteous, and proceeding of a perfite ho­linesse, without all blemish of sinne, and that they please God, not for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, couering their imperfections, and forgiuing them, but for the excellencie of the worke it selfe. So this is their doctrine (Christian reader.) Nowe, as hee hid his owne, so hes he hid ours also. For our confession of Faith saies, that our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect, whilk worde he omitted: as though it had beene our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keeps the commandements of God. Our doctrine ther­fore is this: That of our owne nature we are Eph. 2.1 dead in sinne, & of our selues we are neither able to 1. Cor. [...].14 vnderstand, nor 2. Cor. 3 5 thinke, nor philip. 2, 1 3 will, nor doe those things that are pleasant to God, and ther­fore we must be Ioh. 3 5. borne anewe againe, or we can doe any Ioh. 15.5 thing that is acceptable in Gods sight: and this Rom. 7.14.15 sancti­fication of ours is not perfite, while we are in this life, but imperfect, euer some darkenesse, some rebellion, some dregs of the olde man yet remaining in vs, so that we 1. Cor. 13.12 knowe but in a parte, and our will is but renewed in part, and our heart sanctified in parte, from the whilk it cōmeth, that first we do not all the good that we are bound to doe, and would do, as the Rom. 7.15, 16, 17.18.19.20, 21 22.23.24 Apostle sayes: next that all our righteousnesse, as the Esai. 64, 6 Prophet sayes, is but as a menstrous cloute, euer smelling somewhat of the corruption of the olde man within vs: and so, that they haue need to be couered with the righteousnes of Iesus Christ, and their imperfection to be pardoned. By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who workes both to will, and to doe in vs, we begin heir obedience to the whole Law of God, but yet are not able perfitelie so to keep it, as our works may byde to be tried before the Lord in the ballance of his Lawe: and therefore we place the whole hope of our saluation in the onelie mercie of God through Iesus Christ, who is made to vs of God, righteousnesse, sanctification, and redemption: by whose mercy we obtaine the perfite remission [Page 78] of our sins: and so we conclude with Dauid, Psal. 32. Blessed is hee whose sinnes are forgiuen him, and whose iniquities are couered. This now is the verie simple trueth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head.

Now to answere you. Whereas ye say, that a man by grace may keep the commandements of God: if you meane that the onlie 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 heartie, not to one, but to al the com­mandements: not onelie outward, but inward: suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Lawe of God re­quyres: then, I say, you contradict the doctrine of your Ro­mane Kirk, and forsakes their error of Free-will concurring with grace, and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Lawe, and so shakes hands with the trueth of God whilk we professe in this point. And so becomes a bad defen­der of their Catholicke faith, as ye stile your self. And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and beleeue, sup­pose ye lost that stile for euer. But if ye make Free-will the principall cause of this obedience (as Bellarmine cals it:) and if ye vnderstand a perfite obedience (as your Kirk teaches) then first tell mee why did ye not speake as plainlie as you thought? Were you afraied that the hearts of men shoulde haue skunnered with this your doctrine, if yee had beene as plaine in your write, as ye are in your own iudgement? Next I say, you haue the Lorde in his written word as contrary to this your doctrine, as light is to darknesse. For, as to the first the Scripture testifies plainlie that we are Ioh 5.25. Col. 2 13. Ephes. 2.1 dead in sinne, & that the Rom. 8.17 wisdome of the fleshe is enimity against God: and ther­fore we haue neede to be Ioh. 3.5 borne againe: that is, to receaue a new life or euer we can be able to enter into the kingdome of God: and that it is God that Philip. 2.13 worketh in vs both to will and to do, and that of 2. Corinth, 3 5. our selues we are not sufficient to thinke any thing as of our selues, & that Gen. 6 5 all the imaginations of mans heart is onlie euill continuallie: Where then is there ony place left to Free-will? And as to the second, the Scripture sayes, Eccles 7.10. There is not a righteous man in the earth, who dooth good and sinneth [Page 79] not, therefore no perfite keeping of the Law. And who Pro, 20. [...] may say, my heart is cleane, and I am pure from sinne: if no man may say so, then no man can keep perfitelie the whole Law. And Rom, 3, 20, 2 [...] by the workes of the Law no flesh is iustified in his sight, ther­fore no fleshe is able perfitelie to keepe the Lawe, for if he could keepe the Lawe, hee would be iustified by the Lawe. But the Apostle sayes, that no fleshe can be iustified by the Lawe: Therefore none can keepe the Lawe. And therefore the Scripture sayes, Rom, 8 3 [...] Act. 15, 10 that the Law is impossible because of the waik­nesse of the fleshe. For the whilk cause the sonne of God tooke on him our nature to fulfill this impossibilitie of the Lawe. And Iames calles the Lawe a yoake whilk (saies he) neither we nor our Fathers were able to beare. If they said that they coulde not beare it, that is, perfitelie obey it, who obtained a high­er measure of grace, nor euer any since did, what shall we then say of all other men after them? and what arrogancie and presumption is this in these of the Romane Kirk, to say, and to beare others in hand, that they are able to beare that yoake whilk the Apostles was not able to beare? And Iesus Christ hes taught vs to pray daylie, Forgiue vs our sinnes, Matth. 6 whilk needed not, if we were able to keepe the whole Lawe. And beside the plaine testimonies of the Scripture, euery mans owne dolefull experience telles them of their manifold and continuall sinning. What a damnable doctrine is this then, whilk blindes their eies so far, that neither they see nor feele the inward corruptions of their owne heart within them, re­belling against the Lawe of God, nor yet the perfection whilk the Lawe of God requyres.

Now to the testimonies of Scripture whilk ye quote: and first, that in the 19. of Matthew, If you would enter into life, keepe the commandements: I answere: the same is to be saide to you, vvho seekes for life and righteousnesse by the vvorks of the Lawe, Keepe the Commands. But that are ye vnable to doe, or any man else, except the man the Lord Iesus, (as hes beene proued:) and as vn-able as this young man was, to vvhome it vvas saide at the last, It is as impossible to him to go into heauen as to a Camell or Cable rope to goe through the eie of a needle. But ye [Page 80] vvill say, Wherefore then vvould our Sauiour Christ haue commanded him to keep the commandements, if he would haue life? I ansvvere: not because he vvas able to doe it, but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it, for by the Lawe as the Apostle sayes, Rom. 7.7 comes the knowledge of sinne. And to cast dovvne that presumption that he had of himself, that he had obserued and keeped the Lawe, that in conscience of sinne, he might be brought to seeke for life eternal in Christ Iesus onlie.

And least Maister Gilbert, ye say that this is my expositi­on: therfore heare what the Apost. saies. As many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse: Galat 3.10.14 for it is written, Cursed is euerie man that continueth not in all thinges whilk are written in the booke of the law to doe them: and that no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euidēt. Now this is spoken not only of the Iewes but of the Gentiles that beleeued in Christ Iesus, and were vnder grace: vpon the whilk I reason thus. If as many as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse, and no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God, then no man is able to get life eternall by keeping of the law, and so this young man to whome Christ gaue his answer, neither had kept nor could keepe the lawe: but the first is saide by the Apostle, therfore the second is true. Next, the law requires a perfect obedience with all the hart, with all the vnderstanding, & thought, and strength vnto all the commandements, Mat. 22.37. Luc 10.17. Mar, 12.31 Deut. 27.16 Iac. 2.10 and that continually: so that Iames saies, he that breakes one is guiltie of all: and the law doth pronounce them accursed that continues not in the doing of all thinges &c. in this perfection. Now who is he that is come out of the loynes of Adam (except only the Lorde Iesus) who hes continued in the perfect obedience of all thinges without the breach of any in thought, word, or deede? Are you able (M. Gilbert) or hes euerie one of your Romane Kirks performed, or is able to performe this obedience that the law requires? Seing therfore y^t none is able, & this young man neither had performed, nor yet was able to performe this perfect obedience to the lawe: therefore of necessitie it must follow that our Sauiour gaue him this command Keepe [Page 81] the commandements, &c. not because he was not able to keepe them, but to bring him by the lawe to a conscience of the brek of them. As for the rest of the Scriptures whilk ye bring in, they are easilie answered, Iohn. 14.15, 24. 1. Iohn. 5.3. If yee loue mee keepe my commandements &c. and he that loues me not keeps not my word &c. I grant the Lord hes commanded obedience to his commandements. And I graunt they that loues him keepes them, and all the children of God loues him, and be­ginnes also obedience to al his commandements. But yet as their loue is not in that perfection whilk the lawe requires, with all their hart, with all their vnderstanding, and with all their strength: so their obedience is not in that perfection. And neuer-theles the perfection of their obedience is forgi­uen, being couered with the perfect obediēce of Iesus Christ, and through him is acceptable in his presence, and of him al­so shall be crowned with a crowne of glorie, suppose freelie. And to proue this: if anie had obeyed the commandements perfectly, thē surely the Apostles Paule, Iames, Iohn, Peter, shuld haue done it: for they loued him in as great and greater measure of loue, nor euer anie since did. And our Sauiour testifies of them to his father that they had kept his worde. Ioh. 17.6. Rom. 7 1. Ioh. 1.8.9 But the Apostle Paule testifies of himselfe that he did not the thinge he would, but the thing that he hated that he did, and to will was pre­sent with him, but to performe he found it not, and he saw a law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde, and leading him cap­tiue vnto sinne. And Iohn saies of him self & of all men, if we saye we haue not sin we make him a lier & the trueth is not in vs. And him selfe twise would haue worshiped an Angell contrarie to the law. And Iames sayes that in many things we offend all. Reuel. 29.10. & 22.8 9. Deut. 6 13. Iames 3.2 Gal, 2.11.12 And Peter to whome our Sauiour said thrise: if thou loue me, keepe my lawes: went not with a right foote to the trueth of the Gospell. There­fore none is able perfectly to keepe them.

We se then there is a keeping of the commandements, & a keeping of them in perfection. The first common to all the faithfull, suppose not in an equall measure. The second one­ly possible to Adam or he fell, and to the Saintes in that kingdome.

As for the 11. of Matthew, Take vp my yoke &c. for my yoke is sweete and my burthen light. And the 1. Iohn 5.3. his commande­ments are not heauy. I answere. Our Sauiour and his Apostles calles his commandements light, sweete and not heauie, not because the perfection of the law is possible to anie to per­forme in this life, but first because the Lorde Iesus hes taken away the curse of it, and also requires not of vs that perfecti­on whilk the law requires vnder the paine of the ours of the law if it be not satisfied. And last of al because he by his spirit renewes the harts of his owne, and makes them able with ioy to begin that obedience: so that what they doe they doe it not vpon constraint, as being vnder the law: but willingly for the loue of Christ, Roman. 7 and they delight in the same accor­ding to the law of their minde, as the Apostle speakes of him self. But yet with in they finde a law in their members re­belling against the law of their minde, leading them captiue vnto sinne. So in these respects are his commādements cal­led light and swete. But in the 15. of the Acts, the Apostles calls it a vnsupportable yoke, whilk neither they nor their fathers were able to beare. [...] Rom, 3 20 & 7.14 &c. Gal. 3.10 And in the 8. to the Romans it is called impossible. As for the 4. of the Philippians 13. where the Apostle sayes. Hee is able to doe all things by him that comforts him. The Apostle speakes not here of his abilitie to performe the law in that perfection whilk the law requires: for he hes testified the contrarie both of him selfe and of all others, as hes bene saide. But onlie this, that through him hee is able to sustaine all sorts of condition, both to abound and to be in scarcitie, to be full and to be hungrie. This is not my exposition, but the Apostle so expounds him selfe in the for­mer verse: so that I wonder vpon what shew ye could quote this testimony.

As for the 2. of the Philippians, it is true the Lord worketh in his owne both to will and to accomplish: but yet it fol­lowes not that they are able perfitly to obey the lawe. For, if that measure of grace had bene wrought in anie, it had bene wrought in the Apostles, but not in them as hes bene shewn, & that by their own testimonie: therfore in none els.

Next what can be more cleare for the ouerthrowe of your Free-will, nor is this place of Scripture. If the Lord workes in vs both to will and to performe, then wee are not able to will of our selues that whilk is acceptable to God. As for the examples whilk ye cite of Noah, Abraham, Iob, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, Dauid, Ezechia, Iosia, Iuda, and Asa, and these whome the Lord reserued to himself pure from the Idolatry of your Antichristiā kingdome forspoken ther. They walked indeed in integritie and sinceritie in the commandements and wayes of the Lord, and therefore hes receiued a good testi­mony and reporte of Gods spirite in the Scripture, all whilk we grant vnto you. But that they answered the lawe in that perfection, that it requires; the Scripture whilk hes registred their walkings, and their owne testimonies will gainesay it. Roman. 4 Noah fell in drunkennesse, Abraham was not iustifyed by the works of the law, but by faith, whilk is a most sure argument that he fulfilled not the lawe. Iob sayes, Iob. 9.2.3.20 Luc. 1.20 if I would affirme my selfe to be righteous, my owne mouth woulde condemne me. Zacharias beleeued not the worde of the Lorde spoken to him by the Angell, therefore was striken dumbe. Dauid fell in adulterie, 2. Samu. 12, & 24 murther, and prouoked the Lords anger by numbering the people and he sayes of himselfe, Psal. 40, 13. Psal 130, 3. Psal. 143.2. my iniquities are more in number then the haires of my head. And in another place If thou mark ini­quitie, O Lord who can stand? And enter not in iudgment with thy ser­uant, for no man liuing should be righteous before thee. 2. Chron. 32, 25 2. Chron. 17.7 Ioh. 21.22. Ezechias heart was lifted vp. Iosias harkned not vnto the words of Necho according to the word of the Lord. Asa put his trust not in the Lord his God, but in the King of Syria. The like is to be sayde of these whome the Lorde did reserue to himselfe in the middest of the king­dome of darknesse, that they did keepe the commande­ments of God, but not in that perfection whilk the law re­quired. For they were not more righteous then the Prophet Esay & the Apostles were. But the Prophet sayes, Esai 64. Iames 3 that we are all vncleane, & all our righteousnes is as a menstruous clout. And the Apostle sayes, in many thinges we sinne all. And Augustine sayes, Ad Bonif, lib. 3 cap. 7 all the commandements of God are accompted to be done when that whilk is not done is forgiuen. And in another place: Epist. 6 [...] for the want [Page 84] of loue it is that there is not a righteous man in the earth, that doth good & sinneth not. And In Galath. 3 Ambrose sayes, the commandements of God are so great that they are impossible to bee kept. And In Galath. 3 Ierome sayes, because no man can fulfill the law, and doe all things that is commanded. And Cantic. serm. 5. Bernard sayes, the commandements of God can­not nor could not be fulfilled of any man. And In Galat. 2 Chrysostome sayes, No man hes fulfilled the Lawe. And In Gal. 3, lect. 4 Thomas, one of the chiefe pillers of your own Kirk writes, That it is impossible to fulfill the whole Lawe: and Lib. 11. in con­ [...]l. cap. 20, Vega a Papist sayes, That venial sinnes are pro­perlie against the Lawe. Vpon the whilk I reason, he that daylie transgresses the lawe, fulfilles not, nor is not able to fulfill the lawe, (for to fulfil the lawe and trasngresse the lawe are con­trarie:) but your owne doctrine is, that no man can keepe himselfe at least from veniall sinnes, and Vega (as hes beene saide) sayes that veniall sinnes are against the lawe: There­fore if your selues speake true, no man is able to fulfill the law. I conclude therefore that this doctrine of yours is con­trarie to the doctrine of Iesus Christ and his Apostles, set downe in the Scripture, and also contrarie to the doctrine of the fathers, and contrarie to the doctrine of the moste learned, and chief doctours of your Romaine Kirk. And this for the second pointe of your doctrine.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

This is the third time that you haue belied and spoken falslie of our writings and doctrine Matth 23 37 Act 7.51 2 Pet. 39. 1. Tim. 2.4 3 Our doctrine is, that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God, whilk is contrarie to their doctrine, ratified by act of Parliament in the yeare 1560. And also against their Psalme booke of Geneua. Yet our do­ctrine is the doctrine of Christ. For Christ said to them of Ierusalem, How oft would I haue gathered together thy children, but you would not? and Saint Steuen Ye stiffe-necked and of vncircumcised hearts and eares, ye alwayes re­sist the holy Ghost, as your fathers, your selues also. The same was the faith & beleef of the Apost S. Peter sayes, Our Lord is not willing that any perish, but that al return to pennance and S. Paule hes, Our Sauiour God willes all men to be saued, and to come to the knowledge of the trueth. This was the doctrine of the Psal. 5.5. Ezec. 18.23 Ezech. 33. [...], Prophets before. Nowe then if God willes that all men shoulde returne, & yet all men does not the same, whereof proceedes it but of their Free will, whilk wil not work with the will of God. Therefore our Sauiour sayes in sundrie places, If thou wilt enter into lyfe keepe my commands: If thou will be perfite goe and sell all that thou hes: Matth. 19.17 Luc. 9.23 He that will followe mee, let him deny himself.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for this third point of doctrine, I cannot wonder e­nough what ye meane by it. For haue you sold your selfe so far to vn-trueth and lying, that for to bring the trueth of God whilk we professe, in hatred: you will father on vs that doctrine whilk neuer so meikle as once entered into our thoughts, let be to teach it or write it. Did you think when ye write this, that the truth of it would neuer come to light? or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of ly­ing at the last, so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumnie? But frost and falset (as they say) will neuer haue a faire hinder­end. If you meane then by resisting the will of God, a volun­tary disobedience and repyning against the Spirite of God, and his reuealed will in his worde, as the testimonies whilk ye quote heere, imports: Then, I say, there was neuer man of our religion that professed, taught, or write the contrary: & ye will not finde a sillable neither in the confession of our faith confirmed by the act of Parliament, neither in our Psalme booke to the contrary. For our doctrine is flat con­trarie to this: to wit, that man of his free-wil resists that that is good, and chooses the contrarie. So ye fight heir with your owne shadow. And if ye meane any other thing, set it down in plaine tearmes, and I hope, by his grace, it shalbe answe­red. So I cannot wonder enough what ye meant to write, and subscriue so manifest an vn-truth. Now surelie, (Maister Gilbert) I thinke it had bene greater wisdome to you to haue saued your owne credite, and not for a little hatred to our religion, to haue blotted your self with lying and vn-trueth for euer. I would pray thee, Christian reader, if thou wilt not credite me, reade our confession thy selfe: and, I hope, thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscri­uing so manifest a calumnie. This for the 3. point.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

4 Our doctrine is, that our Sauiour gaue his true flesh and very body & blood vnder the formes of bread and wine, to be eaten of his disciples at his [Page 86] last Supper, and that to be receiued by their very mouth: and this I say by the written word, is the doctrine of Christ & his Apostles. Christ sayes, And the bread whilk I will giue you, Ioh. 6.51 Matth. 26, 7, 28 is my fleshe for the life of the world: and at the latter Supper, Take ye and eate ye, This is my bodie And Drinke ye all of this For this is my blood of the new Testament, whilk shalbe shed for many vnto re­mission of sinnes: Marc. 14, 22, 24 And in Saint Mark, This is my bodie, and this is my blood of the new Testament, Luk, 22, 19.20 whilk shalbe shed for manie And Saint Luke sayes, This is my bodie whilk is giuen for you: and this is the chalice of the new Te­stament in my blood whilk shalbe shed for you. This same is the doctrine of the Apostles. For Saint Paule sayes, This is my bodie whilk shalbe delyuered for you: 1, Cor. 11.24, 25 27, 2 [...] and this Chalice is the new Testament in my blood: and whosoeuer shal eate this bread and drinke the Chalice of our Lord vnworthely, he shalbe guilty of the bodie and blood of our Lord: and after, For he that eates and drinkes vn­worthelie eates and drinkes iudgement to himself, not decerning the body of our Lord: and in the chapter before, The Chalice of benediction whilk we do blisse is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? 1. Corinth. 10, 10 and the bread whilk we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lorde

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

I come nowe to the fourth point of your doctrine, your Transubstantiation and reall presence. The first ye quote, is the 6. of Iohn, And the bread whilk I will giue, is my fleshe, &c. This makes nothing for your reall presence. For first, our Sauiour speakes not heere of that Sacramentall eating and drinking, of his flesh & blood, in this sermon, whilk was not instituted a yeere after that: for he speakes heere of that ea­ting and drinking of his flesh and blood, without the whilk there is no life. So our Sauiour testifies in the 53. verse, Ex­cept ye eate (sayes he) the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, ye haue no life in you. But your selues graunts that men may be saued without that sacramental eating: therefore it is not of that whilk he speakes heir. Secondly, he speakes of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, whilk who­soeuer so doth, hath eternall life to themselues: so our Sa­uiour Christ promises in the 54. verse. But your owne do­ctrine is, that the reprobate eates and drinkes Christs body & blood in the sacrament, and yet hes no life in them: ther­fore he speaks not heere of that sacramental eating. Third­lie, if he speake heere of the sacramentall eating as you say, then your Kirk not onlie hes erred foullie, but also hes bene and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these [Page 87] manie yeares, because you giue them not his blood to drink And our Sauiour sayes not onlie, Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, but also, except ye drink his blood, ye haue no life in you. And this reason was so effectuall, that it hes moued sundrie of your own Doctors to expone this place, not of the sacra­mentall eating and drinking of the bodie & blood of Christ, As Iansenius & Tapperus with sundrie others. but of the spirituall eating and drinking of him by faith. For they did se that it behoued them either to forsake this place, as not making for them, and graunt that it speakes not of the sacrament: or else to confesse that their Kirk hes erred, and through this error, hes bene the cause of the damnation of manie, in ministring the sacrament but vnder one kinde. And because you say, if our expositions were remoued from the Scripture, they would serue for you: whome therefore will you credite in exponing of this place? If our Sauiour, heare then howe he expones this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse. I am the bread of life, hee that commeth vnto me shall not hunger, and he that beleeues in me shal ne­uer thirst. So when we beleeue in Christ, we eate him: and when we come vnto him, (whilk is only by faith) we drinke him. So Tractat, 25 in Iohan. cap. 6 Tract. 26. & de doct. christians lib. 3. cap. 16 Augustine also expones this place. Beleeue, sayes he, and thou hes eaten. Lib. 1, Paedago. cap, 6. Clemens Alexandrinus and In Psal. 147 Hiero­nimus & Supra psal. 90 vers, 3 Bernard al expones the flesh & blood of Christ fi­guratiuelie. And if ye will credite none of these, then I hope, ye wil not discredite your own chief Doctors, who affirmes, that this place is not meaned of the Sacrament, but of the spirituall ea­ting and drinking of Christ by faith. As Bellarm. lib, 1, de Eucharist, cap 5. Biel, Cusanus, Caietanus, Hesselius, and Iansemus. And if ye wil reply that manie others of the Fathers hes exponed this place of the sacrament, then Iansenius and Tapperus two Papists will answere you: That they did it only by way of application vnto the readers and hearers, to stirre them vp to the often receiuing of the Sacrament. So this place can serue nothing for your Transubstantiation, for it speaks not of the sacrament, but of his suffering vpon the Crose for the away taking of our sinnes, and the purchasing to vs of eter­nall life.

The next place ye quote, is the words of the institution, [Page 88] as Matthew, Marke, Luke, and the Apost. rehearses them. Your argument is this: Christ calles the bread his fleshe, (and so Paule) and the wine his blood: therefore the bread is chan­ged in his bodie, and the wine in his blood, the outwarde formes of bread and wine onlie remaining. This is the chiefe and principall ground of your reall presence and Transub­stantiation. Whereunto I answere: First, there is not a sil­lable heere that telles vs that the substance of the bread and wine is trans-changed in the bodie and blood of Christ, vn­lesse ye will expone this word, is my bodie, for, it is changed in my bodie, Est & Fieri, sunt contraria whilk is a monstrous exposition: for both it is con­trarie to the natiue signification of the worde est; that signi­fies to be alreadie: (for to be alreadie, and to be in a change are contrarie) as also it hes not the like forme of speache in the whole Scripture to vvarrand it: from the first of Genesis, to the last of the Reuelation. (Bring one instance if yee can.) And Augustine sayes, August. in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr. Num. quaest 95. the solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speache in the Scripture, the whilk you are not able to do: therfore your exposition is without war­rand. Next I say: By what arte of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture? Christ sayes of the breade, This is my bodie, and of the wyne, This is my bloode. Therefore the outwarde formes of the breade and wyne on­lie remaines, but the substance of them is gone. Neuer sik a inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours. Thirdlie, this interpretation and doctrine whilk results vpon it, is fals, and that for these reasons. First, because it is plainely gaine-saide by the Scripture. Secondly, because it destroyes sun­drie articles of our faith, and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow vpon it. 3. It destroyes the nature of the Sacra­ment. And last of all, is vtterly repugnant to the words of y^e institution. My argument then is this. That interpretation & doctrine whilk is gaine-saide, by the plaine testimonie of the Scripture, whilk destroyes the articles of our faith, and the fundamentall poyntes of our saluation, whilk hes many ab­surdities following vpon it, whilk ouerthrovves the nature of the Sacrament, and last of all, vvhilk is contrarie to the [Page 89] whole institution, must be false, blasphemous and erroneous. This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these wordes this is my bodye &c. and your transubstantiation whilk ye gather vpon it, is sik. Therefore it must be errone­ous &c. My assumption I proue thus. First your interpretati­on is gainsaide by the plaine testimony of the Scripture. Your interpretation is that there remaines no true bread nor wine in the sacramēt, but the substance of it is changed. But Mat­thew, Mark, Luke. and the Apostles all foure testifies that Christ tooke bread, brake it, & gaue it to his Disciples, & least ye shuld say y^t it was true bread & wine before the consecration, 1. Cor. 10.16, but not after, y^e scripture saies planely that it is bread whilk we brake, & bread whilk is eaten, and the frute of the Vine whilk is drunken in the sacrament. The Apostles saies, the bread whilk we brake &c. And as oft as ye eate this bread &c. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread &c. And let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate of this bread &c. And our Sauiour sayes, that after he had giuen the cup and they had drunken of it, from hence forth shall I not drink of the frutes of the wine with you &c. Therefore true bread and wine remaines in the sacrament, contrarie expresly to your interpretation. 2. That your interpretation destroyes the ar­ticles of our faith, I proue it thus. If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood of Christ in the sacrament, as ye expound the words: first it will followe that either Christ ascended not into heauen, because he remayneth in the earth in the sacrament: and so one of the articles of our beleefe is falsified. Or els, if ye say he a­scended once, but yet discends continually to be present in the sacrament, then another article of our beleefe is falsified whilk saith, that he sitteth at the right hand of God his father. Act. 3.2 [...] [...] that is, whome the heauens must receiue till the restoring of all things And as Peter sayes, abides in heauen whome the heauens must containe while the time of the restoring of all things come. Secondly it will followe that Christs bodie is made of the bread: for if the substance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Christ, then it must follow that the bread is becomme the bodie of Christ, and Christ his bodie is made of that bread, as the wine was made of the water at the mariage of Cana in Galilie. And so Bel­larmine [Page 90] and Pope Iohn, Ioh. [...] Bellarm lib. 3 de Eucharistia fol. 399. Iohn 22. Libro orat. in­script. antidotar. animae & the maister of Lombard. lib. 4 distinct 11. cap. B sentences grants that Christ is made of bread, and the substance of bread and wine is made Christs flesh and bodie, and so here another article of our faith falsified, whilk saies, that Christ his body was made of the seede of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to vs in all thinges except sinne. Thirdly, it wil followe that Christ had two bodies together, one vnder the forme of a man, and an other vnder the forme of breade: one speaking and another dumbe: one giuing to his Disciples to eate, and another the selfe same thing whilk was giuen to be eaten: yea, it shall follow, if your exposition be true, in saying that Christs body and blood is vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sa­crament, not only that there are two Christs, one in heauen at the right hand of his father visible, glorious and in one place: and another Christ in the earth inuisible, circumscri­ued by no place: but also that there are as manie Christs as there are sacraments in the earth, yea, as manie Christs as there are bitts of bread in euerie sacrament, and so the foun­dation of our saluation is ouerturned. Fourthly it will follow that the body and blood of Christ are separate, as the bread and wine in the sacrament whilk is turned in them is separa­ted. Fifthly it will follow that his body is separate from his soule, and so a dead bodie, because the bread and wine are not changed in his soule, but only in his bodie. Sextly it will followe that the breade in the first supper being changed in the bodie of Christ, that the substance of the bread hes suf­fered for vs, died for vs, and risen againe for vs: and hes a part of our redemption, whilk is blasphemous to think. Se­uenthly, it will follow that Christ eated his owne bodie and dranke his owne bloode whilk is absurde: Hom. 83. in Mat. De consecr dist 2 canon. Nec Mo­ses. for Chrysostome and your canon Lawe testifies that he eate the same thing whilk he gaue to his Disciples. And also he saies him selfe, from hence forth will I not drinke with you any more of the frute of this vine &c. So he drank of that whilk they drank of. And last of al it will followe that the Masse Preist is the creator of his creator: and so their Breuiaries and Lombardus, and Bellarmine grants. In their Breuiaries the Priest saies. Qui creauit me sine me, creatur media [...]te me: that is, He that created me without me is created [Page 91] by my moyen. Distinct. 11, lib, 4. cap. 5 Lombardus saies, the Priests are said to make the bodie and blood of Christ, because by their ministrie the substance of the bread is made his fleshe. And [...]b. 3. de Eu­charist. cap. 24. Sacerdotes con­fi [...] unt corpus Christi ex pane Bellarmine saies, that the Preists makes Christ his bodie of bread. Now if their be no blasphemous absurdities, I know not what is blasphemie. Now chuse yee whether ye will subscriue to all these absurdities, whilk you with all the wit of the Romane Clergie is not able to eschew if ye graunt this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forsake this interpretation of yours, as false, erroneous, and contrarie both to the plaine Scriptures of God, and the articles of our faith, and the grounds of our saluation. As to the third. Your interpretatiō destroies the nature of al sacra­ments, & makes the supper of the Lord no sacrament, for e­uerie sacrament consistes of an outward and visible signe, & of a spiritual thing signified by that signe: the whilk signe hes a resemblance with the thing signified. The signe is euer earthly, and the thing signified is heauenly, as shall appeare by all the rest of the sacraments, both of the olde and signe Testamēt. In Gen. 2.9. Apoc 2.7 Paradise ther was a verie tree for the signe and Christ the thing signified by it. In Genes, 17 9, 10, Rom. 4, 11. Deut, 30.6, Col. 2.11 circumcision there was a cutting of the skin, and the cutting off of sinne. In the Exod. 12.1, Cor 5.7.8. Ioh. 19.36. Passeouer there was a Lamb & Christ. And in the Heb. 4, 1.3, 4, 5. &c. Sa­baoth ther was a day of rest, & eternal rest. In the Heb. 9 24 Sāctu­arie there was an holy place, & heauen. In the 1, Cor 10, 4 wildernes there was an Rock yeelding water, and Christ yeelding his blood. In the Iohn [...].32, apparition there was a doue, and the holy Ghost. In the 1 Cor, 10.3 manna ther was bread, & Christ. In Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21 Bap­tisme there was very water whilk washeth vs, and Christs blood washing our sinns. Therefore in the sacrament of the supper must be bread and wine feding this naturall life, and resembling our communion one with another, 1. Cor. 10, 16, 17. and Christs flesh and blood feeding our spirituall life: otherwayes this sacrament is against the nature of all other sacraments, whilk is absurd to thinke and should be no sacrament at all as Augustine sayes, Epist. 2 [...] if the sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are sacraments: they shuld not be sacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine destroies both [Page 92] the signes, & the resemblance whilk they should haue with the things signified in the supper, for ther is no outwarde signe there whilk is an earthly substance, but only accedents of collor, & quantitie, if your doctrine be true, & ther is no­thing there to resemble eyther our spiritual nuriture by the flesh and blood of Christ, or yet our spirituall fellowship one with another: vnles you will say that accedents feeds, and nourishes, the whilk if you will say: then to say no more to it, but this: if you & your common clergie who is so bolde and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantia­tion of yours against the truth of God, were fed with no bet­ter substance, nor accidents: then, I say, you would haue fain­ted long since in the defence of it. Seing therefore your in­terpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament, & ma­kes it vn-lyke all other Sacraments, therefore it must be fals and erroneous. As to the fourth, that it is against the whole institution, and vse thereof, I proue it thus. First, I will aske you what was it whilk Christ tooke in his hand? if you say his flesh, then the text will say the contrarie, And Iesus tooke bread, in all the three Euangelists, and the Apostle Paule. So it was bread whilk he tooke, after he did take it, he blissed it: what did he blisse? but the bread whilk he had taken: so it is yet bread: after he blissed it, he brake it: what did he break? If you say it was his flesh or bodie, then the Scripture will say the contrarie: there was not a bone of him broken. And the Apostle sayes, Exod. 1 [...] Iohn 19. 1. Cor. 10 It is bread whilk we breake. So it is bread whilk is broken. Then yet it is bread. After he brake it, he gaue it: What gaue he but the thing whilk he brake? 1, Cor. 10.17 & 11, 26, 27, 28 and what brake he but bread? so it is bread whilk he gaue. After he had gi­uen it they receiued it, and did eate it. But what did they eate? But that whilk he gaue: and therefore the Apostle saies foure times, It is bread whilk is eaten, and vvhereof vve are partakers, and that after the consecration: for it is broken, giuen and receiued, and eaten, after the consecration. And when they did eate it, he saide, This is my bodie, what did he call his bodie but that whilk they did eate, and that was bread. So when then, Maister Gilbert, should this change [Page 93] be? seing it is bread al the time while he tooke it, blessed it, and gaue it, and they did eate. For, I trow, ye will not say it is changed after it is broken, and giuen, and in eating. Se­condlie, I will aske you, what are the wordes whereby this monstrous change is made, as ye suppose, of the substance of the bread, in Christs bodie? If this change be made by anie word spoken in the institution of this Sacrament: then, I say it must either be by this word: And he blissed it: or by these words, This is my bodie, &c. But not by the first: for after he blissed it, he called it bread. And the Apostle sayes it is bread whilk wee brake, therefore it remaines bread after the blis­sing. Not by the other words: for if they be not spoken to the breade and wine, they cannot change their nature: But Marke sayes plainly they were spoken to the Disciples, And he saide vnto them, This is my blood: Marc. 14 24 In h [...]s rational [...] therefore they changed not their nature. And Durand a Papist saies, that this change is made by the blessing, therefore not by these words whilk were pro­nounced after the blessing. And these words cannot worke a change: Genes. Ioh. 12 for they are not words importing an operation as these are, Let light be: let the earth bring forth fruit, come out Laza­rus, and sik-like: but onlie signifying the things themselues, as these are, Thou art my welbeloued Sonne. So if these wordes shoulde haue wrought anie change, they woulde not haue bene This is my body &c. but Let this be my bodie: therefore there is no sik change at all heir as ye imagine. Thirdlie, it should followe that the Cup should also be changed in his blood, and in the new Testament, because Christ calles the Cup his blood and newe Testament, as he calles the bread his bodie. But this you will not say: wherefore then are you so absurd as to say the other. Fourthlie, I will aske you whe­ther do ye receaue in the Sacrament that body whilk is mortall, or that body whilk is glorified: for one of them you must receaue: either Christs bodie as it was mortal, or his body as it is now glorified. If ye say a mortall bodie, then I say Christ hes not a mortall bodie to giue you now in the Sacrament, for it is glorified: therefore ye cannot receiue it: if ye say an immortall and glorified bodie, then I say, ye must seeke an­other [Page 94] warrand nor this text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For at that time his bodie was not glorified. For the Sacrament was instituted before his death, and he was not glorified vn­till after his resurrection: and if ye receiue that same body whilk the Apostles then receiued: then, ye receiue not a glo­rified body. What a body is this then whilk ye receiue, nei­ther mortall nor glorified? Fifthlie, the text sayes, they who receiues vnworthelie, receiues their owne damnation: But if Christes flesh and blood were there present, as ye say: then al who re­ceiued it should receiue their saluation, because our Sauiour sayes, Ioh. 6.54 He that eates my fleshe and drinke, my blood hath lyfe euerla­sting. Now I conclude, seing your interpretation of these pla­ces of Scripture, and your doctrine of Transubstantiation whilk ye gather thereupon, first is plainlie gain-saide by the expresse testimonies of the Scripture, next ouerthrowes all the maine foundations of our saluation, and articles of our faith: thirdlie destroyes the nature of a Sacrament and ma­keth it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament ei­ther of the olde or new Testament, and last of all is contra­rie to the whole institution thereof, as, I hope, I haue suffici­entlie prooued: therefore of necessitie it must be false & er­roneous.

As for the 10. of the Corinth. 16. The Cup of blissing whilk wee blisse, is it not the communication, and the bread whilk we breake, is it not &c. I answere: this Sacrament of bread and wine, be­cause it not onlie represents and seales vp to vs our commu­nion both with Christ: but also by it, as by a most effectual instru­ment the holy Ghost increases & nourishes this communi­on, both with him, and amongst our selues: therefore it is called the communication of his bodie and blood. But this most clearlie proues, that there is no sik change heir as ye suppose: for the Apost. sayes plainlie, the bread whilk we break, and this breaking you say is after the consecration: therfore after the consecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and so there is no Transubstantiation in the same. But be­cause you say the substance of the bread & wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone? whether are they [Page 95] turned to nothing, or are they changed in Christs bodie. If you say they are turned to nothing: firste, I say this were a strange kinde of reasoning: This is my bodie, therefore the sub­stance of the bread is turned to nothing: next the Apostle should not speake truelie, to call it bread whilk is broken, and bread whilk is eaten, &c. if it were turned to nothing. Thirdly then this should not be called Transubstantiation, or chan­ging of one substance into another: but an annihilation of one substance, that is, a turning of it to nothing, and a bring­ing in of another substance in the roome of it. And fourthly Thomas of Aquine, Lib. 4. dist. [...] your great defender of this doctrine is a­gainst this. But if you say, they are turned in Christs bodie, whilk the word Transubstantiation imports: then, I say, as oft as the Sacrament hes bene ministrated, as oft hes there bene some quantitie of substance ciked to his bodie: and it shall still grow in greatnes and quantitie, as long as it shall be ministred: but this is monstrous to thinke. And to end this, if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament, then let me aske you whose are the white­nesse, and readnesse, and roundnesse that we see: What meanes this taist in our mouthes of bread and wine, if there be no substance of them there. May we not say to you as Christ saide to Thomas, who doubted of his resurrection, Put thy finger heir, beholde my handes, put thy hand in my side, and be not incredulous but beleeue. So, may not we say to you, who doub­teth whether the substance of bread & wine be heir remay­ning yet, touch them, taist them, looke on them, and feele them, and be not incredulous, but beleeue. For beholde, there would not be sik a coullour, sik a taist and smell, and there were not substance of bread and wine heir. And I pray you tel me what is this that rottes then & growes in Mauks in the bread, and sowers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their substance remaineth not, will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes & sowers, what is this but to mak him mortall, yea to crucifie him againe. And if you will not say that, then either must you confesse that their substance remaines and is not changed, or els Christs flesh and blood [Page 96] is transubstantiated in these substances whilk rots & sowres, or els that the accidents is changed againe in their substan­ces: & so ye shall not haue one, but maa changes in your Sacrament. Yea, if their substance be gone, and nothing but their accidents remaining, then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperour Henrie the 7. haue bene poysoned with them, Fasciculus temp. Platina, Blond. accidents and Christs body could neither poison them nor be capable of poisoun: therefore they felt by experi­ence that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacramēt. So we see the textes ye brought with you, is against you as y^e sword that Goliah brought to slay Dauid, cutted off his owne head. But yet you wil say, If the bread be not his bodie, why then did he call it his bodie: this is the chiefe thing you haue for your doctrine, and answere this, and the plea is wonne. Vnto this then I answere, 1, Cor, 11, 24 Luc. 21 [...] whilk is giuen in the present time, that in that same sense he said This is my bodie, in the whilk he said afterward whilk is broken for you But there can be no sense of these words, but this; the bread was broken, and signified that his bodye shoulde be broken with the sorrowes of death: for his bodie was not broken be­fore he suffered: and the Apostle sayes, it is bread whilk is bro­ken: so then as the breaking of the bread signified the brea­king of his body: so the bread signified his bodie: & as his bo­dy was not broken indeede when the bread was broken: so the bread could not be his bodie in very deede when he so called it. For the resemblance & likenes therefore betwene the breade and his bodie the breade it is called his bo­die: &c. and this phrase is verie frequent in the scripture to giue the name of the things signified to the signe, as shall be seene afterward.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Now let not the Ministers come in here with their naturall reasones a­gainst the omnipotencie of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figures, signes, similitudes, symboles and spirituall eating of an naturall bodie, with many the like: whilks are the inuenti [...]ns of their owne braynes, Read the notes of the Scottish Bible in these places. not contayned in the written worde. And who can saie but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and not theirs.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Ye prevent our answers heere, and first ye bid vs hold a­way our naturall reasons against the omnipotency of Christ, that he cannot be in two places at once. Whereunto I an­swere: that we shall bring no reason, neither naturall nor supernaturall, against the omnipotency of Christ for we ac­knowledg it, & adores it. But we say to you pretend not his omnipotencie for your monstrous imaginations, whilk hes no warrand of his will in his Scripture. For first we say, this argument of yours will not follow: Christ is able to make his bodie to be in two places, both at once, in heauen, and in the Sacrament: therefore he makes it to be so. For you must first proue he wil doe so: for your self, Maister Gilbert, can do ma­ny things quhilk you doe not, because you will not, so from can to wil, it followes not. And if you say that Christ hes wil­led so, because he saide, This is my bodie: I haue answered to it before, refute you it, and all your Romane Cleargie if you can. For you might aswell say, Christ willed the Cup wherin the wine was, to be changed in his blood and newe Testa­ment, and himself to be changed in a wine Tree, Ioh 10. & 15 1. Cor, 10. Luc [...] 1. Cor. 11 and a Dore and a Rock to be changed in him: because so hes he and his Apostles spoken, and these speaches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change heir. Next, I say, your owne schoole­men and great defenders of Transubstantiation, Lib. 1. cap. 84. & lib. 2. cap. 25. con [...]agent Thomas of Aquine and others, sayes that it is against the omnipotencie of God, to affirme that hee may doe anything whilk implyes a contradiction in the selfe, for that is rather to be called a weaknesse nor a power. And the Scripture affirmes, that God cannot lye, nor deny himself, nor be tempted, and that yea and nay is not in Christ: Heb. 6.2 Tim. 2. Iames 1.2, Cor. [...] but to Christs bo­die both to be a true bodie like to vs in all things (to wit essential) except sinne, as the Scripture sayes, and to be in moe places at once, whilk makes him to haue not a true bodie like ours. For Augustine sayes, (speaking of Christs glorified body,) If it be a true bodie, it is then in a certaine place: August. ad Da [...] danum and take away from bodies their quantities, they are no more true bodies) implyes a con­tradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Christs body both to be visible and inuisible at one time: to bee in a certaine [Page 98] place in heauen with his owne length and bredth, & not to haue his owne length and bredth at once in the Sacrament, is a manifest contradiction, is yea and nay in Christ: therfore both by the Scripture and your owne doctrine, the omnipo­tencie of Christ: cannot be alleadged or pretended for this your doctrine, whilk is yea and nay, and implyes a manifest contradiction. So this in very trueth, M. Gilbert is the inuen­tion of your owne braine, whilk is alledged for your Tran­substantiation, and wants the warrand, yea is gainsaide both by the written word, and your owne schoole-men. Next, yee would haue vs to hold away our figures symboles, and simi­litudes: I answere: our owne figures we shall holde away: but these figures, symboles, and signes, wherein our Sauiour hes deliuered his trueth to vs, we must and will acknowledg So then, obeying rather God who hes set them downe in his Scripture, nor you who forbids vs to acknowledge them: & what a monstrous exposition woulde you make of infinite places of Scripture, if you woulde admit no figures in them, but all to be vnderstood plainlie and literallie as they were spoken. The Scripture ascriues to God eies, eares, seit, hands, & a face: and the Scripture calles Christ a dore, a vine. Nowe if you will admit no figures heir, but will haue all these places exponed literallie, as you will haue vs to doe in the Sacra­ment: then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae, who because they saw the Scripture speake so of God, they taking it literally and ex­poning it without figures, as you would haue vs to expone the Sacrament, they thought that God was bodilie: yea, you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a dore, and vine tree, for so he calles himself. And to come to the Sacraments themselues, how many Transubstantia­tions will you make in all the Sacraments both of the old & new Testament, if you will remoue figures and signes from them, and expone them literally, as you would haue vs to do in this Sacrament, Circumcision is called the couenant, and yet it was but the signe of the covenant: Gen. 27. Exod. 12 2. Cor. 1 [...] Psa. 24 Heb 4. Tit 3 the Lamb in the Passeo­uer, is called the Passeouer of the Lord, & yet it was but the signe [Page 99] of the Passeouer: the rock in the wildernesse is called Christ, and yet it was but a signe of Christ: the Arke is called the Lord, and yet it was but a signe of the Lord: the land of Ca­naan is called the rest of the Lord, and yet it was but a signe of that rest: and Baptisme is called the lawer of regeneratiō, and yet it is but the signe of our regeneration. Doe you thinke that the formes of speaches in all other Sacramentes are figuratiuely taken and the forme of speach in this Sacra­ment only to be literallie vnderstood? what reason can there be of this diuersitie? But it may be you think that the forme of speeches in all other Sacraments should be taken figura­tiuely: but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be ta­ken literallie. But first, what then will you say to this speach This is my body whilk is broken for you, and this, 1. Cor, 11. Luc. 22 Mar. 14.1. Cor, 13 the Cup is the newe Testament in my blood, and the Cup is my blood, and the bread whilke we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ, and the Cup whilk we blisse, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? al fi­guratiue speaches, and to be vnderstood figuratiuelie: other­wise Christ shuld haue bene broken in the Sacrament, whilk is both contrary to the Scripture, and also absurde. For then he should haue suffered twise, once in the sacrament, & once vpon the Croce: and not only should there be one Transub­stantiation in the Sacrament, but manie: as of the cup in the blood of Christ: and of the bread and cup in the participatiō of the body and blood of Christ: and so you should not only haue one Transubstantiation, but manie. And howe I pray you can Sacramēts whilk are but figures, signes & symboles, be vnderstood but figuratiulie? And how can duo diuersa indi­uidua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione, and be spoken of another, vvithout a figure, as it is heere. This bread is my bo­die, &c. Can you or any at all of your Romane Cleargie, vnderstand sik propositions othervvaies then figuratiuelie? What an vnreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid vs to acknowledge figures in this sacrament, whilk is but a fi­gure and signe, seing they are so frequently vsed in the scrip­tures of God, and especially in sacraments, as also in this sa­crament? So nil ye, wil ye signes & symboles, tropes, and fi­gures [Page 100] yee must admit in the exposition of this sacrament. Last of all ye thinke, a naturall bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten. Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to haue Christs bodie naturally eaten? For then his bodie must be naturally chawed, A page haue blasphemiam digested, turned ouer in our substance, & casten out in the draught, and so be mortall and suffer a­gaine. Let me ask you whether is Christs bodie the foode of the soule, or the foode of the bodie? If you say it is the foode of the bodie to fill the bellie, then I say it must be naturally eaten, but you are blasphemous in so thinking. But if you say it is the foode of the soule, as it is indeede, and as our Sa­uiour sayes, then it cannot bee eaten naturally: for as the foode of the bodie cannot be eaten spiritually, Ioh. 6.35. so the foode of the soule cānot be eaten naturally, but spiritually by faith. And if you vnderstood this true eating of Christ by faith, all your contention woulde take an end. But this is the stone whilk yee stumble at, and therefore yee forbid vs to come in with a spirituall eating of Christs naturall bodie, as though it could be eaten otherwise nor spiritually by faith. Will you neither vnderstand the Scriptures nor the ancient fathers, Ioh 6.35. August tract. 26. in Ioh 6 & lib 3 de doctr. Christ cap 16. & Clemens Alex. Hieronim s. Basilus B [...]rnardus supra citat. lit Be [...]larm. de Eu­charist lib, 1. ca, 7 and your can [...]n law de consecr. di [...]t. 1, cap. V, Quid pa as den­tes, B [...]leue and [...]ou hes eaten Eph [...] s. [...] I [...]hn. 16 nor your owne Kirk, who all acknowledge a spirituall eating of Christ by faith? What grosse darknes is this, wherewith the Lord hes blinded you aboue all, that ye cannot vnder­stand it? As Christ dwels in vs and we in him, so doe we eate him & drink him. But the Apostle sayes, he dwels in vs by faith therefore we eate him and drinke him by faith. And seeing your Kirk grants that the eating of Christ corporally does no good, and the eating of him by faith only will bring eter­nall life, as our Sauiour sayes: what needs then this corporall and reall eating of Christ? And why are yee like the grosse and carnall Caperna [...]ts who can vnderstand no eating but a corporall eating of him? And what is the cause that ye can­not vnderstand the doctrine of your owne Kirk whilk acknowledges a spirituall eating of Chirst by faith both by the worde and by the sacrament also. De consecra. list a cap. Vt quid I had neuer haue thought that ye had bene so far blinded of the Lorde. But I haue you to the Lord. Let the (Christian reader) now iudge [Page 103] whether our doctrine or yours bee the inuention of mans braine, and whilk of them hes their warrant out of the writ­ten word of God.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

And further, I say, of these words, 1. Cor, 11, 24 This is my bodie whilk shall be deliuered for you, whilk is an true proposition, and therefore this must followe. But there was no bodie deliuered for vs, but the naturall bodie of Christ: therefore it was his naturall bodie that he gaue to his Disciples to be eaten. Then if it were his naturall bodie, it was not natural bread. As Saint Ambrose expounds the same, let vs proue sayes he this not to be that that nature for­med, but that thing whilk the blessing hes consecrate and greater strength to bee in blessing not in nature: for nature it selfe is changed by blessing. He hes the same more amplie in the fourth booke the fourth chapter de Sacramentis

Maister Iohn Welsche his reply.

First I answere, the words of the Apostle is not as yee cite them here whilk shall be deliuered, but [...] whilk is broken and in the present time, and so in Luke [...] whilk is giuen, so you are not faithfull in translating this place of Scripture, both contrarie to the Greeke and Syriak copies. Vpon the whilk I reason thus, this proposition is true, this is my bodie whilk is broken for you. So the Apostle sayes, but Christs bodie was not broken then reallie, for not a bone of him was broken at all, as the Scripture testifies: Exod 12. Ioh, 19, and the Scripture sayes and all men confesses that he suffered but once, so only his sufferings ar signified then by the breaking of the bread in the sacrament here: so as Christs bodie was not brokē then reallie, that is, suffered: but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread, so his bodie was not giuen reallie and corporallie to be eaten, but only signified. Secondly, I say, it is true, that Christs naturall bodie was de­liuered to the death for vs: but yet it will not followe vpon this, that it was his naturall bodie whilk hee gaue to them to be eaten corporallie: for his naturall bodie was reallie deli­vered to death for vs: and it was but giuen to them spiritu­allie to be eaten. You muste coyne a newe Logick M. Gilbert or you can make these two sticke together: and the one ne­cessarilie to follow vpon the other. For by that same reason [Page 102] you may aswell conclude, that Christ gaue his naturall bo­die to be eaten corporallie in the worde, for hee giues him­selfe to Ioh. 6.35 Bellarm grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 7. be eaten in his worde aswell as in his Sacrament, and also he giues that same body to them in the word, whilk was deliuered to death: for the selfe same Christe is offered and receiued aswell in the worde as in the Sacrament. So from his bodilie death, to a corporal eating of him, it wil not follow. And further by that same reason you may aswell say that the fathers before Christ vnder the law, did eate Christs bodie corporallie, for they eate that same spirituall foode, & drank that same spirituall drink, in their Sacraments, whilk we doe now in ours. So the Apostle testifies, euen that selfe same Christ his bodie and blood whiilk was deliuered to the death, & yet it wil not follow, that they did eate his naturall bodie &c. As for Ambrose, it is true he so speakes: but hee ex­poundes himselfe in that same chapter, while as he sayes, Be­fore the blessing another forme or thing is named, but after the conse­cration the bodie of Christ is signified: If the bread then signifie the bodie of Christ, it is not changed in his body. And because of this holy vse to signify the body of Christ, Ambrose sayes that the nature is changed by blessing: and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it, where he sayes. Shall not the words of Christ be of force to change the forme of the Elements. [...]nter species clementorum In that same sense Ambrose saies, the nature of the elements is chan­ged, in the whilk he sayes, the forme of them is changed, for he affirmeth both there. But you will not say I trowe, vnlesse you will ouer-throwe your transubstantiation that Ambrose meanes, that the forme of the Elements is changed in sub­stance, but onlie in vse & signification, for you say the forms remaines, therefore you muste also graunt that Ambrose meanes not by the change of nature, the change of the sub­stance of them, but only the change in the vse of them, from a common vse to a holy vse. And because it may be you will delay to subscriue to the trueth of our doctrine, vntill you heare the sentence and iudgement of the fathers. Therefore, I will set them down heere. Co [...]a Marc l, 4 Tertullian sayes, This is my bodie, that is, a figure of my bodie. Chrysostome sayes, VVhat is that whilk [Page 103] the breade signifies, the bodie of Christ. Theodoret sayes, Chrys. in 1, Cor cap, 10 Theodoret. dial. 1, and 2 The breade & wyne is signes and figures of the bodie and bloode of Christ. And hee sayes, Our Sauiour in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gaue to the signe or simbole the name of his bodie: and these mysticall signes of these holy things whereof are the signes. Vnto the whilk he answeres, are they not signes of the body & blood of Christ. Hieronymus sayes That Christ by taking of the bread, Hier in Mat. [...]6 Cyrillus ad [...]p Matth. 11 Bas. Liturgi [...] Nauian. in orat. 2 de Pas. & funere Gorg. Cyprian lib 1. ep 6. eius contra A­dima. cap, 12. & Psal. 3 whilk comforts the hearte of man, representeth the trueth of hi [...] bodie. Cyrillus sayes, Our Sacraments auoweth not the eating of a man. Basilius and Na­zianzen calles the bread and wine in the Supper [...] figures or signes of the bodie of Christ. Cyprian sayes, The Lorde called breade made of many graines his body and wine made of many grapes, his bloode. Augustine sayes, Our Lord doubted not to say: this is my bodie while as be gaue but the signe of his bodie. And he calles it the figure of his bodie and blood. And their canon lawe sayes, De consecr dist. 2 cap Hoc est. The heauenlie breade whilk is the flesh of Christ, is called after a maner the bodie of Christ, while as it is but the Sacrament of his bodie. And the glosse there sayes, The heauenlie breade, that is the heauenly Sacrament whilk represents trulye the flesh of Christ, is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie. I omit the rest whilk is exceeding many, and because if you be a right defender of the catholicke faith, you will say with the rest of your Cleargie, that the Pope cannot erre. Therefore a Pope, Gelasius by name sayes, Gelasius de [...] bus naturis in Christo Neither the substance of the bread, nor nature of the wine, ceasses to bee anye more nor they were before: but remaines in their owne substance. And hee calles them there, an image and resemblance of the bodie and bloode of Christ. Now tell me Maister Gilbert doe not these speake as plaine as we, will you avowe your Transubstantiation whilk they so flatlie denie. And as our Sauiour sayes, a kingdome deuided against it selfe cannot stand. So the manifolde diuisions amongst your selues, concerning this transubstantiation, is a verye sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine. Some of you expounds this word hoc. this Bonauenture Ge [...]son contra Florentium, [...]ib, 4 of the breade as Thomas lib, 4. seu dist 8. Occam, in 4. se [...] d. 13, q. 16, 17 Some of Christs bodie Innocent, 3. de offic. mis. pag. 3 obiect, 14. & Se [...] tus in l. 40. d. 8. q. 3 and some calles it an Indi­uiduum vagum Durandus rati­onal. 4 some sayes it signifieth nothing, Holcot in [...] sent, quest. [...] and some sayes it signifieth a thing whilk is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem.

Secondlie in the exposition of the vvord est, is. Some for it is: some for it is changed: 3. some Thomas. sayes the substance of y^e bread and vvine returnes to nothing: some sayes The glosse of Grati [...]n and the extra [...] ga [...]ts de conseci. dist. 2 c. Species. &c. si [...]mit. ex [...]t. de sum [...]a s [...]nitate it passes in the bodie of Christ. 4. some sayes C [...]on oporte: & [...]b [...]glos. de c [...]nsecrat d st. 1 &c Cu [...] Ma [...]tha pa [...]a vtrum de c [...]le mis. the water in the Sacrament returnes to nothing: some sayes it is changed in the blood with the wyne: some sayes it is Thomas 3974 art 8 turned in Christs vitall humours: some sayes it is tur­ned in the wyne, and after in the blood: some sayes [...]ran. lib, 4 cap. 42 they dare not define it. 5. some sayes, Thomas epist. 59 & 3. quest 7 [...]. the wormes that are bred of the Sacra­ment commes of the quantitie: other some sayes Durand. lib. 3. cap. 41 they are bred of the substance. 6. some sayes Christ Durand l [...]b 4. cap 41 consecrated by the worde, he blissed: some by the Maist. G [...]lbert. words, This is my bodie, and the blissing together: some Glos. in c. V­trum in verbis perferri de cons. dist. 2 vvill haue the consecration to be made in heauen: and some franklie Scotus in repor dist. 8. quest. 2 confesses that they neither knowe the words nor the nomber of them wh [...]reby this consecration is made: and to omitt six hundreth the like, I will onlie touch these few glosan t [...]t ibus some saies the body of Christ is taken bodilie with the mouth, Ca [...]an. tom. 2. cap. 2, & 3, & 5, some sayes that it feedes, G [...]os ibidem some sayes as sone as it is pressed with the teeth the bodie of Christ is caught vp to heauen. Durand. ration. lib 4. But other some sayes, it passeth from the teeth to the hearte, and then the bodilie presence ceases, Bonauenture 4 d [...]st 13. ar. 2. q. 2 and other some will haue him to goe to the sto­mack &c. but not to the minde. And yet hee sayes hee doubts whe­ther he goes to the belly or not, for the varietie of opinions: and in so great varietie he sayes, what to holde is hard to iudge. And suppose he holdes it that that the bodie of Christ goes not into the bellie of a mouse or is casten out into the draught, because, sayes he, the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre it, and infidels & hereticks would iest at it, and laugh vs to scorne. Alexander de hales part. q 45. & Thomas of Aquine part. 3. q 80 art 3 & Antoninus Archebi­shop part. 3. tit, 13 cap, 6 Yet sundry others holdes that not only it goes into the belly, but also Christs bodie maye bee vomited vp or purged out in the draught, and that brute beastes may eat Christs bodie and it maye goe into the bellie of dogges and swyne. O filthie mouths & vncleane spirits, what hereticke, what Capernait was euer so grosse and carnal: yea, so barbarous & brutish, as ye are. So not only are yee more grosse nor the Capernaits who thought that saying hard: but also like the barbarous Canibales who eate the fleshe of man. O blinde leaders of the blinde, shall myse, dogs, and swyne, eate and drinke the precious bodie and blood of Christ? shall they then haue e­ternall [Page 105] lyfe? I thinke the eares of all Christians will abhorre this your doctrine, and their harts will tremble at it. Ex citatione Smithes sermon [...] These absurdities, together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same, hes made some of your great pillers to say as Aga nst the captiu tie o [...] Baby­lon made by Lu­ther Fischer, that no man can prooue by the words of the Gospell, that a­ny Priest in these dayes, doth consecrate the very bodie and blood of Christ: and Lindanus [...]b. 6 lib. 4 panop, and Caninus, and Pe­tius a Soto sa [...]es, t [...]aditions hes not their author in the Scripture, supra citati others, that Transubstantiation is but a tradition whilk hes not the authour of it in the Scrip­ture, nor cannot be defended by the same: and others, as Tonstal in the booke of the Sa­craments. Tonstall, that it had bene better to haue left euerie man to his owne coniecture, as they were before the councell of Lateran then to bring in sik a question. I haue bene longsome in this, but yet it so behoued mee: because it is the ground-stone of their sacrifice of the Masse, and their other Idolatries & ab­hominations. So then to conclude this, seing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is aggree-able neither to the doctrine of Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the ancient Fathers, nor your owne canon Lawe and Pope, as they haue bene cited: and seing ye are at sik variances amongst yourselues concerning the same: therefore it is to be reiected as hereticall, damna­ble, and blasphemous by all Christians. And this for the 4. point of your doctrine.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

5. Our doctrine is, that the lawfull Ministers and Priests of the Kirk of Christ, hes power giuen them by Christ to forgiue & to retaine sins, Iohn. 20.23. Matth. 9. [...]. Matth. 16.19. Matth. 18.18. because Christ sayes to his Apostles, Receiue ye the holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall for­giue, they are forgiuen them, and whose sinnes ye shall reteine, they are reteined. And in another place, That ye may know (sayes Christ) that the sonne of man hes power in earth to forgiue sinnes, &c with sundrie other places, conforme to the same. And this is denied by the Protestants.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for the fifth point of your doctrine, that the lawful Mi­nisters of Christ, hes power giuen them by Christ to forgiue sinnes, and to retaine them. If you meane that they haue this power as Gods witnesses, Ministers, and Embassadours, yea and Iudges too: (for the Apostle sayes, We iudge them that [Page 106] are within) to testifie and to declare, to iudge and giue out iudgement according to Gods word, not only by the prea­ching of the Gospell, and administration of the Sacraments ioyned therewith: but also by the censures, and discipline, in excommunicating the obstinate impenitent, and absoluing the penitent. If, I say, your doctrine be this, then you iniurie vs in saying, we denie it: and you needed not to haue quoted these places to confirme the thing whilk we both teach, and also practise. But what is the cause ye would not quote the place where we deny this doctrine? But if you meane that the lawfull Ministers of Christ hes an absolute power, & full authoritie, not as Ministers and Witnesses onelie, but as iudges & Lords ouer our faith, to forgiue or retaine by their owne authoritie, 4. Controv. tom. [...]. pag and that the very pronouncing of the words of ab­solution, is the cause of remission of sinnes, and that it so scattereth the sinnes, and makes them to euanishe, as the blaste of winde extinguishes the fire, and scatters the cloude, as Bellarmine sayes. If you meane so, this we vtterlie deny vnto you, and all men: because it is onlie proper vnto God. The whilk the Iewes suppose they were blinded did acknowledge: Mat [...]h. 9. and so not so blinde as yee are. For it is onlie God that forgiues in Iesus Christ. It is on­ly his death that hes merited it, & only faith that apprehends it, and onlie his spirit that seales it vp, and the word and Mi­nisterie that declares it, testifies, and confirmes it. For the A­postle sayes, He hes committed to vs the word and ministerie of recon­ciliation, and we are in his stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God: so we are but Ministers of this. 2 Cor. 5 18.19 20. Homil. 23 Augustine is plaine in this: It is the Spirite (sayes he) that forgiues, and not you, meaning of the mi­nisters, and the Spirite is God: it is God therefore who forgiues, and not we. There is one argument: God onlie forgiues sins, there­fore not man. And againe, What is man but a sicke man to be hea­led himself? Would thou be a physitian to mee, with me seike the physi­tian thy selfe. Heir an other argument, He cannot be a Physi­tian to others, who needes a Physition himselfe. Further, hee sayes, He that can forgiue by man, can also forgiue without man: for he may aswell forgiue by him, as by another. But to what purpose doe ye quote the 9. of Matthew, That the sonne of man hes power to [Page 107] forgiue sinnes, for will you say, that the Ministers of the Kirk hes that absolute authoritie that he had? the whilk if ye doe, then are ye blasphemous. As for the word Priest, wherwith ye stile the Ministers of the Kirk, I know that you and your Kirk takes more pleasure in this soyle, nor in all the stiles whilk the holy Ghost hes giuen to the Ministers of the Kirk in the new Testament: for amongest the manifolde styles whilk are giuen to his Ministers, yet hes he neuer giuen this style of a sacrificing Priest, as proper to them, throughout the whole newe Testament. But as your office of Priest-hoode is not written in Christ his latter Testament, so neither is your stile of sacrificing Priests contained in the same. But new offices must haue newe stiles.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

6. Our doctrine is, to make the Priests of the Kirk to annoint the seike with oile, in the name of our Lord, and to pray ouer him, because it is the doctrine of the Apostles, as we haue in Saint Iames in these words, Iacob. 4.15 August. tom. 4. super Leui. quest 84. Is any seik amongst you, let him bring in the Priests of the Kirk, and let them pray e­uer him, annointing him with oile in the name of our Lord, and the prayer of faith shall saue the seik, and our Lord shall lift him vp, and if he be in sinnes, they shalbe remitted him. And because we find heir an externall forme, whilk is the annointing with oile, of an internall grace, whilk is remission of sins: therefore we say it is a Sacrament. Nowe take from these places the vaine subterfugies of our new men, that will haue him a Mediciner for the bodie in this, and not for the soule, the matter will be plaine of it self.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As to your doctrine of annointing of the seik with oile, & that not by euery man, but by a Priest: not in all seiknesses, but in the extremitie of death: not with euerie oile, but with oile consecrated by the Bishop: Cap. 7. de ex [...]. vnctione (whilk Bellarmine makes es­sential to this Sacrament) and that not all the parts & mem­bers of the bodie, but the fiue organes of the senses, and the reines, and feete: and that by this forme of words, Let God forgiue thee whatsoeuer thou hes sinned, by the sight, hearing, smelling, &c. by this holy vnction, and his most godlie mercie. The whilk you will haue to haue two effects. The one, the health of the bo­die, if it be expedient for the soule: the other remission of the [Page 108] relicts of sinnes that remaines: and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments, And for this purpose ye onlie bring one testimonie of Scripture. So that all the shewe of warrand you can picke out of the Scripture, is this onlie place of Iames For I trowe with Bellarmine, & sundrie others, you haue seene that that place of Marc. 6.13. whilk is also alledged by the councell of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine, would carrie no shew to make any thing for you, and there­fore it may be you haue omitted it. But this place serues no­thing for your purpose. For, first I say, this was a ceremonie annexed to the miraculous gift of healing, Marc. 6.13 as is plaine both by the text vsing the worde [...] and the Lord will lift him vp whilk is properlie spoken of the health of the bodie: and also by that place of Mark, where it is written, that the Apostles an­nointed many s [...]ik with oile, and they healed them. The whilk gift was not onelie giuen to the Apostles, but also to the verie Churches, as is plaine of the 1. Corinth. 12. Vnto another is giuen the gift of healing, &c. Now seing this extraordinary gift is cea­sed in the Kirk of God, wherefore will you superstitiouslie vse the ceremonie? So either avowe (Maister Gilbert) that your Priests hes this miraculous gift of healing, whilk I trow ye will not, or els leaue off the ceremonie?

Secondlie, by this argument ye may aswell make all the rest of the ceremonies, (whilk our Sauiour and his Apostles, Peter and Paule, and the beleeuers in the primitiue Kirk, vsed towards the seik, blinde, lame, and dead) sacraments. As the Marc. 16.18 laying on of hands, whilk had both a command & a promise ioyned with it, Ioh 9.6 annointing of the eies of the blinde with clay, Ioh 5 Mat. 9 29. Act. 3.6. Act. [...]. [...] washing in the poole of Shiloam, &c. For why should not their examples be aswell followed, as the example of the Elders of the primitiue Kirk? & seing you vse not these ceremonies, because ye want the miraculous gift, whilk was ioyned with them, why doe ye vse this ceremonie superstitiouslie, seeing ye want this gift also?

Thirdlie, I say, this place can make nothing for your do­ctrine: for this place sayes, Call the Elders of the Kirk, and let thē, &c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest. This text sayes in the [Page 109] plurall nomber, Call for the Elders: your doctrine sayes, one Priest is sufficient. This place speakes of oile, not mentioning a sillabe of consecration, blissing of it by the Bishop, and that nyne-folde salutation that ye giue vnto it, Haile, ô holy oyle, with the bowing of the knee, and other ceremonies. There is not a sillabe in this, nor in any other Scripture that speakes of these things, and yet your doctrine will haue all these ce­remonies. This place sayes, And the prayer of saith shal saue the seik: and you attribute it to the ointment. This place puts no differences of seiknesse: but your doctrine is, that none be annointed, but he who is lying in the bed, & at the pointe of death. This place only specifieth the annointing of the seik, some of you reckons, as the councel of Florentine seuen parts: some, the fiue senses, as necessarie. Lib. 4 sent 4 dist. 23. quest. And therefore this moo­ued Thomas of Aquine to say, That the forme of this Sacrament is not exstant in the Scripture. Now if it be not exstant in the Scrip­ture, what to do haue we with it? seing the Scripture is able to make a man wise vnto saluation, and to make the man of God perfite in euery good worke?

Fourthlie, Beda, Oecumenius, and Theophylactus in their com­mentaries vpon these places and 2. de sacram. Thomas Waldensis & de heresibus. Alphonsus de castro, two arch-papists affirmes, that in the 6. of Marke, & 5. of Iames, the selfe same vnction and annointing is meaned. But de extern. vnct. Bellarmine & In Marc. 6 lansenius two other papists af­firmes and proues by firme reasons, that that annointing in Marke is no Sacrament: therefore neither is this annointing in Iames a Sacrament, seing (as said is) in both the places the selfesame vnction is meaned.

Fifthlie, I say, all the Sacraments the Lord hes instituted, are publick, and not priuate: but this Sacrament of yours is priuatlie ministred: therefore not a true Sacrament.

Sextlie, all the Sacraments of the newe Testament should be ministred by them who haue the preaching of the Gospell concredited vnto them, and not by priuate Christians. In his epistle 1. cap. 8 But Innocentius the first, a Pope sayes, Priuate men may minister this, in their owne and others necessities: as also Thomas Waldensis a Pa­pist. And yet the councell of Trent accurses them that so [Page 110] sayes: Therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Seuenthlie, Pope Innocent in that same epistle cited before calles it but genus Sacramenti, a kinde of Sacrament: therefore it is not properly a Sacrament. But you are more bold to cal it a Sacrament.

Eightlie, all the Sacraments of Christ hes their warrand from the written worde: But Petrus a Soto calles this a traditi­on whilk hes not the warrand in the written worde: In his booke a­gainst [...]ll. therefore it is not a lawfull Sacrament of Christ.

And as to your argument: That it hes an externall forme of annointing with oile, of an internall grace whilk is remis­sion of sinnes: I answere: this forme or ceremonie was ex­traordinarie, as I prooued before, annexed to a miraculous gift of healing. The whilk seing it is now ceased, the ceremo­ny also should cease. And this promise is not made to the an­nointing (if ye will beleue the Apostle) but to the prayer of faith. The prayer of the faith, sayes the Apostle, shall saue the scik. And whereas ye say that we make him a Mediciner only for the bodie in this, and not for the soule: we answere: That this ceremonie as sundrie others, was onlie annexed to the extraordinarie gift of healing of the bodie, and was not seals of grace. And yet with the health of the bodie, the healing of the soule was oftentimes ioyned, as our Sauiour sayes to the Paralytick man: Matth. 9.2.6 Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, take vp thy bed & walke. Now whether these be our vaine subterfuges, or cleir grounds out of the Scripture, let the reader iudge. And wher as ye call vs newe men: let them be newe and moste recent, whose doctrine is most new. But, as hes and shall be proued by Gods grace, our doctrine is not new, but Iesus Christs in his olde and new Testament, and yours deuised since. Ther­fore this title of noueltie most iustlie belongs vnto you. This for the 6. point of your doctrine.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

7 Our doctrine is, that when our Priests (whilk are the onlie lawful Mi­nisters now adayes) are called to that function, receiues the imposition of hands, with the grace of gift of the holy Ghost, because it is the doctrine of Saint Paule in these words: [...]. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift or grace that is within thee [Page 111] whilk is giuen the by prophecie, with the imposition of priest-hoode. And there­fore muste b [...]e a Sacrament, because it hes an externall forme, whilk is the imposition of handes, of an externall grace, whilk is the gifte giuen by the same. And for this cause Institut. lib 4 cap. 14. sect. 20 item lib. 4. cap 19 sect. 28 Iohn Caluin his selfe admits it to bee an Sacra­ment: albeit in their confession they call it an bastard Sacrament of the Popes, and detests the same, although In l [...]cis com. edit. 1543. de nu­mer. sacrament. Melancthon hes the contrarie.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for the 7 point of your doctrine concerning the im­position of hands in the ordination of the lawful ministers of the Kirk of Christ, because it is a ceremony whilk hes the foundation of it in the worde of God, and was practised in the primitiue Kirk, as in the ordination of Timothie here, and others: and is profitable both to put the Pastors in minde of his calling, that he is separated of God for the discharge of the same, and also the people that they imbrace him as one sent of God to them, therefore we both acknowledge it and practise it. But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inse­parably ioyned with it, or that it is a sacrament of the newe Testament properly (as you affirme) that we denie. As to the first, the gift of the holye Ghost is not inseparablie ioyned with it, first, because that is iniurious to the Lords free grace, whilk is not bound to any instrument, let be to a ceremonie. And also he speakes against experience: for how many, I pray you, doe receiue imposition of hands, who receiues not a new grace and gift of the holy Ghost amongst you? Mise­rable experience these many ages both doth testifie it, Ex veteri Testa. quest 109. inter opera Augustini. and also one hes testified the same, saying, our Preists doth lay the word of blessing vppon many, but in fewe followeth the effect of that blessing. And certainly if any gift of the holy Ghost is ioyned with this ceremonie, it should be an abilitie to preach the word: for that is the principall part of the office of the Mini­ster of the Gospel. But how many thousands are they among you in your Kirk wholes receiued this imposition of hands, and yet as vnable to preach the Gospel as Asses are? and last of all, what needed that tryall and examination, so straightlie commanded in the Scripture, whilk ought to be had of them that are to be ordained, if the holy Ghost were euer insepa­rablie [Page 112] giuen with the ceremonie. For wherefore is this triall and examination? And wherefore is Timothie so straightlie charged to lay his hands suddenlie on no man, but because it is onlie the holy Ghost who enables. The whilk also should be well knowne vnto his Kirk ere they presume to testifie the calling of God to them. For if it were true that ye say that the gift of the holy Ghost were ioyned with the imposition of hands inseparablie, 1. Timoth. 5.22 then the Apostle should rather haue commanded Timothie to lay his hands vpon manie in respect of the neede that the Kirk stoode in of all men, rather then to haue discharged him. And as for the place of Paule whilk ye cite here, Despise not the gift &c. This serues nothing for your doctrine: for if first the gift giuen to Timothie whilk the Apostles speake of, was extraordinarie, and so ordinarilie doth not euer follow the ceremonie. 2. It is not ascriued heere to the ceremonie of imposition of handes, but vnto Prophecy, whilk is giuen thee by Prophecie, wherby it was reuea­led to the Kirk of the abilitie of this man. And so if there be anie prophecies that goes of you in your Clergie that the holie Ghost is giuen to you, then ye may claime vnto the same: but I think ye will not say that sik like prophecies go­eth of you: therefore yee cannot claime to this testimonie. 3. 2. Tim. 1.14 Timothie is exhorted to keepe that worthie thing concredited vnto him through the holie Ghost. It was the holie Ghost therefore who was the giuer and preseruer of it. And as for the ceremonie it was a signe of the presence of gods spirit in them who was lawfully ordained. Now as to the second that ye will haue it a sacrament, because it hes a externall forme, and also a pro­mise of grace. That will not follow: for then you should haue innumerable Sacraments: for prayer, almous-deeds, and the ordination of Magistrates, and manye other hes external formes, and hes promises of grace ioyned with them: and yet you will not say, that they are properlie Sacraments. For in all the Sacraments of the new Testament whilk properly are Sacraments, there must bee firste not onlye an externall action but an earthlie and visible Element, as water in Bap­tisme, and breade and wyne in the Supper. And therefore, [Page 113] Augustine sayes let the word be ioyned with the element, In Ioh. tract 90 and then it is a sacrament. Secondly, they must haue their expres warrant and institution from Iesus Christ in the Scripture, as baptis­me hes Math. 28. and the Lords supper hes Math. 26. Third­ly, they must not only haue a promise of grace, but a promise of remission of sinnes and sanctification: for they must bee seales of that couenant whilke is common to all Christians, as baptisme and the Lords supper is. But this ceremonie of imposition of hands wants all these three: for neither is there any earthly element, neither seales it vp the couenant whilk is common to al, but proper to the ministrie only: neither hes it the expres institution of Christ in al the foure Euangelists. and whereas in the 20. of Iohn he there ordaines his Apost­les, we read, he breathed on them, and said, receiue the holy Ghost. but not a word that he laid his hands on them, or comman­ded them to vse it to others. The whilk without all question he would haue done, if he had ordained it to be a sacramēt: and Petrus a Soto a Papist saies, that the making of the impo­sition of hands to be a sacrament, is a tradition. Therefore it is not a sacrament properly of the new Testamēt. Secondly, if the ordination of any by imposition of hands were a sacra­ment, the ordination of a bishop by the same especially, shuld be a sacrament: for the place whilk ye quote here is of Timo­thie who was a Bishop as your Kirk affirmes. De sacramento ordinis lib. 1. c 5. And Bellarmine saies, if this be not a sacrament, then it cannot be proued by the Scrip­ture that ordination by imposition of hands is a sacrament: and hee saies, if this be not granted they wil lose all the testimonies of the anci­ents to proue impositiō of hands to be a sacrament, for they speake of the ordination of Bishops. But the In 4. dist. 24 ancient Schollers and Doctors of your owne Kirk, and Dominicus a Soto lib. 10. de iu­stitia, & iure q i artic. 2 Dominicus a Soto a learned Papist affirmes, that this is not a sacrament properlie, and so neither the ordination of the rest of the ministrie can be a sacrament, se­ing a Bishop is aboue the rest in your order. Last of al, Ses. 23. cap. 2, & 3 Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacr. o [...]d. cap 9. the counsell of Trent, is not against it and sundrie of the rest of your Clergie makes all the seuen orders of your Kirk, as Preists whilk [...]ou distinguish in two sorts: to wit, in Bishops and inferior Priests, Deacons, sub-deacons, Exorcists, Lec­tores, [Page 114] dore-kepers, Bellarmine sayes sing [...]lip Iesu t sac [...]menta. ca. 9 Lib. 4 dist. 24. cap [...] autem and your Acoluthytes euerie one of them by themselues sacraments. And your Maister of sentences calles al the orders in the plurall number sacraments. So if ye durst let the people knowe the secret of this your doctrine, ye make not only seuen sacraments, but fourteene in verie deede. But this were dangerous to you to sowe abroad: for you feare it woulde cast your doctrine in some suspition with them, and be an occasion to them, to examine it by the Scripture, the whilk if they would once begin to doe, ye knowe your hope were lost. As for Caluine & Melanchton, they cal it a sacrament taking the worde in an ample sense, for these ceremonies that hes the foundation in the word: whilk hes a promise of a blessing ioyned with them: and not in that sense that bap­tisme and the Lords supper are called sacraments, as Caluine in that first place whilk ye quote plainly acknowledges: for these are his wordes, Let the Christian Kirk (sayes he) be content of these, (meaning of baptisme and the supper) and let them not admit nor acknowledge, desire, or look for, any other third sacrament til the end of the world. And as for imposition of hands whilk the Kirk vses in their ordinatiōs, he saies, I wil not be against it that it be called a sacrament, so being I reckon it not among the ordinarie sacraments. And Me­lanchton in that same place reckons vp prayer, almes, marri­age, the Magistrat in the number of these vnto the whilks he giues this name of a sacrament, whereby he makes it plaine that he takes this worde sacrament, amply and larglie as hes bene saide before, and not in that sense that baptisme and the supper is called sacraments. So you play your selfe (Mai­ster Gilbert) in the ambiguitie of this word sacrament, and deceiues the reader with the same. And whereas ye call your Priests the only lawfull Ministers now a dayes: I wil answer to this more fullie afterward, onlie this now: First, seing the fountaine and grounde vpon the whilk all the lawfull cal­linges in your Kirk depends and is deriued, as your selues confesses, is the supremacy of your Pope, whome I haue pro­ued to be the Antichrist in my other treatise, and seeing the office of your priesthoode in sacrificing the sonne of God, as ye suppose, is most abhominable, idolatrous and Antichristi­an, [Page 115] as I haue proued also there: therefore you are not onlie not lawfull Ministers of Christ, but the Ministers of Anti­christ. And as for the style of Priest, I answered it before; it is not so much as once ascriued to the Minsters of the Gos­pell to signifye their proper calling in the whole new Te­stament.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

8. Our doctrine is, that matrimonie is an bond vndissoluble, because our Sauiour saies, that which God hath ioyned together, let no man separate. Matth 19 6 Marc. 10.11 12. Luc. 16.18. Matth. 5 33 Matth. 19.9 And sik like he sayes: that whosoeuer dimits his wife and marries another, commits adultrie vpon her. And in Saint Luke we haue the same And Saint Mathew is of the same opinion (albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornica­tion) this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Iesus Christ. For it is written in Saint Paule, that an woman that is vnder a husband, her husband liuing is bound to the law, Rom. 7.2.3. 1. Corinth. 7. [...]9 1. Cor. 7.10.11 but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her hus­band Therefore her husband liuing she shal be called an adulteres if she be with another man, and so forth. And in another place he saies, to them that be ioy­ned in matrimonie, I giue not commande but our Lord: that the wife depart not from her husband and if she departs to remaine vnmaried, or to be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. Now this is our re­ligion of matrimonie, and plaine repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland that will licence a man to put away his wife and marie another. And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the Popes crueltie a­gainst the innocent diuorced in their negatiue faith.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for your 8. and 9. points of doctrine concerning mar­riage, the first that it is vndissoluble for no cause: the other that it is a sacrament. As to the first, I woulde scarselie haue vnderstoode this poynte of your doctrine, and your coun­cel of Trent and others of your Clergie who writes of it, had not bene more plaine then ye. And I thinke, that there are few that knowes not this point of your doctrine otherwise, who can take it vp by this your writing. I wonder why yee are so darke in setting down your owne doctrine. But wher­fore should I wonder, for darknes may not byde to se the light. Your doctrine then is this. Concil. Trid. ses. 24 canon 8 Bellarm. lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 14 First you make manie cau­ses of separation & diuorcement, beside adultrie (expres a­gainst the doctrine of Iesus Christ, he that shall dimit his wife ex­cept [Page 116] for fornication &c.) he makes her to commit adulterie. As 1. for the vowe of continencie to enter in a Monasterie or Nunnerie: 2. for he­resie: 3. and for perrill of offending of God. Next, your doctrine is, That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife, from bed and boord (as wee speake) yet the bonde of Mariage contracted and perfited, betwixt the faithfull, can no wayes be broken, as long as they both liue together, no not for adulterie. So that the partie innocent diuorced, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 12. maye not lawfullie marrie another, during the life of the guiltie partie: And if they marry, they cal it adulterie, and they wil haue the grounde of this to bee, because it is a Sacrament. So one errour followes and leanes vpon another. For if Marriage be not a Sacrament, then the bonde may be lowsed by their owne doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as shall be proued heereafter: Therefore the bonde is soluble. Our doc­trine is, that the bonde of marriage contracted and perfited betweene two Christians, is broken by the adulterie of ei­ther of the parties: so that the innocent diuorced, maye law­fully marry another. As for our doctrine. It is plaine in the Scripture, in the 19. and 5. of Matthew: where there the Lord in plaine tearmes excepts the cause of fornication, saying: Whosoeuer dimits his wife except it be for fornication, and marries an­other, commits adulterie. So then by the contrarie: hee that di­mits his wife for fornicatiō (whilk is adulterie there) & mar­ries another, commits not adulterie. And seeing the Apostle commands, 1. Cor. 7.2. That euerie man haue his owne wife, and euerie wife her owne husband, and that for the auoyding of fornication: and it is bet­ter to marrie nor to burne. Therfore, the first marriage being dis­solued by diuorcement iustly, according to gods worde; It is leasome to the partie innocent at least, to vse the remedie of marriage for the auoyding of fornication. Other-wise, if hee might not vse it, diuorcement were not a benefite, but rather a punishment, and the innocent shoulde be punished with­out a fault.

Now, as to the Scriptures whilk ye quote, Matth. 19.6. and 5.31. they haue that exception of fornication expreslie mentioned. And as for the places of Mark. 10.11.12. and Luke 16.18. and Romanes 7.2.3. and 1. Corinth, 7.39. they are [Page 117] all to be vnderstood with that exception of fornication, that our Sauiour expreslie sets downe in the former two places, otherwaies Scripture should be contrary to Scripture, whilk is blasphemie to thinke, and our Sauiour is the best exponer of himselfe. And as for the 1. Corinth. 7.10.11. the Apostle speakes not of that separation for adulterie, but of a separa­tion for a season, for other causes or variances, in the whilk ease the parties separated, are to remaine vnmaried, or to be reconciled together. And because ye will not credite vs nor the sonne of God so expreslie speaking in his Scripture, yet I thinke ye will giue some credite to your owne Doctours, councels, canons and Popes, whome if ye be a right Catho­licke, ye thinke that they cannot erre. In comment Matth. 19 Caietanus a Cardi­nall, lib. 5. annot in comment. [...] C [...]c­taui. Ambrosius Catharinus Papists, holds this doctrine with vs against the religion of your Kirk, that Adultery breakes the bond of marriage, and that the innocent diuorced may marrie another. Pope Decret. causa 32. quest 7 cap. Concubu [...]sti Zachary, and the councell Decret. causa 32. quest 7 cap. Concubu [...]sti Triburiense, & another Ibid cap. Qu [...] dam canon sayes, Ibidem cep. Si quis That incestuous adultery breakes the bond of marri­age, so that the partie innocent, may marrie another. And Pope Gre­gory the 3. suppose in a Ibid. cap. Hive [...]o canon he will not haue adulterie to breake the bonde of marriage, so that the pairty innocent may marrie another, contrarie to the doctrine of Christ our Sauiour, yet he Ibid. cap. Quid propusu [...]sti. permits a man to marrie another, if his former wife being taken with some disease, be not able to rander dew beneuo­lence vnto her husband. So suppose this Pope will not admitte that true cause whilk our Sauiour sets downe, of adultery: yet he sets downe causes himselfe, whilk wants the warrand of the word. And Pope Celestine the 3. set foorth a decree, that when of maried persons one falleth into heresie, the partye Catholick is free to marrie againe: cap. Laudabilem de convers. infidelium, confessed by Alphonsus a Papist, lib. 1. cap. 4. aduersus haereses. So then either your Doctors, Canons, Councels, & three Popes erres, or else the bond of marriage may be bro­ken, and the innocent partie diuorced may marrie another. Your religion of Matrimonie therefore is not onely repug­nant to ours and Iesus Christs, but also to your owne canons Councels, Doctors, & Popes. Let them therefore condemne [Page 118] your cruell iudgement against the innocent diuorced. And therefore Bellarmine confesses, Bellarm. de mat. lib. 1. cap. 15 that in this point they haue many a­gainst them, not onelie vs whome he calles heretickes: but also Latines, Greekes, and Catholickes.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Eph. 5.23 9 With Saint Paule, we make it a Sacrament, as sundrie of the learned Protestants doe, as Lib. de vera & falsa r [...] cap. de matrimonio Zuinglius, In l [...]cis [...]ditis, 1558. & 1558 Melancthon, and chieflie young Mar­chinstoun, in his 22 Proposition of his discourse vpon the Reuelation, whose words are these. Thirdly, bodily marriage is by Saint Paule, called a symbole and a Sacrament of the vnion of Christ and his Kirk. And yet our new con­fession detests the same, and will haue it but a bastard. Sik concord is be­twixt Christ, his Apostles, and our new preachers of the Gospell: and also amongst themselues.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Lib, 1. de matri [...] cap. [...] The 9. point of your doctrine is: you will haue Marriage a Sacrament of the newe Testament, and that properlie, and that accor­ding to the institution of God, vnto the whilk the promise of the grace of iustification is annexed: so Bellarmine and the councell of Trent saies. But marke (Christian reader) their ground of this their doctrine. They say, the bond of marriage amongst infidels may be broken: but say they the bond of marriage amongst the faithfull cannot be broken. And they make the cause of this difference to be this, because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament. So they reason. Marriage amongst Christi­ans is a Sacrament: therefore say they, it cannot be broken. But what is their principal ground now, wherby they proue marriage to be a Sacrament? because (say they) the marri­age of Christians is a bond indissoluble; therefore it is a Sa­crament whilk hes the grace of Iustification ioyned with it. So mutuallie, one error vpholds another. Vpon the whilk I reason: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament: (this your Kirk graunts, be­cause they make that the ground of this) but the bonde of marriage may be broken for adulterie, as hath bene proued before, both by the Scriptures, & also by your owne canons, councels, Doctors, and Popes: therefore marriage is not a Sacrament.

Secondlie, in the sacraments of the new Testament, there [Page 119] are earthlie elements: as the water in Baptisme: the bread and wine in the supper: and an expresse forme of words pre­scriued in the newe Testament: as in Baptisme, I bapitze thee, &c. and in the Supper, This is my bodie &c. Matth. 26. They haue their expresse institution by Christ in the same, and hes the promises of remission of sinnes and iustification annexed to them. But none of these things are to be had in marriage. First, no earthlie element: next, no forme prescriued in the word of God: thirdlie, no expresse institution of it as of a sa­crament: fourthlie, no promise of the remission of sinnes and saluation annexed vnto it. Therefore it cannot be a sacra­ment of the new Testament properlie.

Thirdly, if marriage were a sacrament, and sik a sacrament that signified and gaue the grace of iustification with it, Bellarm. lib. 1, de matrim, cap. 5 pag. 67 that is, remission of sinnes: then wherefore should your Kirk for­bid all your Cleargie from the same? and wherefore shoulde ye abstaine from that sacrament, whilk is instituted of God, to giue remission of sinnes to you, and to make you accep­table to God, as your doctrine sayes. Why shoulde yee de­priue your self of that thing whilk may place you in Gods fauour, and purchase to you remission of sinnes, (as ye say ma­riage may doe) it is a token that either ye beleeue not your owne doctrine, or else preferres whoredome and adulterie, whilk is condemned of God, to marriage whilk is Gods or­dinance and honorable amongst all men.

Fourthlie, I say, if the marriage of Adam and Eua in Pa­radise, and the marriage of all the Patriarckes, & Prophets, and Priests, and people in the olde Testament, was not a sa­crament, neither is the marriage of Christians in the new te­stament a sacrament. For they were symboles that repre­sented our spirituall coniunction with Christ, aswell as the marriage of Christians in the new testament does: the whilk you will not deny. And Pope Leo sayes, Epist. 92. ad [...]. That marriage was in­stituted from the beginning, that they might haue in themselues a Sa­crament of Christ, and his Kirk: but the firste you graunt your selues was not a Sacrament? therefore neither is the second a sacrament.

Fifthlie, that whilk is filthinesse and pollution cannot be a sacrament to giue forgiuenesse of sinnes: Dist. 82. cap, Pro­posu [...]sti, & c, Plu­r [...]mos but Pope Syricius calles marriage pollution and vncleannesse: therefore it can not be a sacrament if he speake true.

Sextly, if marriage be sik a sacrament as ye say, to giue re­mission of sinnes, then it should be more excellent then vir­ginitie, because virginitie hes not this promise: but this ye will not graunt, therefore it is not a sacrament.

Vt Capreolus res [...] [...] 4. dist. 26 [...]uest. Vnica [...]uc. 3. Last of all, Durandus a great Doctor of your Kirk sayes, that marriage is not properlie a sacrament.

As for that place in the 5. of the Ephesians whilk ye quote, where the Apostle sayes, This is a great mystery, speaking of the mutuall duties of man and wife. I answere: first, he calles not Mariage this great mysterie, but that band of our con­iunction with Christ, as he expones himselfe: This is (sayes he) a great mysterie, and then he subioynes, I speak of Christ and his Kirk. Secondlie, suppose the olde interpreter doeth translate this word mysterie a sacrament, yet you know (if you know the Greek language) that [...] is called a se­creat. Thirdlie, wil you haue all these to be sacraments pro­perlie, whilk are called mysteries in the newe Testament, & whilk the olde interpreter and your Rhemists translates sa­craments? then fall you not onelie make marriage a Sacra­ment, 1. Tim. 3.16 Col. 1. Ephes 3 & 1. 2. Thes 27 Reue. 1.20 & 17 5 but also the chief articles of our saith, and the Gospell, and the 7. starres in the Reuelation, and the whore of Babel, and the iniqui­tie of the Antichrist, all sacramentes. For they are all called [...] in the Greeke, and some of them are translated sa­craments by the olde interpreter, and your Rhemists, as ma­riage is. I wonder that ye quote Melanchton, as though hee were of your opinion, seing Bellarmine acknowledges plain­lie (that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properlie as Baptisme and the Lords Supperis: Lib. 1 de matrim cap 1, & cap. 5. ) but onelie graunts that it is a Sacrament in some respects. But you regarde not what ye write, so being it may carrie anie shewe against vs. The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Marchistoun. They call it a Sacrament but not in that sense that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are called sacraments, taking the worde improperlie and more [Page 121] amplie, ac Bellarmine confesses of Melancthon. So heere is no discorde, Maister Gilbert, neither betwixt vs and Christ, nei­ther amongst our selues. But in very deede, you are they who are at discorde both with Christ, & amongst your selus. For besid this that Bellarmine and Innocentius calles the marriage of the Gentiles Sacraments, because you may answere that they call them Sacraments improperlie as Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Marchistoun calles marriage a sacrament improperlie. So if they be at variance with vs for calling marriage a sacra­ment, so is Bellar. lib. 1 de sacram. matrim. c. 3 Bellarmine & Pope Inno. c. gaude. de diuortis. Innocent at variance with your Kirk, for calling the marriage of infidels a sacrament. For as we denie marriage to be a sacrament at all properlie, so does your Kirk denie the marriage of infidels to be a sa­crament properlie. But to let this passe I say because I will not deceiue the reader as ye doe with apperances of contra­dictions through the ambiguitie of the words Lib. con. here. verbo. nupti [...] heres. 3. Alphonsus de Castro Lectio. 2. de matrimonio. Petrus a Soto two of your doctors and sundry others sayes that mariage is not a proper sacrament of the newe Testament: and yet the councell of Florence and Trent and sundrie others of your Kirk sayes the contrarie. 2. In 4. dist. 26. quest. 3. Durandus a great doc­tor of your Kirk sayes that mareage is not a sacrament properlye. 3. Some of our Kirk holds that carnall copulation in marriage is a part of the sacrament, lib. 1 de sacra. matrim. c. 5. pag. 88. some the contrarie that it is neither a sacrament nor a part of the sacrament, so Bellarmine testifies. 4. Durandus and your canonistes houldes that the sacrament of marriage doth not confer grace vnto them that receiues it, and yet our common doc­trine is contrarie this as ibidem. Bellarmine grauntes. Last of all Canus a learned Papist affirmes that euerie marriage lawfully contracted among christians is not a sacrament: but onlie that whilk is made by the Minister in a certaine forme of words, the whilk Bellar­mine and sundrie others denies. And you are of great diuersi­tie concerning the matter of that sacrament amongst your selues. These are not now shewes of disorders & contradic­tions, de sacra. matrim lib. 1. but they are so true and manifest that Bellarmine your chiefe campion hes confessed them. Iudge thou now (chri­stian reader) whither is it wee or they that is at variance a­mongst our selues. And this for the 9. poynt of your doctrine.

As for the tenth poynt: I haue answered to it, in the other parte of my treatise concerning the Masse. Therefore, I o­mit it now, and I come to the 11. poynt of your doctrine.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Our doctrine is that a man in the estate of grace doing good works merits of deserue a reward: whilk is the doctrine of the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles: as maye bee perceiued in these places, and manye the like Gen. 17. [...]. 2. Paral. 15.7 Eccles 16.15 Eccles 16.31 Psal. 118.112. Prov. 11.18. Sap. 5 16. Sap. 10.17 [...] 3. [...]0 Ier 31 16 Feare not Abraham (sayes God) I am thy protector and thy rewarde great turn­ly. In another place. Therefore be ye of comfort, and let not your hands be dissol­ved, there shall be a rewarde for your worke. And in the booke Ecclesiasticus. All mercie shall make place to euerie one, according to the merite of his works. with manie more in the olde Testament, nor I am able to set downe heere But some of them I haue noted on the margent. And our Sauiour sayes, Matth. 5.12 Ioh. 5.29 Mat. 10 42. Mat. 16.1 Matth. 16 27 Matth. 25.34. Ma th. 10. Mar. 9.41. Luc. 6.35 Reioyce and be glade for your rewarde is great in heauen. And againe, They that haue done good things shall come forth to the resurrection of life: but they that hes done euill, to the resurrection of iudgement. And whosoeuer shall giue drinke to one of these little ones, one cup of colde water onely, in the name of ane Disciple, truelie I say vnto you, he shall not lose his rewarde And 1, Cor, 3, 8.14 1. Cor. 9.17.18 Eph. 6.8 Saint Paule sayes, Euery one shall receiue his owne rewarde, according to his labour: & 2. Iohn, ver. 8 Apoc. 22.12 S. Iohn sayes, Looke to your selues, that ye lose not the things whilk ye haue wrought, but that ye may receiue ane full rewarde And in his Reuelation, Beholde I come quicklie, and my rewarde is with mee, to rander to euery man according to his works, with many more the like in the word of God What can our newe men say against this doctrine of Christ, his Apostles & Prophets, seing that there is no reward without merite, because merces and meritum hes relation together: for there is no reward promised in the word of God, but for doing and working And albeit God hes promised to rewarde all our good deedes, yet this promise is not without a cause: that is, to them that will labour and worke, and to doe according to his will. For he hes pro­mised no rewarde to them that will not work, but to sik as deserues the same by their doings, as I haue noted before in the booke called Ecclesiasticus, the 16. chapter.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for your doctrine of merites of works wherein you say that a man in the estate of grace doth merite eternall life and glorie, & that aswell in respect of the worke it selfe, as of the couenant and pro­mise made vnto it. Lib 5 de iustifie. cap. 17. So Bellarmine. Yea that the works are in vertue equal and of as great valor, as the reward of eternal life is, so that there is an equall proportion betwene the works and eternal life. And there are som of your Kirk and those of the learned amongst you who hes gone further, and affirmes that the good workes of the [Page 123] righteous merites life eternal in respect of the worthines and excellencie of the work it selfe, Bellarm. lib. 5. de [...]ustis. cap. 17 suppose the Lord had neuer made a promise or coue­nant, as Caietanus a cardinall and Dominicus a Soto, as Bellarmi­ne reports of them. And Maister Pa [...] 1 [...]5 Reinold sayes that good workes and euill are laide in different ballance, that good workes are the cause of heauen, as euill workes are the cause of hell. And In 5. quest [...] de Iust [...]. Andreas Vega sayes that the reward of glorie shall not be greater nor our good workes hes deserued. What blasphemie is this your doctrine? And surely if in any one poynt of your doctrine, you shewe your selues to be men, who not onlie knowes not the holines of God, the vnspeakablenes of that other life, the perfection and infinite vertue of Christs me­rits, the perfection of his law, and mans infirmitie and weak­nes; especially you manifest it in this point, for if ye knew a­nie of these thinges, ye would neuer professe such damnable doctrine: for that our workes may merite eternall life (as ye say) and that not onely in respect of the couenant, but in respect of the worke it selfe there are fiue thinges required. 1. That the work be perfit according to that measure of per­fection whilk the law of God requires, and the whole lawe must be fulfilled, and that perfitlie and continuallie. 2. The workes must not be debt, that is, sik workes as we are bound before to doe; for the paying of that duty whilk we owe al­readie cannot merite properly a rewarde: for will you say that for the paying of that whilk you owe alreadie you de­serue a reward? 3. There must be a proportion and equality betweene the worke wrought and the rewarde it selfe, for if the worke be lesse and the reward greater, then that whilk is more then the work is not of merite but of liberalitie. 4. The persons to whome the worke is done must be oblished and bound by right to rander and recompence the worker for the worthines of the worke, so that he is not iust and he do it not. And last of all the worke must be our owne and not an others, and the power our owne whereby it is done and not an others, or we can be saide properly to merite by the same. But all these conditions will faile in our workes: therefore they cannot bee meritorious of eternall life. For as to the [Page 124] first the prophets sayes that all our righteousnes is as a menstrous clout. cap. 64 epist. in c. 3. And Iames sayes we all offend in manie thinges: and none there is that hes contained in doing all things written in the law in that perfection, whilk it craues of vs, as hes bene pro­ued before: therefore our workes cannot be meritorious of eternall life. And as to the second all that we can do, or is a­ble to do, we are bound to do it all readdie, by the vertue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings all rea­die bestowed, yea they oblish vs to more nor we are euer a­ble to pay, according to that saying of our Sauiour: euen so ye when ye haue done all that is commanded you say that we are vn­profitable seruants, [...]. 17.10. because we haue done that whilk was our dutie to do. Since therfore it is dutie it cannot be meritorious of eter­nall life. And as to the third there is no proportion betweene eternall life and our workes, the reward by infinite degrees surpassing the work, and therefore the Apostle sayes the af­flictions of this life are not worthie of the glorie whilk shall be reueiled: euerlasting life being onlie the iust reward of the sufferings of the sonne of God. Tim. 8.18. ser. 1. de annnn Bernard sayes what are all our merites to so great a glorie: & in vita Antonii. Athanasius sayes not suppose wee would re­nounce the whole world yet are we not able to do anie thing worthie of these heauenlie habitations. As to the fourth the Lord is dettor to no creature: Rom. 11.35. for as the Apostle sayes who hes giuen him first, and he shall be recompensed: the Lord is all sufficient in himselfe and so needes non of your labours, and so our works cannot oblish him. ser. 16 de verbis Apostoli. And therefore Augustine sayes God is made a detter vnto vs, not by receiuing anie thing from our hands, but because it pleased him to promise. And to the last the Apostle sayes, What hes thou that thou hes not receiued? 1. Cor. 47. and if thou haue receiued it, why reioycest thou, as though thou had not receiued it? Seing therefore all our workes are imperfite, and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Lawe: and seeing all that we can doe, is but our duetie: and there is no proportion betwixt eternall lyfe & our workes, and that the Lord is debtour to no man, and all our abilitie of doing is from the Lorde onelie: therefore our workes cannot be meritorious of eternall life. In ma [...]uali. c. 10. Heare further what the Fathers sayes in this point. Augustine sayes, All my [Page 125] hope is in the death of my Lorde: his death is my merite, my refuge, sal­uation, lyfe, and resurrection: my merite is the compassion of the Lord. I shall not bee voide of a merite so long as the Lord of mercies shall not want. Origen who liued 200. yeares before him sayes, In epist. ad Rom c. 4. lib. 4. I scarsly beleeue that there can be any work whilk may of due demande the re­warde of God forsomuch as euen the same that we can doe, thinke, or speake, we doe it by his gift or bountie. Then how can he owe vs anye thing, whose grace did preueene vs. And he sayes afterwarde, de bono mor. cap. 2. that the Apostle assignes eternall life to grace onlie. Ambrose sayes, E­uerlasting life is forgiuenesse of sinnes, so then it is not merite. Ie­rome sayes, That before God no man is iust, therefore no man can merite. And againe he sayes, The onlie perfection of man is, Aduersus Pelag. if they know themselues to be imperfite: and our iustice consisteth not of our owne merite, but of Gods mercie. I omit the rest for shortnesse.

Nowe to your testimonies, and reason to proue your me­rite of workes, whilks you shamefullie abuse, bringing forth Scripture to cloak your damnable doctrine: vnto the whilks I answere shortlie. That there is a reward laid vp with God for the workes of euerie one, be they good be they euill, and according to their works shall they be tryed, and euery man shalbe iudged and recompenced accordinglie, as the Scrip­ture plainly testifieth. But that this reward of eternall lyfe promised, is of debt, and not of grace, and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same, that the Scripture neuer affirmes. For the Lord freelie and of his meere grace crow­neth his owne workes in vs: and that, not for the excellency of the worke it self, but of mercie freelie for his Christs sake, as both I haue proued, and the Fathers hes testified. So these Scriptures serues you to no purpose. For the controuersie betwixt vs is not whether there is a rewarde promised, and whether it shalbe randered accordingly to the same, for that we graunt: but whether this reward is of merite or of grace. The Apostle sayes plainlie in the 6. of the Romanes, The wages of sinne is death: but euerlasting lyfe is the free gift of God. Rom. 6.23. & [...] 17. And in the 8. of the Romanes, it is called an inheritance. Now if it be he­ritage to them that are in Christ, and they aires of it through him, then it is not their merite. As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus [Page 126] it is Apocrypha, and the text hes not that word merite, as the olde interpreter whome ye follow, translates it, but according to his worke. As for the 118. Psalme, and the 16. of Matthew, ye are ouer-seene in the quoting of them, for they haue no sik thing. As for your reason, that a rewarde hes euer a relation to a merite, that is false. For the Apostle in the 4. of the Ro­manes speakes of a rewarde that is vnputed freelie, not to him who worketh, but to him that beleeueth in him, who iustifieth the vngodlie, verse 5. a [...]d Luc. [...].5 [...] And in this sense the reward of eternall life promised & fulfilled in his Saints, is taken in the Scriptures And wheras you say, that there is no reward promised but to doing & working: that is false also, for there is a reward of eternall life promised to the beleeuer, ver. 5. And as for the promises of reward made to good works: it is true, it is made to them, but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that rewarde, but onlie that they are effects to testifie of our faith in the merite of Iesus Christ, in whome only the promises are made to vs and our works, and for whose sake onlie they are fulfilled in his Saints. For these causes therfore is the promise of reward made vnto works, first because all men by nature are hypocrites, and boastes of a vaine pretence of faith, vnto whome Iames sayes, Iames [...]. [...]8 Shew me thy Faith by thy works? to take a­way therefore this vaile of hypocrisie from hypocrites, the promises are made to workes. 2. The promise is made to works to stirre vs vp to the doing of them: for we woulde be faint in doing good, and we knew not that the Lorde would reward them. It is true he hes promised no reward to them who workes not, because they in whome Christ dwelles they are not only iustified, but also sanctified, and brings forth the fruite of their sanctification. And this for the 9. point of your doctrine, whilk is so damnable, that both it derogates from the merite of Christ, and makes men to take away their con­fidence from Gods onlie mercie and free grace: and swelles them vp with a vaine confidence of themselues, and bindes as it were their harts and mouthes, that they cannot with all their hart rander the whole praise of their saluation to Gods onelie free grace.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

12 We haue other works that are called works of Supererogation, whilk are workes of greater perfection, and are not set downe to vs as the com­mands of God (without the whilk we cannot be saued) but as diuine coun­sels adioyned thereto, they augment our glorie and rewarde in heauen: whilk is also the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Matth 1 [...] 21. Mar. 10 21 Christ saide to the young man, If thou will be perfite, goe self the things thou hast, and giue vnto the poore and thou shall haue treasure in heauen, and come fo [...]low mee so wee finde that wilfull pouertie, is a w [...]k of supererogation. 1 Cor. 7 34 38 Sik like Saint Paule sayes, and the woman vnmarried and the Virgine thinks on the things that pertaines to our Lorde that she maybe holy both in body and spirite: and afterward Therefore both he that ioynes his Virgine in matrimonie does well, and he that ioynes not, does better. Therefore Virginitie is a work of supererogation: for albeit Matrimonie be good yet the vther is better, & this was a counsel that Saint Paule gaue and no command. 1. Cor. 7 40 1. Cor. 9 14.15.23 1. Cor. 9.17.18.1 [...] Luc. 10.35 Sik like Paul wrought an work of su­pererogation when he preached the Euangell gratis, where he might haue taken iustlie for his labours. Christ our sauiour speakes of the same workes in the parable of the Samaritane, where he promised to the oistlar to recompense him what euer he did supererogat vpon the wounded man, more nor the two pennies. And Dauid the Prophete did supererogate, Psal. 118.62.164 when he did rise in the night to giue God louing, & seuen times in the day, and so forth.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As though your former doctrine had not iniuried the me­rites of the sonne of God, and his free grace enough, with the whilk (if the Apostle be true) your merites of works can­not stand. For the Apostle sayes, Rom. 11.6 (speiking of our saluation) If it be of grace, then is it no more by workes, otherwise grace were no more grace: and if it were of works, then were it no more of grace, other­wise workes were no more works; you yet eik this damnable and blasphemous doctrine to all the rest. And certainlie suppose ye will not let it fall to the ground, that your doctrine is the doctrine of the Dragon, and that your Kirk is that mysticall Baby­lon, that mother of whoredomes, full of names of blasphemie: yet this your blasphemous doctrine sufficiently declares what you are. For I appeale your conscience, Maister Gilbert, if ye haue any vn-blotted out yet with the smoak of the bottom­lesse pit, and the conscience of al men who euer felt the pow­er of sinne in them, & the free grace of God renewing them: whether this doctrine of yours be blasphemous or not: That not only you may fulfill the Lawe, and doe all the dutie whilk God hes [Page 128] commanded you, and thereby merite eternall lyfe: but also you may do more nor God hes commanded, whilk ye cal works of greater perfectiō, nor the Lawe of God requyres of vs, by the doing of the whilk, you say, you merite a greater degree of glorie in the kingdome of heauen, and as In his preface before de mona chis. lib. 2. Bellarmine sayes, That your religious Monkes liues a straiter, and more high kinde of life, then either the Lawe of God or man hes prescry­ued. And that a man lib. 2. c. 13 &c. 6. Ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amphus quam teneor. according to the ordor of sarum. may loue God with a greater and more perfite loue, nor is commanded him in the Lawe: yea, that a man may loue God with a greater loue, nor he is bound to loue him: and that these workes are not onely meritorious of eternal lyfe, and of a singular glory in hea­uen, but also are profitable to satisfie for our sinnes: and that men may communicate of the aboundance of these their merites vnto others. And therefore, they haue in their seruice bookes this forme of prayer often, That by the merites of the Saints they may obtain grace and by the blood of Thomas (Archbishop of Canterbury) they may a­scend to heauen. Reuel. c. 13. All whilk whether they be not words of blas­phemy, and the doctrine of the Dragon, I appeale your con­science before God in the great day, and the consciences of all men, as though it were not blasphemie ynough to say, that men may merite eternall life, and a greater degree of glorie in that life to themselues by their works: but also to communicate vnto others of the aboundance of their works and so not onelie to be sauiours of themselues, but of others also. And here (reader) I am compelled to speake this to thee suppose thou beleeue not that they haue written and will maintaine so horrible blasphemies I wonder not: for I speak the truth to thee in my conscience I lye not, I could not haue bene induced my self to haue beleeued that euer they durst haue professed sik damnable and deuilish doctrine and I had not red it my self in their owne bookes, yea I durst not haue bene so confident as to haue set it downe here vpon the re­port of anie, except I had red it my selfe. But if the blinde lead the blinde both will fall into the pit together. The Lord deliuer his owne from sik damnable doctrine whilk of ne­cessitie muste bring damnation vppon the beleeuers and professors of it. To answer you then, first if we be not able to performe all the duties whilk God requires of vs in his law, [Page 129] then we are not able to doe workes of supererogation whilk is more then our duty, commanded in the law, as ye say. But the first I haue prooued before: therefore the second is true. Secondlie, if the Lawe of God be perfite, and prescriues more then we are able to doe, Psal. 1 [...]. then there is no works of su­pererogation: this you will not deny. But Dauid sayes, The Lawe of God is perfite, and our inabilitie to performe it, I haue prooued before: therefore there is no works of supereroga­tion. Thirdlie, what an absurd and blasphemous thing is this to say, that God hes not commanded to vs the workes of greatest perfection, (for Maister Gilbert calles these, workes of greater perfection) and so sik workes wherein he is moste glorified: but hes left them in our owne choise to doe, or not to do, as though the Lord had not commanded vs to glori­fie him in the greatest perfection, nor yet we were bound to doe the same? Fourthlie, if there be any sik works of supere­rogation whilk are of greater perfection nor the Law com­mands: then it should followe, that the vowe of continency, wilfull pouertie, and monasticall obedience to their superi­ours, should be works of greater perfection, and so please God more, then the loue of God with all the hart, with al the soule, with all the strength, with all the minde, Matth. 22. [...] Marc. 12.29.30 with all the thought: (for the former are your works of supererogation, and the last is commanded in the Lawe) but this is absurd: therefore there is no sik works. Fifthlie, this was only pro­per to the sonne of God to fulfill the Law of God perfitelie, and to doe more then the Lawe required: to wit, to die for vs who were his enemies: this doctrine therefore of yours spoiles him of this his glorie. Last of all, if none can merite eternall life through their workes at all: then none can aug­ment their glorie and rewarde in heauen by their workes of supererogation. But the first I haue proued before: therfore the other must followe. And marke this (reader) how farre God hes blinded their mindes: for they deride, & they mock at that imputation of the righteousnesse & merites of Christ, Bellarm. lib. 2. de iustis. cap. 2. & Consil. Trid. can. 10 & Bellarm. lib 2. pag. 12 [...] and they pronounce them accursed that so thinkes: but yet they teach that the works of supererogation whilk men does [Page 130] may be communicate to others. As for the first place whilk ye quote Matth. 19. If thou wilt be perfite, &c. I answered to it before, in my answere to the second point of your doctrine: to the whilk I referre the reader. And so your wilfull pouer­tie hes no ground heir. For if this man did not perfitely ful­fill the Lawe, then was he not able to doe more then the law required of him: but the first is true as I proued before in the second point of your doctrine, and as the circumstances of the text testifies it, for he went away sad, and he put his trust in his riches: and so it was not onlie difficile, but impossible for him to enter in the kingdome of God, as our Sauiour sai­eth, whilk had not beene true of him, if he had fulfilled the Lawe. And this was a speciall command to this man, to dis­couer his hypocrisie. And all Christians is bound also out of the loue of their heart to Christ, to be content to forsake all that they haue before we renounce him, or his worde, when he so requireth of vs. And if wilfull pouertie be sik a worke of perfection as ye thinke, Pro. 30.8 wherefore then would the Pro­phet haue praied, Giue me neither pouertie nor riches, but feede mee with foode conuenient. And if this be the worke of greatest per­fection, what is the cause that your Abbots, Popes, Bishops, & Cardinals (for who should be perfite if not these?) will not sell al their reuenues whilk they haue, wherein they surmoūt the princes of the world, and so augment their glory in hea­uen, and be perfite? But shall others beleeue and obey this doctrine of yours, when the greatest Patrons of it, beleeues and obeyes it not? O hypocrites who will beleue you!

As for the next work of supererogation, Virginitie: it is true that the Virgine and vn-married, who hes the gift of conti­nencie, thinks vpon the things that appertaines to God: and it is true, that if any haue the gift of continency, it is better to be vn-married, then to marrie, especiallie in the times of persecution. But yet it followes not that it is a work of super­erogation: for to them who lies the gift, it is a commande­ment: for he that hes the gift is commanded to vse it, and in losing it, he sinnes. And euery man is bound to glorify God to the vttermost of his power, and God is most glorified by [Page 131] the single life of these, especiallie in the time of persecution, who hes the gift: and so it is not a counsell simplie but also a command, but to them onlie who hes the gift, & that so long onelie as they haue the gift. And the Apostle sayes in that same place whilk ye quote heir, that he thinks he hes the spi­rite of God also, and so this iudgement of his was the iudge­ment of the spirite of God, whilk binds and oblishes al them who hes the gift. But vnto these who hes not the gift, 1. Cor. 7. [...]. 3. & 9 the Scripture hes a plaine command: For the auoyding of fornication let euery man haue his owne wife, &c. And if they cannot abstain, let them marrie, &c. And whereas ye say that Virginity is better then Matrimonie: that is not true simplie, but only to them who hes the gift. And since you say it is better, wherefore make ye Matrimonie a Sacrament to giue remission of sins? For shall not a Sacrament whilk giues remission of sinnes be better then an indifferent action, whilk men may doe, or leaue vndone, sik as ye say Virginitie is? As for the Apostles example 1. Corinth. 9. in preaching the Gospel freelie without wages to them: I answere: suppose it was leesome to him, & all the Ministers of the Gospell, to haue taken wages, as him self testifies and proues in that same chapter, from the 4. ver. to the 15. yet it was not expedient to him for the course of the Gospell amongst them. And men are not only comman­ded to abstaine from that whilk is vnleesome, but also from the things whilk are leesome, if they be not expedient: and so he did no more heir then he should haue done. 1. Cor. 9.15 And ther­fore he sayes, It were better for me to die, then that any shoulde take my glorie from me, whilk cannot be saide of these works whilk we are not bound to doe. And he sayes, Ver. 18 That I abuse not my au­thoritie in the Gospell: but this would haue bene an abuse of his liberty with his people: therfore he was bound to doe it. And yet we reade that he spoiled other Churches as he sayes him self, and tooke wages from them. 2. Cor. 11. [...] Phil. 4 And also the Kirk of Philip­pi did communicate vnto him twise.

As for the 10. of Luke, it appeares ye are scarce of proofes in quoting this place for your works of supererogation: for, will you say that the Samaritane was not bound by Gods [Page 132] Lawe to ware more vppon his neighbour in his extremitie, then two penye worth? Hes not the law saide, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy self? And are we not bound to lay downe our life one for another, much more to ware out for him sik things as may serue for the comforte of this life in sik an ex­tremitie. 1. Ioh 3.16 And the Greeke worde [...] is not to su­pererogate (as ye take it) but to ware our further expenses. So your blindnesse is grosse in this. And as for that of Dauid in praising God night and day, so often, he was so farre from [...] king of himselfe that hee had done more then the Lawe required of him, that he neuer thought of himself that he had fullie obeyed the Lawe. And therefore how often prayes he in that Psalme, that the Lord would open his eies to vnder­stand the Lawe, and giue him grace to performe the same. And in other Psalmes he sayes, Psal. 119.12 [...]7. 1 [...] 27 3 [...] psal. 40. My sinnes are m [...]e then the haires of my head. And if thou marke iniquitie who can stand? and there­fore this was no worke of supererogation. And if you knew Maister Gilbert, (but the Lorde hes blinded you) either the perfection of the Lawe of God, or our inabilitie to performe it, or the vnsearchable loue and kindnesse of God whilk hes oblished vs to moe duties then euer we are able to do: (for when we haue done all whilk is commanded vs, yet we are but vnprofitable seruants:) you would be so far from defen­ding these your works of supererogation, that ye would ab­hor and detest this doctrine.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

13. Our doctrine is, that Christ our Sauiour (according to the soule) descended to th [...] Hels, as we haue in our beliefe. And this was the doctrine of the [...]postles. Act. 2 24 For Saint Peter sayes, That God hes raised him vp, lousing the sorrowes of Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be held of it. And this he proues by the Psalmes of Dauid, Beholde thou wilt not leaue my soule [...] hell (sayes Dauid) nor giue thy holy one to see corruption. [...] 15.8 [...] 29.3 [...] 49 10 This same is the doctrine of Saint Paule also: And that he ascended, what is it but because he descended also first into the inferior parts of the earth. He that descended, the same is he also whilk is ascended aboue all the heauens, that he might furth­fill all things. Ye see in these and all the rest of our doctrine, wherein they diff [...]r from vs, that the touchstone beares witnes to vs, and proues ours on­ly to be the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, and not their denying thereof.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Bellarmine graunts that we all aggree that Christ after a certaine manner descended into hell: but the whole controuersie is of the sense and meaning of it. We say, that he suffered the paines of hell in his soule vpon the Croce, and laye vnder the bon­dage of death, and was held captiue in the graue, whilk in the Hebrewe is called SCH [...]OL (whilk signifieth sometime Hell in the Scripture, and sometime the graue) for the space of three dayes: and in this sense we graunt he descended [...]n­to hell, and in this sense it is taken in our beliefe. But your doctrine is, That he descended locallie vnto Hell according to his soule, Bell [...]m [...] 4 de Christo cap. 16first to giue to the soules of the Fathers essentiall blessednesse: and to de­lyuer them out of that prison, and bring them to heauen. And this we say is neither the meaning of that article of your beliefe, nei­ther yet hes it so mekle as a sillabe in the whole Scripture to warrand it. And as for the article it self, Lib. 4 de Christo cap 6 Bellarmine confesses that this article was not in the Creede with all Kirkes, as hee proues there by the testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine, who all exponed the Creede. And Augustine exponed it fiue times, and yet neuer mentions this article. And Ruffinus an auncient writer testifies, that this article was neither in the Creede of the Romane Kirk, nor of the East Kirks. And also it is not in the Nicene Creede, whilk was more nor 300. In his exposition of the Creede yeare after Christ. And Perkins a learned man affirmes, that three-score Creedes of the most auncient councels, and Fa­thers wants this clause. Whereby it is most cleare that this article was not put in at that time, when the rest of the arti­cles were gathered together, but hes crept in since, and that more nor 300. yeare after the dayes of the Apostles. For Au­gustine liued in the 400. yeare, & the Nicene Creede was more then 300. yeare after Christ. And yet because it hes continu­ed of a long time, and hes beene receiued by the consent of the Kirks of God, and does also carry with it a fit vnderstan­ding and sense as hath bene spoken. Therefore it is to be re­tained, but not in that sense as ye expone it. For first if this locall discension of Christ according to his soule into hell were true, and that it were an article of our faith, as ye say, [Page 134] then the foure Euangelists, whilk are the sworne pen-men of the historie of his death and resurrection, [...]c. 1.3 and especiallie Luke, who (as he sayes himselfe) intended to make an exact nar­ration of the same, who also did amplie set downe the same, with all the circumstances thereof, they would not haue o­mitted it being a speciall article of our faith, if your doctrine be true: Ioh 20.31 seing the end of their writing, as Iohn sayes was that we might beleeue, and by beleeuing haue eternall life. But they ne­uer mention it, as your selues cannot deny. Therefore it can not be that he locallie descended into hell. Secondlie, the Scripture makes it plaine that Christs soule was in Paradise at that time with the thiefe: [...]. [...]3.43 for he sayes vnto him, This night shall thou be with me in Paradise: for this cannot be meaned of his godhead, for it is euery-where: neither of his bodie, for it was in the graue. Seing therefore his soule was at that time in Paradise, it could not be in hell, except you will say that Paradise and hell are both one, whilk I trow ye will not say. Thirdlie, if the soules of the Fathers was not in hell, then Christ descended not thither: for ye say, Bellar. lib 4 de Christo cap. 16 That he descended thither for that effect to delyuer them: but they were not in hell, but in heauen, whilk our Sauiour calles Abrahams bosome, where Lazarus was betwixt the whilk and hell the Scripture testifies there is a great gulfe: Luc. 16.2 [...] therefore he descended not lo­callie into hell. Fourthlie, some of your owne learned Do­ctors hes seene this errour of yours, and hes gone from it, as Durandus by name, In 3. distinct. 22 [...]. who affirmes that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance, but in vertue, and proues it by reasons. And last of all, you are at sik variance amongst your selues con­cerning this point, that some of you affirmes that Christs soule suffered paine in hell when it was there, as In [...] [...]. Caietano, and 3. part qu [...]st 52 artic. 1 & 3 Tho­mas of Aquine two great Papists: and yet [...] 3. [...]t [...]ct. 22 [...] Bonauenture and Bellarmine [...]b 4 de Christo cap 6 Bellarmine affirmes the contrarie, that his soule was in the place of paine, and yet suffered no paine. Next Thomas of Aquine [...] quest [...]. affirmes, that Christ descended only into that place of hel called Lim­bus Patrum, but Bellarmine sayes, It is more probable that he went to all the partes of Hell: and this is the consent whilk you Pa­pists hes amongst your selues, not only in this point, but al­moste [Page 135] in all the points of your doctrine. Nowe as to the pla­ces of Scripture whilk ye quote, they serue nothing to this purpose. For the 2. of the Acts, it speakes of that bondage of the graue whilk kept him vnder vntill he rose againe: and therefore the Greek word is [...]; whilk signifieth death, and not hell, as ye translate it heir: and Peter sayes, whome God raised vp. The Apostle speakes then of that part of Christ whilk had falne and was raised vp: but it was the body only and not the soule whilk fell downe and was raised vp: there­fore he speakes of the sorrowes of death whereby his bodie was kept in bondage, and not of anye locall descension of Christs soule. As for the places of the Psalmes whilk ye quote heir, Peter brings them not in to proue this locall descension (as ye say) whereof he makes no mention: but to proue his resurrection as he sayes in the 31. verse most plainly: He know­ing this before, speaking of Dauid, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soule should not remaine in graue, neither his fleshe shoulde see corruption. So, if ye will beleeue the spirite of God in the A­postle interpreting these places, they speake of the resurre­ction of Christ, and not of the deliuering of the soule out of hell, for he was in Paradise, as he sayes himselfe: and it is the bodie that was raised, and not the soule. And the Hebrewe word is NEPHESCH, whilk not onely signifieth the soule, but also the life, as Gen 37.21. Let vs smite his soule, that is, take a­way his life. And it signifieth also the body of the dead wher­in there was life, as Leuit. 21. ver. 1. and 11. And this worde hel is SCHEOL in Hebrew, whilk most vsuallie is taken in the Scripture for the graue. So then the meaning is this, The Lord will not leaue his Nephesch, that is, the bodie wherein his life was in Scheol, that is, in the graue: whilk speach is vsual in the Scripture. Now as to the other Psalme 29.3. it is spoken pro­perlie of Dauid, where hee thankes God who had saued his life from the handes of his enemies, whilk by a borrowed speach frequented in the Scripture, is called the deliuery of his soule from the graue. 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, whilk in respect of the world is the lowest part: and so [Page 136] it is taken in the 139. Psalme, ver. 15. where Dauid sayes, Thou hes fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth, where heir it is not taken for hell, as you take it in that place of the E­phesians, otherwise you must say that Dauid vvas borne in hell vvhilk I trovv ye vvill not say. So heirby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation. So novve to conclude this: neither in these points, Maister Gilbert, nor in any point of doctrine vvherein ye differ from vs, is your do­ctrine aggreable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles, as hes bene (I hope) proued sufficiently. You must therefore pro­uide you for better vveapons and armour, and stronger de­fences for the ouer-throvv of our doctrine, and vp-holde of yours, then ye haue done: othervvise your shotts vvill be but as shotts of paper, & your Bulvvarks but of intempered morter, vvhilk sodainly vvill rushe dovvn at the li [...]ht of the trueth of God. The Lord open your eyes to see the truth, & suffer you not to continue any longer, to cause the blinde go out of the vvay, as you haue done. Amen.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

14 I thought to haue put in heir also of Iustification, whilk is the grea­test head of controuersie betwixt them and vs: for they wil haue only Faith to justifie: into the whilk (only) they seclude all good works. But because I thinke to set this downe afterwarde, I haue not put it heir.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

This commeth in afterward: therfore I refer the ansvvere of it to that place.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

And our Religion whilk we professe, and all the particular heades of it, was instituted by Iesus Christ and his Apostles, whilk I offer me also to proue either by word or write, against whatsomeuer that will pleade the con­trarie. The whilk if I faile in, I wil be content to lose my life therefore, by his grace.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

There is much promised heir, but nothing done, and it is ane thing im­possible to him to doe. For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants d ffers from vs is in denying, abhorring, or detesting, as may be sene in their confession of faith, whilk they compell all men to sweare and subscriue. As we detest and refuse the vsurped authoritie of that Romane Antichrist, v­pon the Scriptures of God, vpon the Kirk, the ciuill Magistrate, &c. except sik things were expresly contained in the word of God.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for my promise & performance, I ansvvered to that be fore, & whether that be a thing vnpossible to me or not, let this my answere be a trial thereof. You are bold ynough in­deed in affirming it to be impossible: but what haue ye for you? You say, because the differēce chiefly that vve differ frō you, is in denying and abhorring. What a reason is this? Can we not prooue our religion out of the Scripture, because we deny yours whilk is contrarie to the same? Is it impossible to proue the trueth, because falset is denied and abhorred. What new Logick or Diuinitie is this, Maister Gilbert? I would neuer haue beleeued that ye had bene sik an vnskil­ful reasoner, if your self had not bewraied the same. And cer­tainlie your Kirk is not beholding to you: for if your reason holde forth, it vvill followe that it is impossible to you, or a­ny man else to prooue the heades of your Religion by the Scripture: for in your confession of faith, and forme of abiu­ration set downe by the Monkes of Burdeaux, anno 1585. there they deny and abhors the Protestants and their do­ctrine, and compels all men who desires the fellovvship of the Romane Kirk, and their absolution, to main-svveare, re­nounce, and subscriue the same. But I trowe your Kirk will not allovve this manner of reasoning of yours. And vvheras you say that the chiefe difference vvherein vve differ from you is in denying and abhoring &c. of your Religion. I aske you, doth not our Religion differ as far from yours, as yours does from vs? This you cannot deny. For are not two con­traries equallie different one from another? Doth not light differ as far from darknesse, vvhite from black, Bellarm. in his preface before the controuer­sies & in his pre­face de summo Pontific e Christ from Antichrist, as darknes from light, black from vvhite, and An­tichrist from Christ? And are not yours and our religions cō ­trarie one to another? But your selfe will not deny, and Bel­larmine confesses that you differ from vs in the maine and substantiall points of religion: therefore of necessitie vvee must also differ from you in the maine & substantiall points of our religion. And so the chief difference wherein vve dif­fer from you, is not in denying & abhorring, but in the maine [Page 138] and fundamentall groundes of our Religion. Othervvise it shall follovve that the chief difference that ye differ from vs, is in denying & abhorring of our Religion, vvhilk I think your Kirk will not digest. Whereas you say that this may be seene by our confession of faith: Our confession hes not onlie the detesting and denying of your abhominable errors in generall & particular: but also the confession of our faith in generall: referring the particular heades thereof to that confession whilk is ratified and established by act of Parlia­ment. And so heir Maister Gilberts vntruth and calumnie of our confession may be seene. As for this forme of exacting of an oth and subscription to Religion, The example of Moses. Deut. 29.10. and of Iosua 24.25 Iehoiada the hie preist. 2. Reg. 11.17. Iosia. 2. of the Kings. 23 3. Asa. 2. Chro. 15.12. And of the people retur­ning from the captiu [...]tie of Ba­bell with Nehe­mias. Nehem 10. if you finde fault with it, you not onely gainesay the Scriptures of God, impaires Princes lavvfull authoritie, & the Kirk of their iurisdiction and lawfull povver: but also blots your ovvne Kirk, vvho, as may be seene in that confession of faith and forme of abiu­ration set out by the Monkes of Bourdeaux, vvhereof vve spake before, does the same. As for this exception whilk ye put in heir, I answered to it before.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

For if this be a true ground of theirs, that nothing ought to be done or beleeued, but sik things as are expresly contained in the word of God: but their generall confession, or their negatiue faith is not expresly contained in the word of God: therefore it ought not to be done, nor beleeued.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for this ground whilk ye alledge to be ours: it appea­res certainlie, Maister Gilbert, that as ye saide of me, eyther ye know not our grounds, or else ye wilfullie invert them for your own aduantage. For our ground is, that nothing ought to be done or beleeued in Religion, but that whilk may bee warranted by the testimonie of the scripture, either in words & sense together, or else by a necessary collection out of the same. The whilk with Nazianzene vve say, are of the same trueth and authoritie with the first. And according to this sense vve say that all the heades of our Religion, asvvell negatiue as affir­matiue, are expresly contained in the scripture, and so ought [Page 139] both to be beleeued and practised. These are but silly shifts, Maister Gilbert, whilk ye bring to discredite the trueth of our religion. You knew full well the blindnesse and simplenesse of the people in this countrie: and therefore you regarded not how sillie and simple your reasons were.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

That their Faith is contained in the word of God, so far as it differs from ours, he will neuer be able to proue, neither by word nor write. And if hee will cause our kings Maiestie to suspend his actes against vs, that we may be as free to speake our minde as he: he (a) shall haue a proofe heereof. But why refused you to giue a profe of this when I did offer it vnto you, be­fore your owne familiars, where you might haue spoken as freelie as I, so these ar but words M. Gilbert and braggs onlie. If not, let him proue the same by write, and he shall haue an answere by Gods grace. As for his life we desire not the same, but rather his conuersion to the trueth.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for our abilitie to proue the trueth of our doctrine, I answered it before: iudge thou Christian reader of the same, by this my answere. As for the suspending of his Maiesties acts against you, that is not in our hands: and for all the good ye could doe, you haue but too much libertie. And if you speake no better for your religion, nor ye haue done else in this your answere, your Kirk will be but little beholden to you for it. And certainlie if you will binde and oblishe your selfe to face your owne cause, and defend your religion by word, I hope that licence of a safe passage & conduct would be graunted to you by his Maiestie, to let you speak for your selfe, what ye haue for you for the defence of it, for that space without any danger to your person, and that surer, and with greater safetie nor Iohn Hus had, who notwithstanding of his safe conduct, yet was brunt. And whereas you promise an answere, doe what you can, Maister Gilbert, for now it is time to pleade for your Baal. And let your answere be more firme nor this, or else ye will lose more then ye will winne by it. That you desire not my life, I am beholdē to you (if ye speak truth) considering the bloodie generation of your Romane Kirk, who these many yeares by past, hes spilt the blood of the Saints of God in sik aboundance, that it any can tell the starres of heauen, hee may number them whome your Kirk [Page 140] hes slaine for the testimonie of the word of God. And as for that whilk ye call conuersion, it is auersion from the truth, and the losing of saluation: the whilk I hope shalbe dearer to me then a thousand liues, suppose they were all included in one.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

Secondlie, I offer me to proue that there be verry few points of controuersy betwixt the Romane Kirk and vs, wherein we dissent, but I shall get testi­monies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundreth yeares against them, & prouing the heades of Religion whilk we professe. Let any man therefore let me downe any waightie point of controuersie, one, or moe, and he shall haue the proofe of this.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Whome Maister Iohn calles Fathers heir, I know not, except Simon Ma­gus, Nouatus, Aerius, Iouinianus, Pelagius, Vigilantius, and sik. For indeede there is none of these, and manie the like, but they were against vs, and with them in some heades. But I am sure, S. Irenaeus, S Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Au­gustine, S. Hierome, S. Basile, S. Chrysostome with the rest of the holy Fathers is no way with them, [...] 2.24. Math. 7.21. Math. 19.7. Matth 34.35. Ioan. 14.15.21 1. Ioan. 2.3.4 Rom. 2.13. 1. Cor 13.2. 1 Cor 1.19 Galat. 5.6. Tit. 1 16 De fi [...]e & operi­bus cap. 14. and against vs, as Maister Iohn will not be able to proue for all his offer. As for example: It is a chiefe ground in their Religion, that onlie Faith iustifieth: This, I say, can neither be proued by the Scriptures, nor auncient Fathers of the first 600. yeares. For why the contrary is ex­presly contained in the word of God. Doe ye see, sayes Saint Iames, that by workes a man is iustified, and not by faith onlie, with manie other places that aggrees with the same, as I haue noted heir on the margent. And S. Augu­stine sayes himselfe, that this Iustification by Faith only was an old heresie in the very time of the Apostles.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for this calumnie of yours, the triall of it will come in afterward: therefore I referre the answere of it to that place And whereas you say, that you know not whome I call Fa­thers, either your malice makes you to dissemble your know ledge in this, or else palpable must your ignorance be. And where ye say, that Irenaeus, Cyprian, &c. and the rest of the ho­lie Fathers are no wise with vs, against you; and that I will not be able to proue it: I haue not only proued that already in sundry heads of our religion: but also that sundrie of your owne Popes, Cardinals, Doctors, Bishops, Councels, & Ca­non lawe hes beene with vs in sundry points of our religion [Page 141] whilk we professe, against that whilk ye professe. And as for that example of Iustification by Faith onely whilk ye cast in, whilk is one of the chiefe grounds of our religion: this I will proue both by the Scripture, and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first 600. yeares. 2. Cor. 5.11 Our doctrine then concer­ning Iustification is this: That as our sins was not inherent in Christ, but imputed to him, whilk was the cause of his death: so his righteousnesse whereby we are accounted righ­teous before God is not inherent in vs, but imputed to vs: 1. Cor. 1.3 [...] & therefore the Scripture sayes, that he is made of God vnto vs righteousnesse. Next, the onlie instrument that apprehends, & as it were, takes holde of this righteousnesse of Christ, is a liuely Faith, whilk works by loue, & brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith a efficient or meritorious cause of our saluation (for onlie Christs death and righteousnesse is that) but onlie an instrument to apprehend the same. Neither is euery Faith this instrumēt: but onlie that liuing Faith whilk I haue spoken of: so that true Faith is neuer without the fruits of good works, no more then fire is without heate: and yet neither are our works, nor the work of Faith it selfe, the meritorious cause of our saluation: but only Christs death & righteousnesse: neither are the fruits of this liuely Faith, the instrument to apprehend and take holde of Christs righte­ousnesse, but onelie Faith it selfe. This then is our doctrine, whilk is so plainlie confirmed by the Scripture, that hee must be exceeding blind that sees it not. The places to confirme the same, are these. Rom. 3.28. & Rom. 4.2 We conclude that a man is iustified by Faith without the workes of the Lawe. If Abraham were iustified by works then hes he wherein to reioyce, but not with God. Ephes. 2.9 By grace are ye sa­ued through Faith, and that not of your selues: for it is the gift of God: Phil. 3.9. not by workes, that none should reioice. And I haue counted all things losse, that I might win Christ, and might be found in him, not hauing my owne righteousnesse whilk is of the Lawe, but that whilk is through the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse whilk is of God through Faith. Tit. 3.3 And againe, Not by the works of righteousnesse, whilk we had done, but according to his mercie he saued vs. Seing the Scripture so expresly remoues all workes both of nature and of grace, both going [Page 142] before Faith, & following after it, (and therfore the Apostle sayes, We are not saued by the workes of righteousnesse whilk we had done) and of all men, euen of those who were iustified alrea­die and sanctified, as Abrabam, Paule, and the Ephesians were, from our iustification and saluation, as the causes thereof: therefore we are only iustified and saued by a liuely faith ap­prehending the righteousnesse of Christ.

Secondlie, the Scripture not onlie remoues works (as we haue saide) from the cause of our Iustification and saluation, but also ascriues it to Faith, as in these places, Whosoeuer bele­ueth in him shall haue eternall life. And Thy Faith hath saued thee, &c. Ioh. 3.16. Luc. 8.48. Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4.3.4.5. & Rom. 3.26.28.30 And againe, We are saued through Faith. And man is iustified by Faith. And God shall iustifie Circumcision of Faith, and incircum­cision through Faith. And Abraham beleeued God, and it was coun­ted to him for righteousnesse. And least ye should say, the Scrip­ture hes not by Faith onlie, reade the 8. of Luke, and 50. verse where our Sauiour sayes to Iairus, [...] Only beleeue and she shalbe saued. Therefore Faith is the onlie instrument to lay holde on the promise of God. And least ye should say this was not a iustifying Faith? I answere, this Faith whilk Iairus had, was that same Faith whilk the woman with the bloodie issue had: Luc. 8.48. Lib. 1. de iustif. cap. 17. pag. 84. but her Faith not onlie healed her bodie, but her soule also, whilk Bellarmine grants, and our Sauiour testifies saying, Thy Faith hath saued thee, &c. therefore this is a iustifying Faith also. Secondly, seing the Faith of miracles & iustifying Faith is both one in substance with your Kirk, as Bellarmine and the Rhemists sayes: cap. 5. lib. de iusti. annotat. in 2. Cor. 12. and if it be a greater work to worke miracles, as they say, then to be iustified: therfore if onlie Faith suffice to obtaine miracles, as Bellarmine graunts, lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also suffici­ent to iustifie? for if it suffice for the greater worke, much more for the lesse.

Thirdlie, the Scripture ascriues our Iustification to grace and not to workes: & so oppones them, that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Iustification. Rom. 3.24. We are iustified (sayes he) freelie by grace, and not by works. And to him that worketh the reward is imputed, not according to grace, but to debt: [Page 143] but to him who worketh not, Rom. 4.4. Rom. 11 [...]. but beleeueth an him who iustifieth the vn­godlie, his faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse. And in another place, If it be of grace, it is no more of workes, or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of workes, it is no more grace, or else work were no more worke. Seeing therefore our Iustification is onelie of free grace, and grace (if the Apostle bee true) cannot stand with workes: therefore our Iustification is not by works, or else it were not of grace: and so not at al: and so the founda­tion of our saluation were ouerturned. I hope therefore this our doctrine of iustification is plainly warrāted by the scrip­ture. Nowe to the Fathers, Origen in epi [...] ad Rom. cap. 3. who liued in the 200. yeare after Christ. Hilar. canon. 8. in Matth. in 300. seculo. Basil. in homil. de humilitate in seculo 300. Ambrose in c. 3. ad Rom. &c 4 & 9. in seculo. 300. Chrysost. in ho­mil de fide & le­ge naturae & in homil. 3. ad Tit. in seculo 400. August. lib. 1. contra Duas Episto­las Pelag. c. 21. in seculo 400. Cyrillus lib. 10. in Ioan c. 18. in seculo. 400. because ye say it cannot be pro­ued by them, they spake as plainlie as we doe. Origen hath these wordes: And the Apostle sayes, that the iustification of Faith onlie sufficeth: (solius fidei) so that he that beleeueth allanerlie is iu­stified, suppose no worke be fulfilled of him. Hilarius sayes, For onelie Faith iustifieth: fides enim sola iustificat. Basilius sayes, This is a perfite reioycing in God, when a man vaunts not himselfe of his owne righteousnesse, but knowes himself to be misterfull of true righteousnes, sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum, and to be iustified only by faith in Christ. Ambrose sayes, They are iustified by faith onely through the gift of God. And in the 4. chapter he hes thrise, by faith onely, sola fides. And in the 9. chapter also, Sola fides posi­ta est ad salutem: that is, onlie faith is appointed for saluation. Chrysostome sayes, The thief beleeued only and was iustified. And in another place, If thou giues credite to thy faith, wherefore brings thou in other things, as though faith only were not sufficient to iustifie. Augustine, it is a knowne saying of his, Workes goes not before Iu­stification, but followes him who is already iustified. And in another place, August. de fide & operib. c. 14. Theophil. in comment ad Galat c. 3, in the 800, age. Bernard sermo, 22, in c [...]ic. in the 1200. age. Howe vertuous so euer ye report the auncient righteous to haue bene, yet their vertue saued thē not, but the faith of the Mediator. Cy­rillus Alexandrinus sayes, Man by faith onlie stickes in Christ, inhae­ret Christo. Theophylactus sayes, only faith hes in the self the vertue of iustifying. Bernard sayes, Man being iustified by faith onely, shall haue peace towards thee. What more plaine now could the fa­thers speake of Iustification by faith onlie, whilk you wil not deny Maister Gilbert? The reader may learne howe much credite [...] to be giuen to you who so boldly affirmed that nei­ther [Page 144] Scripture nor Fathers saide with vs against you. I hope they will try you before they trust you in time to come. For dare you say (Maister Gilbert) that I haue fained heir ought of these Fathers, and hes not brought in their own words spea­king? Deny it if ye dare. Be not so impudent and shamlesse Maister Gilbert, in your vntruthes and lies againe: for by this ye will both discredite your self and your religion.

As for the 2. of Iames whilk ye quote here, that by works a man is iustified and not by saith only. I answere. This word to be iustified, is taken in the Scripture two manner of wayes. First, to be accompted righteous before the tribunal of God: and in this sense, only a liuely faith apprehending the death and righteousnesse of Christ iustifies vs: and of this is the cō ­trouersie. Next, it is taken for a declaration of ones righte­ousnesse, as in the 3. of the Romanes, ver. 4. That thou may be iu­stified in thy words (that is, declared to be iust) when thou iudges. And in this sense it is taken in this place. So that this is the meaning of it. Ye see then, by works man is iustified, that is, de­clared by his works to be iust, and not by faith onlie, that is, by the profession of his faith in Christ. So then Iames speakes not of our Iustification before God whilk is by faith only, but of the declaration of our righteousnesse before men, whilk he calles Iustification: and that for these reasons. 1. Other­wise Iames should be contrary to Paule who sayes, That a man is iustified by faith without workes, whilk is blasphemous to think therefore Iames speakes of our Iustification before men, wherby our Iustification before God is declared and made mani­fest. 2. The scope of the whole chapter, and whole Epistle te­stifies the same. For his purpose is to cast downe the arro­gancie and presumption of sik, who bragged of their Faith, as though the bare profession, that they beleeued in Christ, were sufficiēt to saue them, suppose they did not bring forth the fruites thereof. Therefore the Apostle takes this in hand to prooue that they are not iustified by a dead faith, but on­lie by that faith whilk brings forth the effects thereof. And therefore he sayes in the fourteenth verse, What auayleth it my brethren when a man sayes he hes faith, when he hes no workes? [Page 145] can that faith saue him? And in the eighteenth verse, Shewe mee thy faith out of thy workes, and I will shewe thee my faith by my workes. And because it may be ye say, this is my commenta­rie, therefore heare howe one of your owne great and chiefe pillers Thomas of Aquine expones the same, from whose iudg­ment, I hope, ye will not appeale. In Iacob. 2 Heir he speakes (sayes he) of workes that followes faith, not according to that sense wherein Iusti­fication is saide to be the infusion of righteousnesse, but according to that sense that Iustification is called exercitatio iustitiae, the practise or declaration, and confirmation of righteousnesse. So if ye wil beleeue him, Iustification heir is taken not for our iustification before God, but for the declaration of our righteousnesse. And so the ordinar Glosse exponing that place writes, In Iacob. 2 Abraham was iustified without workes by faith onely: but neuerthelesse the offering vp of his sonne, was a testification of his faith and righteousnesse. What can be more clearlie spoken by any? Would you haue more then this? So thē this place of Iames speakes not of our Iusti­fication before God, & therfore serues not to proue this your doctrine. As to the 2. of the Romanes, 13, It is true, it is not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of it whilk are iustified, if there were any who had fulfilled it. But the Apostle concludes in the third chapter, all vnder sinne, both Iewe and Gentile: and ther­fore gathers that by the workes of the Lawe no flesh is iustified. And so we will leaue this to you to doe, and that also in the 19. of Matthew, spoken to the young man, Do the commands, &c. And as for the rest of the testimonies, I wonder to what purpose ye haue quoted them, except for to make a shewe of Scrip­tures and testimonies. For they speake onlie of the necessi­tie of good workes, whilk as they cannot be separate from true faith, so no man can attaine to saluation without them: because where euer Christ dwelles by true Faith, not onelie he iustifies them, but also sanctifie them, and makes them fruitfull in good works. The whilk we graunt, and therfore does vrge the same continuallie, knowing for a trueth, Heb. 12 14 Matth. 3.10 that without holinesse no man shall see God, and that the axe is laide to the roote of the tree, and that euery tree that bringeth not forth good fruite shalbe hewen downe, and cast in an vnquencheable fire. They speake [Page 150] not therefore of the efficient or formall, or instrumentall cause of our Iustification, but of our sanctification with the fruites thereof, and therefore serues not to prooue the con­trouersie that is in hand. As for Augustine his testimony, as you corrupt the Scriptures, so doe ye his testimonie also: for this was the opinion whilk was risen vp in the Apost. daies, as he testifies there: That is a deade faith whilk brought not forth good works. for these are his words: that some thought that faith onely was sufficient to obtaine saluation without workes, ne­glecting to liue well, and to holde the way of God by good works, and being secure of saluation, whilk is in faith, had not a care to liue well, as he sayes. And in the end of that chapter he concludes the whole matter saying, How farre therefore are they deceiued, who promises to themselues euerlasting life throgh a dead faith. The whilk error we condemne also with you: for we acknowledge the necessitie of good works, as the fruites of a liuing faith: but not as the efficient, formal, or instrumentall cause of our iu­stification.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Further, I say, since the difference chieflie in religion betwixt vs & them is about the vnderstanding of the worde of God, Not we M. Gilbert, but one of the chief pil­lers of your own Kirk, Caietan a Cardinall (whilk was sent in Ger­manie against Luther) the Popes legate, who saies in plaine wordes that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather in­sufficient argu­ments, to proue Christ to be the Son of God, that the 2. and 3. E­pistle of Iohn, is not canonicall Scripture, that the Epistle of Iude is Apocri­pha, that the last chap. of Mark is not of sound au­t [...]oritie, that the historie of the a­dul [...]erous wo­man is S Iohn is not authenti­call, and of S. Iames E [...] stle that t [...]e salutati­on of it is pro­phane. albeit they deny a great part of the same to vs: What is the cause that they will not abyde the tryall of the auncient Fathers of the first sex hundreth yeares, seing that they were of his Religion, as he affirmes, If he be as good as his word, the matter wilbe sone ended. And if our Religion be not found consonant to theirs in all things (wherein they differ from vs) we shall reforme the same.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You said a little before, Maister Gilbert, that the chiefe dif­ference wherein we differ from you is in denying, abhorring or detesting, &c. Now you say, that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt vs, is about the vnderstanding of the word of God. How well these two aggrees, let the reader iudge. It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren (as I haue proued in sundrie points before) seing ye dissent from your selfe. It is true indeede, that many of our controuersies are about the right sense and vnderstanding of the scripture, but yet if Petrus a Soto, Lindanus, Peresius, Canisius, all great and learned Papists speake trueth, the most part of the waighti­est and chiefest points of your religion, whilk are in contro­uersie [Page 151] betweene vs, are but vnwritten Traditions, whilk hes not their beginning nor authour in the Scripture, and can­not be defended by the same. And whereas ye would haue vs to refer the controuersies about the sense and right mea­ning of the Scriptures, to be decyded by the writings of the Fathers of the first 600. yeares: we receiue their monuments and writings gladlie: but yet so, that we put a difference be­tweene them, and the writings of the holy Ghost in the scripture. For as I haue prooued sufficientlie before, as I hope, that onelie the Scriptures of God hes this prerogatiue, to be y^e supreame iudge of all controuersies in religion, & no other and the best waye to learne the sense of the Scripture, is by the Scripture it self: for seing all the Scripture is inspired of God, therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same. For hee who made the Lawe can best interprete the Lawe. And the Leuits practised this in the old Testament, Nehem. 8 8. Act, 26.2 [...]. who ex­poned the Scripture by the Scripture: and the Apostles in the new Testament, who taught nothing but that whilk the Prophets sayde should come to passe. And if a Father, yea a Saint, yea if an An­gell would preach beside that whilk the Apostles preached, let him be accursed. So then, nothing can be a warrand to vs of the trueth of the sense of the Scripture, but the Scrip­ture it self. And as for the Fathers expositions, as they may not be iudge (as hes bene saide) because they may erre, and hes erred, as hes bene proued, & your selues will not deny: & they dissent often-times one from another in the exposi­tion of the same. So let their expositions be taken in so far as they aggree with the Scripture. For would ye haue vs a­scriue that vnto them, whilk they themselues hes refused, & hes ascriued vnto the Scriptures onely?

Heare therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Kirk of Mileuitan a learned man who liued about the yeare of God 369. sayes, writting against the Donatistes who claimed to themselues only the title of the Kirk of Christ as ye do. They called for a Iudge, be bringes the Testament of Christ for a Iudge: and speaking to them of a point of religion that was controuerted, whether one should be twise baptised or not? [Page 150] [...] [Page 151] [...] [Page 150] [...] [Page 151] [...] [Page 150] [...] [Page 151] [...] [Page 148] he sayes, You, sayes he, affirmes it is lawful, we affirme it is not law­full, betwene your say it is lawfull, & our say it is not lawful, the peo­ples soules doe doubt & wauer. Let none beleeue you nor vs, we are all contentious men, Iudges must be sought for, if Christians, they cannot be giuen on both sides; for trueth is hindred by affection. A Iudge without must be sought for. If a Pagane, he cannot know the Christiā mysterie; if a Iew, Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmeni­anum he is an enimie to Christianitie. No Iudge therfore of this mat­ter can be found in earth. A Iudge from heauen must be sought for. But why knock we at heauen when here we haue his Testament in the Gos­pell. And he randers a reason of this in that same booke. Christ sayes he, hes delt with vs as an earthly father is wont to doe with his children, who fearing least his children should fall out after his decease, doth set downe his will in writting vnder witnesse: and if there arise de­bate among the Bretheren, they goe to the Testament. He whose word must end our controuersie is Christ. Let his will be sought in his Testa­ment, August. in Psal. 21 exposa (saieth he.) Augustine vrgeth the same reason of Optatus a­gainst the Donatistes. We are brethren, sayes he, to them why do wee striue? Our father died not vntestate, he made a testament and so died. Men do striue about the goodes of the deade whill their testament bee brought forth. When that is brought forth they yeelde to haue it opened & red. The Iudge doth harken: the Counsellers be silent: the Crier bid­deth peace. All the people is attentiue that the wordes of the dead man may be red and hard. He lieth void of life and feling, and his words pre­uaile. Christ sitteth in heauen, and is his Testament gain-said? Open it let vs read. We are Bretheren why do we striue? Let our mindes bee pa­cified, our father hes not left vs without a testament. He that made the testament is liuing for euer, he doth heare our words. He doth know his owne word, Pre [...]. lib 4. contra heres. cap. 65 let vs read, why do we striue. Irenaeus sayes that the law­full exposition of the Scripture whilk hes no perill with it, is according to the Scriptures themselues. What can be more plaine (Maister Gilbert?) And I ask you further? Would you haue vs to as­criue more to the interpretation of the fathers, nor the learned of your Kirk does? Caietan. in praes. in commentatia in lib. Mosi [...] As Caietan a Cardinall and Doc­tor. Andradius the first sayes that God hes not tied the exposition of the Scripture vnto the exposition or sense of the fathers, (if God hes not bound it as he saies, why then should we bind it:) wher­fore their he desires the reader, not to mislike it, if sometimes in [Page 149] the expounding of them, he fall into a sense agreable to the text, though it goe against the streame of the fathers. If he speake trueth, then that sense that is agreable to the text suppose it bee against the streame of their expositions, is to be receaued & prefer­red before them. And Andradius that learned man sayes, Andra. defen. sid. Trident lib. 2. At whose gifts the Italians wondered at, Oso ep. praefixa Andrad. fid. Trident. def. that the fathers spake not Oracles when they exponed the Scriptures, but might therein be deceiued. And he sayes more that the ouer-sights of the translation whilk they followed, must needs cause them somtimes to misse the meaning of the holy Ghost: and yet you woulde haue the sense of the Scriptures to be decided by them, who sometimes hes missed the meaning of the holy Ghost. And he concludes in the end, That the holy Ghost is the only and faith­full interpreter of the Scriptures. Thus the fairest floures of your garden, and chiefest pillers of your faith hes written: so that if they speake true (whome I know not if ye will presume to contradict) the exposition of the Scripture is not tyed vnto the exposition of the Fathers: and it is leasome to goe with the text, against the streame of their expositions.

And whereas you say, if I wilbe as good as my worde, the matter will soone be ended: I am glade of it, if you thinke as you speake. My word was, Maister Gilbert, as your selfe hes written it, that there be verie fewe pointes of controuersie betwene vs, wherein I will not get some testimonies of sun­drie Fathers of the first 600. yeares, prouing with vs against them (meaning your kirk.) And I desired any man to set me downe any waightie point of controuersie, one or moe, and he should haue the proofe of it. These were my words. Now ye say, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will soone be ended. Whether I haue bene as good as my word in this or not, let the reader iudge. And I appeale your conscience Maister Gilbert, before the Lord in the great day, whether it be true or not. For not only in that example of Iustification, whilk ye cast in, but almoste in all the heades whilk are de­bated amongst vs, I haue brought in sundrie testimonies of sundrie Fathers with vs against you. Yea, I haue bene bet­ter then my worde in that: for I haue broght in testimonies of sundrie that liued after the 600. yeare: and not of these [Page 154] onlie, but also testimonies of sundrie of your owne Doctors, Iesuites, Cardinals, Bishops, Canons, Councels, and Popes: prouing with vs in some points against your selues. I looke therefore (Maister Gilbert) that ye shalbe as good as your worde, and that the matter shall end heir betwene you and me. For both you haue saide that the matter would soone end, if I were as good as my worde: and also ye haue promi­sed and subscriued with your hand, to reforme your religion in all things wherein it is not conforme to their testimonies. The whilk if you doe, then must you renounce the suprema­cie of your Pope, the sacrifice of your Masse, your Transub­stantiation, your Iustification by works, your merites of workes, your perfite fulfilling of the Lawe of God, your er­roneous opinions that the kirk cannot erre, that the Scrip­ture should not be iudge, with sundrie others. For in al these I haue brought the testimonies of sundrie Fathers: and in some of them the testimonies of your owne Doctors, Coun­cels, Canons, and Popes with vs against you. Either therfore take shame and falset for euer-more vpon you, or else keep your word and your write, whilk ye haue subscriued heir, & reforme these points of your religion. As for that calumny wherwith ye charge vs to haue takē away a great part from the scripture, I know you meane the Apocrypha, whilk beares not the mark and stamp of Gods spirit, as beeing neyther written by Prophets, nor yet the most parte of them in the propheticall language the hebrewe tongue, wherein all the olde Testament was written, except some things of Daniel, and Ezra, whilk were written in the Chaldaick language, quhilk was knowne then to the Iewes: nor yet receiued as Canonicall by the Kirk of the Iewes, whilk Belar lib. 1: cap. 10. your Kirk will not deny. Nor yet acknowledged Cannonicall by the testimonies of sundrie Melito lib. 4. c 26. Euseb. Origen lib. 6. c. 25. Euseb. Athan. in sinop. Hilar. in prolog. explan. Psalm. Cyrill. in 4. cate­ches. Ruff [...]nus. in ex­pos. simboli. Hieron. in pro­logo galeato. Fathers, Synod. Lao­dicen. canon. 59. confirmed by the councell Trullan. Councels, and of your Greg. Mag. in comment. in Iobum lib. 19. c. 16 Hugo. cardi­nalis in prologo. Iosuae. Caietan a cardinall in fine coment. Hester. Arias Montanus who was present at the councell of Trent, in aedi­tione quad am hebraicorum Bibliorum inter­linearum inter­pretationem. selues, also Papists of great name: some reiecting al, some more, some fewer: containing also many things repugnant to the trueth of God set downe in the Canonical Scripture. Last of all, wanting that maiestie of Gods spirit whilk so eui­dentlie shynes in the Canonicall Scripture. And therefore [Page 155] most iustlie say we, that ye vnderly the curse of God, pro­nounced in his Scripture, Apoc. 22. for the adding vnto the holie trueth of God. And looke to it (Maister Gilbert, what you will say to your Cardinall Caietane, who hath denied sundrie bookes and parts of the Canonicall Scripture in the new Testament.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

Now, if the first thing I offer me to proue, be found of veritie: that is, that our Religiō is that self same, & no other, then that that Iesus Christ prea­ched, and his Apostles, and theirs is not so: but deuysed by the man of sinne, & that Antichrist, that whore of Babylon, then the plea is wonne But if I prooue the second also, then I hope they will neuer open their mouth to speake euill of the trueth of God, as though it were but a new Religion.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

When Maister Iohn proues the thing that he is not able to proue, we shall doe the thing that we are not able to performe. but it is an wonder of him to put in so manie (ifs) and does nothing to the matter. For it is and true saying in Philosophie, that a conditionall Proposition proues no­thing. It appeares he hes bene in haste, that he might not haue leasure to I proued all that was requi­red at my hands then. proue any head for example of his promise. For we vnderstand that M. Iohn is a man who may erre, as manie man hes done before by his iudge­ment. And therefore he must haue no I desire no credite without warrant, as your popes and your Kirk doth of her disciples. credence of vs, except he bring his warrand, and ye shalbe M. Gilbert is once beguiled for this is per­formed. sure that he is neuer able to performe his sayings.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

This my reply, I hope, satisfies for answere to this sectiō.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

Thirdlie, I answere The Spirite of God foretels that when the Antichrist shall come, the defection shalbe vniuersall, and all nations shalbe drun­ken with the wine of her fornication.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Where this is written, Maister Iohn telles not. For I am sure, as it is set downe heir, there is no sik things in our Bibles, no not in their owne corrup­ted Bibles, except they haue augmented them of new. That there shalbe an vniuersall defection, it is altogether repugnant to the word of God, as I haue shewed before; in prouing the Kirk alwayes to continue. For the same place where I beleeue he alledges too, hes these words, Apoc. 1 [...] 17. [...] And it was giuen vnto him to make warre with the Saints, and to ouercome them: and power was giuen him vpon euery Tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation, ann all that inhabite [Page 152] the earth adored it, whose names be not written in the booke of life of the Lambe Heir any man may see that the Saints of God that shalbe persecute by the Antichrist, and sik that is written in the booke of life, shall not make defecti­on: then it shall not be an vniuersall defection. And also Maister Iohn af­terward in finding some of his Religion that said against the Antichrist the Pope, the time bygane, is contrary to himselfe heir, that the defection shall not be vniuersall. And where he sayes that all nations shalbe drunken with the wine of her fornication, the text is otherwise: Becaus all nations haue drunken of the wyne of the wrath of her fornication: that is, that the people of all nations that hes obeyed her, shal be punished with the wrath of God and not that all the world should make defection.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You fight heir against your owne shaddowe, Maister Gil­bert) and whereas ye can finde nothing iustlie to quarrell in my wordes being rightlie taken, and taken as the Scripture takes them: you deuise a meaning of your owne braine, and would father it vpon me, that ye may the more easilie haue somewhat to speake against. For I neither spake it, nor mea­ned it that the elect shoulde make defection in the time of the Antichrist: I am so farre from it, that suppose I beleeue assuredlie that this prophecie is fulfilled in your owne Kirk; yet I know assuredlie that the Lord reserued his owne elect to himselfe, Reuel. 14 who vvas keeped free from your Idolatry, as he promised, and histories recordes of some, whereof I did set downe some of their names. Domin. a Soto in lib. 4. sent. dist. 46 quest. 1. artic. 1 Bellarm. lib 3, de Rom. Pont. ca 17 But this is the doctrine of one of your ovvne Kirk, Dominicus a Soto, vvho beleeued it assu­redlie, that the faith of Iesus Christ and Religion shoulde be vtterlye exstinguished through the persecution of the Antichrist, if Bellarmine speake true of him. And so turne the point of your sworde, Maister Gilbert, vpon your ovvne brother, vvho so taught, & not vpon me, vvho is farre from it. And if ye vvil say, where­fore then called I it vniuersall? I ansvvere: because the scrip­ture calles it a defection, vvithout any addition or restraint, & your Rhemists graunts, that this defection shalbe a reuolting of Kings, people, and prouinces, and the publick intercourse of the faithfull with the Kirk of Rome shall cease: and that the daylie sacrifice shall be abolished moste vniuersally throughout all nations and Kirks of the world by Antichrist himself. Annot. vpon 2. Thessal. 2. And Bellar­mine [Page 157] sayes, that he shall be Monarch of the whole worlde. Lib. 3. cap. 16 Therfore this kingdome by your owne confession shalbe vniuersal: & seeing his kingdome is an apostasy or defection, for as many as shall obey him, shall make defection from the faith: ther­fore by the doctrine of your owne Kirk, it must be an vni­uersall defection. And the Scripture sayes expresly, that he shall make all both small and great, &c. Reuelat. 13 Reuel. 14 8. & 18 3 to receaue a marke on their right hand, and on their foreheads: and that no man may buy or sell, &c. and that all nations hes drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Nowe, whether I might call that vniuersall whilk the Scripture calles all, and your Rhemistes and Bellarmine makes so generall and vniuersall, that it shall possesse all the kingdomes of the earth, let the Christian reader iudge. And let me aske you (Maister Gilbert) Doe you not beleeue that the Kirk is Catholicke, or vniuersall? Costerus a Iesu­ite in Euchirid. and doe you not think with one of your owne nomber, that the Kirk is called vni­uersall, because the faith of the Kirk is scattered in all nations: and yet for all this, all particular nations, and all particular men receaues not this faith? and yet notwithstanding it is vni­uersall, and is called vniuersall still. And doth not the Scrip­ture prophecie that in Abraham all the Nations shalbe blissed, Galat. 3.8 and yet for all this, there were, and is millions of the Gen­tiles that are not blissed in him? Why then, in like manner, may not the defection in the time of the Antichrist be cal­led vniuersall, although the elect be exemed from it? But wherefore insist I to refute this vaine quarrelling of wordes whilk serues to no purpose? So then, this that I said is both in your translation and ours in substance, and is not contra­rie to that whilk I said afterward.

As for that place of Scripture whilk ye cite heir, Apoc. 3.7.8. it is not spoken heir of the Antichrist, but of the persecu­tion of the Romane Emperours. As for that calumnie of yours in calling our Bibles corrupted, and augmented: this is your sinne (Maister Gilbert) whereof one day ye shal make an accompt to the Maiestie of God, for the slandering and bearing false witnes of the trueth of God. And to speake the trueth, this is trew of you: for both you haue added to the [Page 158] Scriptures of God, first the Apocrypha, next your Traditions, whilk your Kirk hes decreed to be receaued with equall reue­rence and godlines with the Scripture: Concil. T [...]ident. Se [...]. 4 Grat [...]us dist. 19. Et Al­ph [...]nsu [...] de g [...]ner [...] in thesau o Chr st relig [...] 3. n [...]. 5. thirdlie, the Decretal Epistles of your Popes, whilk some of you hes reckoned in the nomber of the Canonicall scripture. And also you haue corrupted the scriptures of God by your corrupt translation, especially that of the Colledge of Rhemes. The whilk to be trew, if time would serue, I might sone be able to proue, whilk hes bene sufficiently prooued by that learned and worthie man of God Doctor FVLK: vnto the whilk you, not al your cler­gie hes not answered as yet, for ought that I know: nor ne­uer is able to doe.

And as for the last point wherein ye say, that the text is otherwayes then I set downe: let the Christian reader iudge whether my words be one in substance with this text or not for suppose this be set downe in the preter-time, and I spake it in the future-time: yet it is a prophecy of a thing to come: and your Kirk graunts it is not fulfilled yet, therefore they are both one in substance. And as for your exposition, where you expone this of the punishment of the people that hes obeyed her, and not of their sinne in communicating with her Idolatrie, that is manifestlie against the text. For this is set downe heir as the cause of her punishment, whilk is pronounced before in these wordes, Babylon hes salne, &c. Nowe the reason, because al nations hes drunken of the wyne of the wrath of her fornication, whereby in the Scripture is signified Idolatrie: and it is called the wine of the wrath, &c. because her fornication prouoked God to wrath. Osea 1. Ierem 3. And Aretas expo­neth this fornication, a defection from euery good. And in the 18. chapter it is more euident, where after the denunciation of her fall, this reason is subioyned, Becaus all nations hes drunken of the wyne of the wrath &c. and the Kings of the earth hes commit­ted fornication with her: and the marchands of the earth are waxed riche through the aboundance of her pleasures. The whilk as they cannot be vnderstood of the punishment, but of the defecti­on: so this drinking cannot be vnderstood of their punish­ment, but of their communication with her Idolatrie: and [Page 159] yet how euer it be, this prooues that vniuersall defection, of the whilk I spake.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

And the K rk of God shalbe latent, and flee to the wildernesse, and there lurke, and be fed of God all that time secretly.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

It is an wonder to heare the word of God abused, not only with false ex­positions repugnant to the words selfe, but also alledging the word falslye. For the text of Saint Iohn hes but this, (for he notes no place, because This is your i­magination, and you are deceiued in it therefore correct your thoughts M. Gil. he knowes it may not abyde ane triall) And the woman fled vnto the wilder­nesse, where she had ane place prepared of God, that there they might feede her, ane thousand, two hundreth, and threescore dayes. Heir there is no word that she shalbe latent, nor lurke, nor be secreat. And if Maister Iohn wil meane that the fleeing to the wildernesse, is nothing but to be inuisible, and to lye secreat: then it must followe that the whoore of Babylons selfe must be in­visible and secret. For the same Saint Iohn sayes. And the Angell tooke mee away in spirite into the desert, and I sawe ane woman sitting vppon ane skarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemie, hauing seuen heades and ten hornes. This word (desert) signifies more properlie to be secret or invisible, nor the word (wildernesse) It is true appearandlie, that if this Woman si nifies the Kirk of Christ that in the time of the Antichrist, shee shalbe redacted to ane small number, as it were in ane wildernesse, and shall not possesse euery na­tion, as she had wont to doe: but that she may be made invisible, and not to be seene, there is no true Catholick that expones it so. And siklike, this time shalbe but short, that is, for 1260 dayes, as the text sayes, whilk is but three yeares and ane halfe. And if Maister Iohns Kirk had beene but so long invisible, we should haue dispensed with the same. But it hes bene in­uisible thir thousand yeares, as it is now professed in Scotland, and much more as young Marchistoun hes in his booke vpon the Reuel. cap. 12. ver. 14

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Al that you can find fault with here, is this, that I said the Kirk in the time of the Antichrist, should be latent and lurk & be fed secretly: the whilk hes stirred you vp in sik a chol­ler that you haue cried out with admiration that I haue a­bused the Scripture: &c. Now tel me (Maister Gilbert) whe­ther is it because these same wordes are not founde in the Scripture, or because the doctrine it selfe cannot be war­ranted by the same? If the former, then I say you are but a quarreller about words, And all the doctrine whilk ye haue set downe in this your answer is not set downe in so manie [Page 160] termes in the Scripture, and yet ye will haue it to bee the doctrine of Gods spirit, (suppose it be not so.) So it sufficeth that this whilk I sayd be warrāted by the Scripture, suppose the same termes be not found. If the other: then I say beside other places of Scripture, this same place whilk yee quote here confirmes the same. For knowe ye not that the wilder­nesse is a place of refuge and secrecie from the tyrannie of their pursuers? And they that flies to the same, they flie to lurk there, and to be keeped close and secret from the rage of their persecuters for the safetie of their liues. So while it is prophecied that this woman (wherby is signified the Kirk,) whilk suppose ye condtionally expone so, 40. demonstrat. yet Sanderus one of your owne number expones it to be the Kirk without all doubt shall flie in the wil­dernesse from the face of the Dragon, and that for her safetie, and there be fed &c. Is it not then manifest that she shalbe secret and lurk then, and not be so open and visible as she was before? And if this be an abuse of the Scripture, then not onelie your selfe hes abused it, but also sundrie of your owne Kirk, as the Rhemistes, Bellarmine, & Sanderus. For your selfe sayes that in the time of the Antichrist, she shalbe redacted in a small num­ber, as it were in a wildernesse, and shall not posses euerie nation as she had wont to doe. For what is this els but to lurk and be latent, and to be fed secretly, in comparison of that estate wherein she was before? And therefore the onlie thing that I inferred on this in the end, was that no man should thinke that the Kirk of God was euer open and visible, in sik a florishing e­state as it is now. And the Rhemists sayes that in the time of the Antichrist, Annotat. in 2. Thessal. this great defection or reuolt shalbee of kingdomes, people, and Prouinces, from the open externall obedience & communi­on with the Kirk of Rome. So that their communion with her shall be in hart, and the practise thereof in secret, and he shall abolish the publike exercise of al religions trew or false, Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom Pont. cap. 17. & 18 Sander. demonst 35. & 37 saue that whilk is done to himself: So that the Messe they say, shall be had but in secret then. And Bellar­mine and Sanderus is of the same minde, that his cruell persecuti­on shall stay all publick exercise of religion, and he shall make open warfaire with the whole Kirk, and shall endeuour to destroy the vni­uersall estate of the whole Christian common weale, and shall shut vp [Page 161] the doore of sacraments, and shall suffer no man anye more to enter in the Kirk of Christ, and shalbe Monarch of the whole world. Now if this be trew, whether shall the Kirk of Christ by your owne doctrine be fed secretly, or not be latent and lurk, in the time of the Antichrist, let al men iudge. But what a contra­dictorious spirit is this of yours, who to gainesay the thing that I write, cares not to inuolue your selfe in a contradicti­on, not only to the trueth, but also to your own Catholicks. Either therefore wonder at your owne Catholickes, who hes spoken as much and more in this poynt nor I did, and at your self also, who grants as much in substance as I mea­ned, that ye and they haue abused the Scripture, or els leaue of to wonder at me, and wonder at the vaile whilk is hung ouer your owne eies, whilk hinders you not only to vnder­stand the trueth, but also to vnderstand what your selfe and your owne bretheren teaches. Now as for your reason, it is not said that Babylō was in the desert, but that Iohn was taken in the spirit, that is, rauished in the spirit (as in the 1. and 4. chapter) into the desert that is, into a solitare and heauenlie contemplation of that vision whilk was afterward showne him. For as this carrying of him in the spirit signifies his spi­rituall rauishing, so this desert signifies the solitarenes of his contemplation. And as that lifting vp of Ezechiell by the lockes of the haire of his head betwene the heauen and the earth, & that carry­ing of him to the door of the innermost port towards the North, to see the abominations of Ierusalem, was only in vision, & not bodily. So I take this carrying of Iohn in spirit to the wildernesse to see the whoore of Babylon to haue bene in vision only, and not bodily. And whereas ye say that this worde desert signifies more properlie to be hid and invisible nor the word wilder­nesse, I pray you tell me (Maister Gilbert) what is betwene desert & wildernesse? saue that the first is driuen from the La­tine, & the second is English? Must you be set to the gram­mer schoole againe? What fancie is this wherewith ye are possessed, that you put a difference betweene wildernes and desert? Is there anie difference, if you vnderstood the greek language, betweene [...] and [...], that is, betwene [Page 162] desert and desert, wildernesse and wildernesse? And if ye haue e­uer red the new Testament in Greeke, there is but the selfe same worde [...] in both these places, whilk signifieth desert or wildernesse. But where haue you bene when ye did imagine this difference? Appearandly ye haue bene drea­ming in some wildernesse, or else wandring in the wildernes of your owne blind imaginations. As for the exposition of your trew Catholickes, we count not much of them. Al­waies these whome ye call your trew Catholicks, Bellarmine the Rhemists, and Sanderus hes bene plaine in this matter, and hes spoken more in this poynt then we doe. And as for the time of this her secrecie and lurking 1260. daies whilk you expound literallie to be but three yeares and a halfe. I answer, this expositiō of yours is against first the custome of prophesies, whilk are expounded figuratiuelie and not lite­rally, as these 70. weekes in Daniel concerning Christ, where there a daye is put for a yeare. Next, it is against the whole circumstances of ihe text: for will you expound this woman figuratiuely for the Kirk, as Sanderus does: and the wildernes vnto the whilk she fled, figuratiuely for the small number wherunto she shalbe redacted, as you doe: & the sun where­with she was cled, and the moone whilk was vnder her feete, and the twelue starres that was vpon her head, and the red Dragon whilk per­sewed her with ten heads &c. all figuratiuelie, and yet will yee expound the time of her being in the wildernesse literallie? What violence is this whilk yee will offer vnto the holye trueth of God, to expound all the rest figuratiuely, and on­lie the time literallie? So then a day here is set for a yeare, as also it is taken in the same sense in the 2. chapter of the Re­uelation in the Epistle to Smyrna, where it is said they shal haue tribulation for the space of ten dayes: that is, for the space of ten yeares. As for the invisibility of our Kirk, because that que­stion cums afterward, therefore I omit it now. Only this, as your Hierarchie and abhomination of your Kirk grew, so did the puritie of the doctrine of Iesus Christ in his Kirk de­cay. And as your Popes came not to their height at an in­stant, and brought not in their abhominations at an instant [Page 163] but peece and peece, and by longproces of time: So the pu­ritie of the trueth of God decayed not at an instant, but peece and peece and by a long proces of tyme. For the de­grees of your exalting, was the degrees of the depressing of the trueth of God in his Kirk. As for our dispensation suppose your Kirk vseth not to giue them without money laide downe, yet we will neither buie them, nor haue them for nought. So keepe your dispensations at home (Maister Gil­bert) whill we send for them.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

And the Ministers thereof shal preach in sackcloth, that is, vnder persecu­tion, all th [...] [...], and at the last they shalbe put to death for the testi­monie of Iesus, and for speaking against their false worship & Religion.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

It appeares to mee that Maister Iohn hes found some newe reuelation, other then that of Saint Iohn: for he notes no place to vs: Apoc. 11.8 and these words of his are no way in S. Iohn. and therfore as an invention of his own head, we will reiect the same. Indeede we haue in Saint Iohn, That God shal giue to his two witnesses, and they shall prophecy 1260 dayes clad with sackcloth But this can no wayes aggree with this purpose of his For why there shall be but two of thir: and there is more then two hundreth Ministers in Scot­land. And these two shall prophecie, but our Ministers are no Prophets (al­beit they foretell things oft times that is not true) and all the prophecies, if they prophecie at any time, is of euill and not of good. These two shal pro­phecie but three yeares and ane halfe: but our Ministers hes prophecied these 38 yeares, if preaching be prophecying. And these two shalbe cled in sackcloth, but our Ministers, chiefly of Burrow townes, is clad in fine blak cloth, or silk. And so forth of manie more differences, as is contained in the 11 chapter of the Reuelation.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

It appeares to you that I haue found some new reuelati­on, other then that of Saint Iohn. So did it appeare to the Iewes, that the Apostle Paule taught all men euery where against the Lawe of Moses, and yet it was the trueth, Act. 21.28 Act. 26.2 [...]. as he himselfe te­stifies, he spake nothing beside that whilk Moses and the Prophets fore tolde was to come. So euery appearance is not trueth. It is but the scailes that are vpon your eies, that makes this so to ap­peare to you: For the Scripture of God, and this reuelation of Iohn is sufficient to vs to make it manifest, that your head is the Antichrist, & your doctrine is that Apostasie that was prophecied to come: so that we neede no newe reuelations, [Page 194] as ye do: for because the reuelations alreadie made by God to his Kirk, and written in his holy Scripture doth not war­rand your abhominable and false doctrine, and your Popes supremacy, whilk is the foundation of all: therefore you and your Kirk flees to vn-written Traditions, & fained reuela­tions to proue the same. As for example, because your Kirk hes not so much as a sillabe in the whole booke of God, to proue that Peters seat was translated from Antiochia to Rome, whilk is the whole fundation of all Poperie, Causa 24. quest. 1. cap. Rogamus. therefore your Pope Marcellinus in his canon law, grounds the certaintie of this vpon a fained reuelation, that Peter by the commandement of God did translate it. But to leaue you with your new reuela­tions, what haue ye for you, for this your appearance? You say first, becaus I note no place: & next, becaus these words of mine, are no wayes in Saint Iohn. Therefore ye conclude it to be an invention of my owne. As to the first. Is this a good reason, I note not the place, therfore I haue found out some new reuelatiō: You must be sent to the Logick schools againe, to learne the right manner of reasoning. I noted no place, Ergo I could not, that will not follow. As to the second my words are no waies found in Saint Iohn, Ergo I haue foūd a new reuelation? But what if the sense be found? What if the self same doctrine be found in Saint Iohn, suppose not in the same words? Then it will not follow that I haue founde out a new reuelation, or that this is the inuention of my own braine. This place whilk ye quote heir, Reuel. 11.3. sufficiēt­lie confirmes all that I saide. For your self will not deny, & Bellarmine, Bellarm lib 3. c. 6 Rhem. in annot. vpon Apo. cap. 11 Sand. in his de­monstrations. the Rhemists, and Sanderus graunts, that these two witnesses are they who shall preach in the time of the Anti­christ, suppose they expound them of Elias and Enoch, & that they shalbe persecuted, and put to death by him. What a blindnesse is this, Maister Gilbert, that hes ouersyled your eies, that for the writing of that same doctrin whilk the scripture warrands, your Diuines graunts, and your self will not deny, you haue saide that it appeared to you, that I haue found out some new reuelation. But iudge thou (Christian reader) what thou may presume vpon Maister Gilberts ap­pearances. [Page 161] But you say, this aggrees not with my purpose: and that because of the differences betweene these two wit­nesses, & the Ministers of Scotland. First I do not meane by these two Witnesses the Ministers of Scotland onlie, but the Ministers of all the reformed Kirks in Europe, who hes de­parted out of your Babel, and hes shaken off the yoake of the tyrannous bondage of your head, the man of sinne: and not onlie these who now liues, but these also who now rests from their labours, and sleepes in the Lord: of whome a great ma­nie was persecuted, and put to death by your tyranny, for speaking against your abhominations. Now as to these dif­ferences whilk ye marke: the fountaine from the whilk this springs, is your mistaking of the prophecies of God, and ex­poning them literally, whilk according to the vse of prophe­cies and especially these whilk are set downe in this Reuela­tion, & all the circumstances of this text, ought to be expo­ned figuratiuelie. These same two Witnesses are called two Oliues, two Candlestickes, and it is said of them, Reuel. 11, 4.5.6. &c. that fire commes out of their mouthes and destroyes their enemies. &c. If you will not be so absurde and ridiculous, as to expone these things lite­rallie, but figuratiuelie: otherwise ye will make them Mon­sters, Trees, and Candlesticks: why then doe ye expone this place concerning their number, worke, time, apparell, &c. li­terallie, and not figuratiuelie as the rest of their workes, and properties must be exponed: the whilk if you had done, then would ye haue sene no difference betweene the Ministers of the Gospell that resisted your Pope, and these two Witnes­ses heir: but the one to be the prophecie of the other, and the other to be the accomplishing of the prophecie. As for their nomber then, they are said to be but two, that is, fewe: & yet sik a sufficient nomber, as may proue & qualify any thing by the lawe. For by the lawe: Out of the mouth of two or three wit­nesses, shall euery word be established. So the Ministers of the gos­pell in the time of your Antichrist & darknesse, was but fewe at the beginning: and yet so manie, as serued for to establish the trueth of God by their testimonie, in the consciences of so manie whome God had appointed to saue. As for their [Page 162] worke of prophecying, the Scripture calles preaching, pro­phecying, [...]. Cor. 12. & 13. & 19. Annotat. in 11. Reuel. and the Rhemistes graunts that these Witnesses shal preach against the Antichrist. And whereas you say, that we fore-tell oft times things that is not true: this is your ca­lumnie and lie, Maister Gilbert, and so ought to haue no cre­dite. And the prophecies of the Ministers of this land against your Antichristian kingdome, ye haue found by experience that they haue bene too true. And their prophecies are trew­er then the prophecies of one of your Popes, Hildebrand, who openlie in the pulpit on the second holy day in Easter week, in the presence of diuerse Bishops, [...]o [...] in pag. 229. and Cardinals, and of the people and Senate of Rome, prophecied that the King whose name was Henrie should die before the feast of Peter next ensuing: or at the least, that he shoulde be so deiected from his Kingdome that hee should not be able any more to gather aboue the nomber of sex knights. And this he preached with this confirmation, neuer accept mee for Pope any more, if this prophecie be not fulfilled, but pluck mee from the aulter. But he was a false Prophet in the same, for neither was fulfilled. And whereas ye say, if they prophecie at any time, it is of euill and not of good: so said Achab of the Pro­phete of the Lord, 1. Reg. 22. [...]. and therefore he hated him: so you speake with the same spirit against vs, that Achab spak with against the Lords Prophet. And what good can be spoken of your Babel, since the Lord hes fore-tolde the ruine of it, & in part hes bene accomplished? and some of your owne nomber, as Hildegardis, Briget, Catherine de Senis hes for-tolde of the destru­ction of your Kirk, & the reformation of the Kirk of Christ. As for the time, Fox. pag. 260. it was spoken of before, and I trow ye haue thought it too long, and yet be in pa [...]ience, Maister Gilbert, for it must continue, and your Babel must downe. As for the clothing of sackcloth, it was the apparell of sik as was in do­lour and in mourning, whereby is signified the sorrowe and dolour that shuld arise to the true ministers of Christ, throw the persecution of the Antichrist and his members, and their idolatrie and abhominations. The whilk hes bene so clearly fulfilled in the preachers of the Gospell since Iohn Hus his dayes, and before also, euen to this day, that he must be blin­ded [Page 163] of the Lord who sees it not. And whereas ye cast vp the clothing of the Ministry in this land, ye haue forgotten your self, and your Cleargie, and your head the Pope, with his tri­ple crowne, with all the rable of his Prelates, Abbots, Bi­shops, Cardinals, &c. as full of riotous pride and pompe, as euer were the Persians Kings,

The pompe and glorie of whose court doth surmount all the pompe and glorie of all the Princes in Europe, as some that hes seene it reports. How then can ye iustly quarrell our at­tire? Can you say that we passe the bounds of that modestye and comelinesse whilk the Apostle requires in the ouerseers of the Kirk of Christ, seeing you will haue all the outwarde pompe and glorie of your Popes and Prelates, according as it was prophecied of you, Reuel. 17. to be cōprehended with­in the definition of comelinesse and modestie? But you are like the Lamians, of whome it is reported that they had but one eie: and when they went forth they tooke it with them to looke vpon others: and when they came in their owne houses, they laide it beside them: you looke to your neigh­bours, but ye ouer-see your selfe. So for all the differences whilk ye haue yet assigned, it remains sure that by these two Witnesses heir are signified the Ministers of the Gospell.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

But note heir, I pray you, how well these new Euangelists aggrees in the exposition of this Reuelation of Saint Iohn: (for all their grounds and proo­fes is vpon prophecies & darke speakings) Young Marchistoun in his book vpon the Reuelation, the 11. chap. 3. verse, expones these Witnesses to be the olde and newe Testaments, as he proues in the 21. Proposition: and Maister Iohn will haue them the Ministers. Marchistoun sayes, that to be cled in sackcloth, is to preach the word of God with the obscuritie of mens traditi­ons and coloured glosses. Maister Iohn sayes heir, that the sackcloth signi­fies persecution for the preaching of the worde. The notes on their Geneua Bibles printed at London, expones the sackcloth to signifie poore & simple apparell. And Bale vpon the same place writes, that this sackcloth signifies sober conuersation. God knowes if this and the like be wholsome doctrine to preach to the poore people, some one way, and some another, according [Page 164] to the inuention of their owne braines, without any proofes.

Maister Iohn Welshe his Reply.

As for these diuers expositions whilk ye marke in vs, that hes so stirred vp your affectiōs, that ye cry out, God knowes whether this be wholsome doctrine to teach the poore peo­ple, or not: I answere: that these diuerse expositions of ours, are all aggreeable to the Analogie of faith, as your selfe will not deny: and therefore cannot be called vn-wholsome do­ctrine. Otherwise, not onlie the Fathers, but also your owne Doctors and Bishops, and Popes hes deliuered vn-wholsom doctrine by your reason, for they haue exponed innumera­ble places of Scripture diuerslie, vvhilk is so manifest that I neede not proue it, and your self also hes deliuered vnwhol­some doctrine heir, In the 10 point of your doctrine. for ye expone blessing and thankesgiuing for two contrarie things, and yet Bellarmine sayes, that some Catholickes takes them both for one. And what shal I say of your diuerse ex­positions, whilk were tollerable, so being they were accor­ding to the proportion of faith? Your contradictions one to another: and that not onely in exponing the Scripture, but in the maine points of your religion: some holding one thing and some another, as partlie hes, and partly shalbe marked, are manifolde. And if diuerse expositions of a place of scrip­ture be vn-vvholsome doctrine, as ye say, then surely this point of your Catholick doctrine, whilk teaches, that the Scripture hes a fiuefolde sense, and that it may be siue diuerse wayes exponed, must be vn-wholsome doctrine, & then ye lose more then you can win by this. Bewarre, Maister Gilbert, that by this dealing ye bring not your selfe in suspition that ye are forsaiking your Catholick faith: for this is a point of it, as Bellarmine reports. Lib. 3. de interpr. Ver. cap. 3 As for your calumnies first in calling vs new Euangelists, I answered to that before: next in saying that all our proofes and grounds are vpon prophecies and darke sayings: first, you iniurie the holie Ghost in calling his pro­phecies darke: for the cause of this is not in them, but in our blindnes. Secondly, ye speake too plaine an vntruth: for it is more then manifest that not onlie prophecies, but also the [Page 165] plaine and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture is the grounds and proofes of our Religion, as is manifest by the points of doctrine whilk we haue handled heir.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

And it followes in Maister Iohn. And at the last (sayes he) they shalbe put to death, &c. Heir is twa things to be noted: First, that the Kirk shall not be invisible in the time of Antichrist: for if the Pastors of the Kirk be in­uisible, how shall they be taken, and put to death? If the Antichrist and his members shall slay them, how can they doe the same, except they know and may see them? To be invisible, is not to be knowne or seene: but they will see and know them, or else they cannot discerne them from their owne, wherby they may put them to death, and saue their owne. The second thing to be noted, that our Ministers in Scotland except they be put to death by the Pope, they beare not the testimonie of Christ. For these are Maister Iohns owne words. And S. Iohn sayes, Apoc. 11.7.8 That the beast shall slay the two Witnes­ses. Nowe by Maister Iohn, the beast is the Pope, and the Witnesses is the Ministers: therefore the Pope must slay the Ministers: and after that, their bodies mustly three dayes and an halfe, not in Scotland, but in Hierusalē, Apoc. 11.9.11.1 [...] for there was the Lord of these two Witnesses slaine. And after, they must reuiue and ascend vp to heauen in a cloude in the sight of their enemies, & so forth. In his 14 Pro p [...]. Whilk things I trust shall come to passe to none of them in our dayes, nor long after the Laird of Marchistons doomesday.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for the first thing whilk you infer heir, concerning the invisibility of the Kirk, because you haue the same argument afterward, I refer the ansvvere of it to that place. As for the second thing vvhilk ye inferre, that except the Ministers of Scotland be put to death by the Pope, they beare not the testimonie of Christ. I ansvvere: As it is true that it is pro­phecied of the Antichrist, that he shal Apoc. 11. [...]. slay the tvvo Wit­nesses of God, and that he shall make vvarre vvith the saints and ouercome them: so is it Apoc. 11.12 13 15 17. & 13.6.8 9. & 18.2 likevvise prophecied that his crueltie shall not alvvayes continue, but at the last, the Lorde shall take his Kingdome in his owne hand, and the Gospell shalbe prea­ched to them that dwell vpon the earth, and Babel that great cietie shall fall, so that the blood vvhilk your Kirk hes spilt of the saints of God alreadie in all the parts of Europe, these 300. yeares bypast, and that in sik aboundance, that suppose the Lorde [Page 166] may nomber them, yet no man is able to nomber them. And the patience and suffering of our brethren, is an sufficient e­uidence that both your Popes are the Antichrist, and they are the Ministers of Christ, suppose they slay no moe of them And although the Lorde hes shortened your power, yet ye want no goodwill to spill the blood of the rest. That ransac­king of Germanie, that cruell persecution of Queene Mary, and bloodie inquisition of Spaine in the Iowe countries, and that most sauadge and cruel massacre of Paris, and that Spa­nish nauy, whilk the Lord discomfited, with his owne migh­tie and outstreatched arme in the 1588. yeare of God, doeth sufficiently testifie what hearts ye beare to the Ministers of Scotland, if your power were according to your malice: But fulfill ye the measure of your Fathers, that the blood of all the righteous may come vpon you. As for the prophecie of the ignominious handling of the bodies of these Witnesses after their slaugh­ter: it is also fulfilled by your Popes, and their authoritie v­pon the carcases of the Saints of God, whilk in all parts al­moste, where euer their blood was shed, was most ignomini­ously handled, as though they had beene not the bodies of men, but the dead carions of dogs and swyne. Let both hi­stories, and some who yet liues beare witnesse of this. As for the time and place, and their reuiuing and ascending vp to heauen, it is to be vnderstood after the manner of prophe­cies, mysticallie and figuratiuelie, as I haue prooued before. The time of three dayes and an halfe, signifying all the time of your tyrannous crueltie. The place of their ignominy is the streetes of that great Cietie, Reuel. 17.9 18. Bellarm. lib de Roma. pontif. cap. 2. Reuel. 12, 8. & 17.5 whilk heir is called Sodom & Aegypt, and the place where our Lord was crucified, not literallie, but [...]; spirituallie, as the Text sayes. And also cal­led Babylon, in the 14. and 17. and 18. of the Reuelation, whilk is literallie that seuen hilled cietie, whilk hes dominion ouer the Kings of the earth, whilk as Bellarmine confesses, is Rome properlie. So as this great cietie is neither Sodome nor Aegypt, nor Babylon (suppose it be called so) literallie, but onely mysticallie and spirituallie, as the Scripture sayes, and your self will not de­ny, for the likenes betweene them: Sodom, for her filthinesse [Page 167] and vncleannesse: Aegypt and Babylon for her tyranny and crueltie euer the Saints of God, wherein she resembls them. So is she not literallie the place where Christ was crucified, but only mysticallie and spirituallie for the likenes betwene them: that as by the authoritie of the Emperour of Rome, his deputie Pilate our Lord was crucified, for the false chal­lenge of treason against the Emperour, whilk was falsly and wickedlie laide to his charge: and therefore is saide heir by the holy ghost, to be crucified at Rome: that is, by the autho­rity of the rulers at Rome: So by the authority of the Popes who now reignes & hes reigned these many yeares at Rome, Christ is crucified againe in his members, because they will not receaue his marke, and worship him. And as Ierusalem boasted her self to be a holie cietie, and the spouse of Christ, and yet was a harlote, a murtherer, Exod. 20. and a persecuter of the Saints: so Rome doth boast her self to be a holy ciety, and the spouse of Christ, and the head of all: and yet is nowe, and is long since become an harlot and a murtherer, & a pesecuter of the Saints. And if ye will aske, When did the bodies of the Saints lye in the streetes of Rome? I answere: As by the gates in the cietie in the fourt command, is not meant the gates of the cietie properlie, but the authoritie and iurisdiction of the cietie: so by the streetes of Rome is not onely meant the gates within the walles of Rome, but all the places and parts whither his power and dominion hes spred the selfe. So that all the places where the Popes of Rome hes exercised their tyrannie ouer the Saints, are called heir the streetes of that great Cietie. All these therefore who hes bene cruelly mur­thered by the Popes authority in England, Scotland, France the low countries, &c and whole bodies hes bene cast out, & whose bodies hes beene ignominiously handled, they haue lyen in the streetes of that great cietie And as all the rest of this prophecie is to be vnderstood spiritually, so is this, reui­uing and ascending of these Witnesses to heauen in the sight of their e­nemies, to be vnderstood not literallie, but spirituallie. So this is not the meaning of the holy Ghost that these Witnesses whome the Antichrist shall slaye shalbe raised vp againe in [Page 168] their owne persons (whilk yet shall be at the last day in the generall resurrection:) but that the Lord shall raise vp other Witnesses, indued with that same spirit, whilk they were in­dued with: preaching the same trueth, and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist, as that prophecie in the 3. of Malachie of the sending of Elias before the comming of Christ, was fulfilled, Mat. 11.10.14. as our Sauiour testifies, not in the raising vp of Elias in his owne person againe: but in the sending of Iohn Baptist, in the vertue and spirite of Elias. So this prophecie concer­ning the reuiuing of these two Witnesses, whereby was figu­red the faithfull Ministers of Christ, who was murthered in the time of Poperie, as Iohn Wiclef, Iohn Hus, Ierome of Prage, M. Geor [...]e Wishart, and many others, is fulfilled not by raising vp of their persons againe, but of others his faithfull seruands, who in their vertue and spirit hes defended and maintayned y^e same doctrine & cause against the Antichrist, as M. Luther, Caluine, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Maister Knoxe, and sundry others whome the Lorde hes, and dailie raises vp in all countries, for the ouerthrow of your Babel. As for your trust what will come to passe, we passe not, for so much hes bene fulfilled of these prophecies, whilk testifies your head to be the Anti­christ, & the Ministers of the reformed Kirk to be the faith­full seruands of Christ, and the rest concerning your daylie consumption and finall abolition, 2. Thessal. 2.8 Reuel. 18.2.21. & 19.20. we knowe assuredlie shall come to passe, because the Lord hes so thought it and said it. And as for any further proofe of the clemency and meekenesse of your Popes, if so the Lorde will, we desire it not. For as it is saide of the wicked man, Your compassions are cruell, and your by past cruelty testifies of what spirit ye are. And suppose you say you trust that this, amongst the rest, shall not come to passe, yet I feare you long to see that day vpon the Ministers of Scotland, whilk your brethren reioyced to see fulfilled in that cruell persecution of Queene Marie in England, and in that bloodie massacre of Paris, of the saints of God there: for we cannot thinke but that ye are of the same spirit & minde, whilk your brethren were of, otherwise ye are not a right ca­tholick. As for the Laird of Marchistouns coniecture concer­ning [Page 169] the day of iudgement, he hes his owne probable rea­sons, and if you be as good as your worde, as your fauourers hes reported of you, Mat. 24.36. we will see the refutation of his book by you. And suppose I know the time to be vncertaine to man, or Angell, as our Sauiour sayes: yet his coniecture thereof is in greater modestie and sobrietie, nor your determination thereof. Whereby if the doctrine of your Kirk be true con­cerning the Antichrist, whome ye imagine is yet to come, & the time of his raigne, whilk ye say is to be but three yeares and an halfe: then not only the year, but the very day ther­of may be knowne of them that liues in these dayes. For the Scripture sayes, He shalbe abolished by the brightnesse of his com­ming: 2 Thes. 2.8. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Romano pontifi­cat cap. 17. pag. 418. yea that whilk is greater arrogancie and presumption the learnedest of your Kirk, Bellarmine, hes taken vpon him to determine the verie day of the comming of Christ to iudgement: to wit, 45. dayes after the perishing of the Anti­christ. It is manifest (sayes he) that after the death of the Anti­christ, there shall be but 45. dayes to the end of the world.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

Now if all this be true, both concerning the Antichrist, the largenes of his dominion, the estate of the Kirk of God and his true Pastors al that time whilk I offer me to prooue by the Scripture, And also that the Pope of Rome is that only Antichrist that was to come, and is now disclosed, then I say, no man should thinke that the Kirk of God was euer open, and vi­sible in that flourishing estate as it is now.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

But what if all these sayings of his be false, what shall follow then? but that Maister Iohn and the rest of the Ministers are deceaued, and deceaues others, with sik vaine & vntrue expositions vpon the word of God. For take away from it Maister Iohns owne inuention, & the worde shall neuer haue sik ane meaning. And although Maister Iohn offer neuer so oft to prooue the same, I say, he is neuer able to doe it, nor all the Ministers in Scotland.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

If all these sayings of mine concerning the largenesse of the dominion of Antichrist, the estate of the Kirk of God, & his true Pastors all that time, be false: then not onely haue I [Page 170] bene deceaued, but also Bellarmine, the Rhemists, and Sande­rus the chief defenders of your Kirk, hes bene deceaued, and deceaues others: for they haue spoken & written as much, & further in these points, then euer I did, as I haue prooued before by their owne testimonies. And yet I trow your head and Cleargie will iudge them to be as far from error, as you are. So either you or they, must be deceaued in this. And as for the fulfilling of these prophecies in your Popes of Rome, I hope it hes bene prooued sufficientlie, whilk ye nor all the Cleargie of Rome, is neuer able to improoue. As for the rest of your answere, wherein ye prooue that the Pope is not the Antichrist: I haue answered to it in the other part of my tre­tise, concerning the Antichrist, therefore I omit it now.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

What he meanes that the Pope is now disclosed, I know not: for I vnder­stand that he hes not bene like their Kirk, that sometimes is visible, & some­times not: for he hes alwayes beene knowne by the visible Kirk to bee the visible head thereof in place of Christ.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

My meaning is this, that suppose in y^e darknesse of Papistry he was taken to haue bene the Vicare of Christ, yet now the Lorde hes smitten him and consumed him by the sworde of his mouth, that is, [...]. Thes. 2.8. the word of God: and hes discouered him to the full to all these, whose eyes the Lord hes opened, that he is that Antichrist, whilk the Scripture hes foretolde was to come. And where you say that he hes bene alwayes knowne by the visible Kirk to bee the visible heade thereof in place of Christ, I see you regarde not what you say, for the mainte­nance of that head and kingdome of yours. For certainly ei­ther hes the Lord wonderfully blinded you, or else ye speak against the light of your owne conscience. For are you eue [...] able to produce one sillabe in the whole Scripture to proou [...] this? Yea, hes not his Monarchie and supremacie bene condemned: first Math. 18 1. & 26. v. 25.26. Marc 10.42. Luc. 22.25. by the sonne of God: next, by the 2. Cor. [...]. 1 Pet. 5. Ap [...] stles themselues: thirdlie, by the Fathers of the primitiu [...] Cyprian. epist. 55 ad Cornel.Kirk, in their synods and councels, both prouinciall and generall, [Page 171] as by the Bishops of Cyprian. epist. 55. ad Cornel. Africke, about the yeare 255. By the generall councels of 1. Canon 5.6.17. Nice, wherein was 318. Bi­shops, anno 327. Of Canon. 2 3.5. Constantinople, wherein was 150. Bi­shops, anno 381. Of Canon. 8. Ephesine, where was 200. Bishops, an­no 436. Of Actio. 16. Canon. 28. Chalcedonense, anno 454. where there was 630. Bishops. Of Canon. 36. Constantinople 6. anno 681. where there was 289. Bishops. Of Canon. 1. Nicene 2. anno 781. where was present 350. Bishops. Of Canon. 17. Constantinople 8. where was present 383 Bishops, anno 870. Of the councell of Sessio. 4.5. Constance, wher was 1000. Fathers almoste, anno 1418. And of Sessio. 2.18. Basile, anno 1431, all generall councels, condemning your Popes supre­macie, as your Kirk nowe affirmes of him, some more, some lesse. And also it is condemned by prouinciall councels, as of Canon. 6.12.23.14.15.19.20. Antioche, and of Canon. 11. anno. 404. Carthage, 2. and 3. confirmed in the generall councell of Canon. 26. Trullan, and 6. and by the councel of Canon. 22. Mileuis: condemned also by the Vniuersities of Appellation. vniuersi. paris. olione 10. ad fu­tur, cons [...]. infastic rerum expe. et fugi. Paris, and Aeneas Sylviu [...] de gestis Basil. consil. lib. 1. Louane, and Colein, and Histor. de Eu­ropa cap. 22. Vienna, and Comer. de re­bus Poionorum lib. 21. Cracouia. So then by the authority of Councels, generall and prouinciall, and of Vniuersities, the Monarchie and superioritie of the Pope ouer all generall councels is disallowed. And suppose the Kirks of France and Germanie did honour them, and gaue them some preheminence, both of honour and power, being blinded at that time with the smoake that came out of the bottomlesse pit: yet it may appeare by their Ad Ludoui­cum 11. pro. li­bertate ecclessi [...] gallican [...] aduer­sus Rom. aulum defensio parisi­ensis cutiae. Gra­uamina nation [...] Germaniae ex­hibita Maxim. 1 supplications that they did not allowe that full Monarchie of his, but mis­liked it, & hated the same: yea In conuentu Bituricensi. France made lawes against it. Nowe these are sik whome your selues doe holde for Ca­tholickes, and yet they acknowledged not the Monarchy of your Pope. The Kirks of Chalcho. con [...] dereb. Tur [...]. lib. 1. & 6 Graecia, and of Asia in the East, and of Iouius in Mos­couia Moscouia, in the North, and of Aluarez in de­scriptione aethio­piae c. 77. & 83. Aethiopia in the South, and of Aeneas Syluius hist. Bohem. c 33 Boheme, Sleidan courment lib. 16. Prouince, M. Fox in the acts and mo [...] ­ments lib. 7. Piemont, and the refor­med Kirks that are this day in France, Flanders, England, Scot­land, & so forth throughout Europe, all hes condemned your Popes supremacie. So that if his supremacie were to be put to triall by the iudgement & will of men, so many thousands of Pastors, Doctors, Synods, Councels, Vniuersities & Kirks through all ages, in all countries, of all sorts & estates, may [Page 172] suffice to put the Pope from his supremacie: so that I thinke you may blushe, Maister Gilbert, that hes so boldly written that he hes bene alwayes acknowledged by the visible Kirk to be the visible head of the Kirk, seeing his Monarchie was neuer fully acknowledged vntill the Sessio. 11. Lateran councel, vn­der Leo the 10. 1516. yeares after Christ. But seing the word of God is the only iust triall of it, and seing it is not written in the booke of life: therefore I conclude that his supremacie is not a citizen of that newe Ierusalem, but a childe of Babel: and therefore they are blissed that shall dashe it against the stones.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

That the Kirk at any time may be inuisible, it is repugnant to the worde of God in manie places, and to Maister Iohn also. For he giues examples afterward of sundry, as he sayes, that was of his religion, and opponed them selues to the Pope and his Cleargie: and that, sayes he, when he was come to the hight. If the true Kirk opponed the selfe to the Antichristian Kirk, then it was visible and knowne, and if it was knowne when the Popes kingdome was at the highest, much more when it was lowe. & so it was alwaies known by Maister Iohns selfe.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Whether oppugne ye your owne imagination (Maister Gilbert) heir, or that whilk I write. If the first, then you are foolish who fights against your self, as ye doe indeede: if the second, then I say, that whilk I saide was this: that no man should thinke that the Kirk of God was euer open and visi­ble in that flourishing estate as it is nowe. For this is our do­ctrine, Maister Gilbert, concerning the invisibility of the kirk the whilk because you know not, therefore you stumble at it and oppugnes only your owne inuention, and not our do­ctrine: and therefore your reasons and Scriptures whilk ye bring heir, serues to no purpose, for they make nothing a­gainst vs. We say that the Catholick Kirk whilk compre­hends al the elect is alwaies inuisible, Ephes. 5.25 26.27.32. Psal. 45.13. Ioh. 10 27. 2. Tim. 2 19. Luc 11.28. Math. 7. both because the prin­cipall part thereof is in heauen: and also because the senses of men cannot discerne vvho are true members of the Catholick Kirk heir, their effectuall calling, their faith, loue, hope, and invvard graces: their vnion vvith Christ their heade, [Page 173] their spirituall armour, vveapons, and vvarfare, Ephes 6, 12. 2. Cor. 12.34. and their head Christ Iesus, and their vvhole glorie is invvard and in­uisible, and they shall neuer be seene all gathered together vntill that great day: So that suppose they may be sene out­vvardlie, as they are men, and sometimes in respect of their outvvarde ministerie: yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Kirk: that is, in so far as they are chosen, and san­ctified, &c. as hes bene said, they cannot be discerned by the senses of men and so are invisible. Next vve say that the par­ticular visible Kirks are not alvvaies in one outward estate: sometimes outvvardly glorious, sometimes more obscure: sometimes openlye knovvne and seene by all: sometimes knovvne and seene but by a fevv: sometimes frequent, and consisting in manie, sometimes rare and consisting in fevve: sometimes adorned vvith outvvarde ornaments of peace, largenesse, outvvard glorie & multitude: sometimes againe wanting this outvvard glory vnderpersecution. But yet ha­uing that invvard glorie of these invvard graces. So that when we say these particular Kirks are sometimes inuisible, we doe not meane as though they were knowne to none (for that is not our doctrine, Maister Gilbert, as ye imagine:) but that they are not so openlie knowne that they are patent to all to be the true Kirk: but knowne vnto them with whome they haue to do, and who professes the trueth with them. Yea sometimes, some of them are knowne vnto the very persecu­ters and enemies by their constancie and perseuerance in their sufferings, suppose they allow not their profession. And in this state was the Kirk of Israell in the time of Elias, 1. Reg. 19.10. when he complained that he knew none left but himself of the true worshippers of God. 2. Chron. 2 [...].24. 2. King. 16.10. And the Kirk of Iuda in the dayes of Achaz and Manasse Kings of Iudah. And siklike in the time of Christ, both in the time of his liuing amongst them, as also in the time of his death & resurrection, the Kirk was broght to a small handfull: the Princes, Priests, and Scribes, who only was in dignitie and authoritie, being persecuters of Christ, condemned him, and crucified him. And siklike in the time of the persecution of Diocletian the Emperour, and in [Page 174] the time of the Arrian heresie whilk ouer-spred, as it were, the whole world. The whilk also our Sauiour foretold shuld come to passe: Matth. 18.8. Matth 24, 11.12. 2. Thes, 2, 1 Tim 4. Reuel. 9.1.2.3.4. & 12.6. & 13. vers. 14 15.16.17 & 14. v. 8 & 17. v. 2. & 18. v. 3. When the sonne of man (sayes he) shall come, shall he finde faith in the world? And by the Apostle also. And Iohn in the Reuelation, in the time of the Antichrist, confessed also by the learned of your own Kirk, as Bellarmine and the Rhe­mists, as they haue bene quoted before: and by your self also who confessed that the Kirk of Christ should be redacted to a small number, as it were in a wildernesse in the time of the Antichrist. This now is our doctrine concerning the inuisi­bilitie of the Kirk, whilk is neither repugnant to the word of God, nor yet to the examples whilk I brought in afterwarde against your Religion. For both these, Maister Gilbert, are true, and neither of them repugning one another: that the particular Kirks in the time of the Antichrist, are not so o­penlie knowne, and so outwardlie glorious and flourishing, as they were before: but redacted to a small number, more obscure and more latent: partly through that vniuersall de­fection, and partly through that extreame persecution of your Kirk and head: and that there was some that opponed themselues to the Pope and his Cleargie, and that euen whē he was come to the height. If you will make these repugnāt which are not aduersa, but only diuersa secundum magis & mi­nus, then I say ye are repugnant to all rules of reasoning, and to the light of nature it selfe.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Of this I may iustly make ane argument against Maister Iohn, that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Woman that fled to the wildernesse is the true Kirk, and to flee to the wildernesse is to be inuisible, as Maister Iohn sayes. Now young Marchistoun hes that this inuisibilitie indured from the yeare of God 316. til our dayes, the space of 1260. yeares, whilk was by him all the time of the Antichrist. But by Maister Iohn Welsche, there was ma­nie in that time that opponed themselues to the Pope, and said against him and his Religion and Cleargie: and therefore was knowne. Of the whilkes the Popes gart slay manie, And as the [...]eth i [...] as he sayes: Therefore it must followe, that ei­ther the Pope is not the Antichrist, because hee did persecute but visible things, or else the Kirk was not inuisible all the time foresaide.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Let vs see the force of this argument that ye make for your Pope, that he is not the Antichrist. The woman, ye say, that fled to the wildernesse, is the true Kirk: that I graunt: & to fly into the wildernesse is to be inuisible by me. I answere: By me it is to be latent, and to lurke, to eschew the rage of her persecuters, and not to be openlie conuersant, as that all the worlde may knowe her: and yet not to be so latent, but that some of them are knowne both amongst themselues, as also to their enemies. And this is our meaning (as I haue said before) vvhen vve affirme that the particular Kirks some­times becomes invisible. But you take it as though our mea­ning were that y^e kirk is so inuisible, that it is known to none whilk is your inuention, Maister Gilbert, and not our do­ctrine: and therefore you fight without an aduersarie in this point. But to goe forward to the rest of your argument: you say, that by me there was sundrie that oppugned the Pope, and his Cleargie, and was put to death by them, This is true: and therefore the blood of the Saints is found in your Kirk. Now what will you gather of all this? Therefore say you the Pope is not the Antichrist, because he persecuts but visible things, or else, the Kirk is not inuisible. I deny that either the one or the other will follow. And because you made an argument against your Pope (I should haue said with him) that he is not the Antichrist, whilk is grounded vpon your owne in­uention, mistaking our doctrine, and therefore hes no feete: I will make another for him that he is the Antichrist, the whilk you nor all your Cleargie will not be able to disproue. He is that vndoubted Antichrist, whilk hes redacted the kirk of Christ, as it were in a wildernesse, to a smal handfull: part­ly through the pest of his damnable doctrine, partly throgh his extreame persecution, so that they were compelled to lurke and hyde themselues from the crueltie of his power. This you cannot deny, because the Scripture affirmes this of the Antichrist. But I assume, that the Popes of Rome hes done this these many hundreth yeares, as I haue proued be­fore, and in the other part of my answere: therfore of neces­sitie [Page 176] it must followe, that the Popes of Rome are the Anti­christ that the Scripture foretold should come. Answere this if you can.

And as for the time of this inuisibilitie, it hes relation to the beginning, and grouth, and hight of your Antichristian kingdome: for as it grewe the Kirk was more and more ob­scured: and when it was at the hight, the Kirk was in her E­clipse: and as it hes decaied now since, she hes accordinglie spred her self abroade. If the Apostle be true that mysterie of iniquitie began to worke in his dayes: 2. Thes. 2.7 1. Ioh 4.3. for first the manifold here­sies whilk were sowne in the primitiue Kirk, whereof the Popes of Rome hes renewed a great manie: as shalbe proo­ued heirafter, was the first step to that Antichristian king­dome. [...]. of Ioh. ver. 9 Next, the louing of preheminence in the Ministry, ouer their brethren, as the scripture testifies of Diotrephes, who loued pre­heminence, 3. of Iohn, vers. 9. and specially the aspiring of the Bishops of Rome to a domination and lordship ouer their brethren forbidden by Christ, whilk was manifestly kythed in Pope Victor, who did take vppon him to excommunicate the Bishops of Asia, for a light dissention of the celebration of Easter, Anno 198. And in others, as Cornelius, Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestine Popes, who did receiue to their Com­munion those who were excommunicate in Africa, was the second step. Thirdly, if it be true that these impious and su­perstitious decreits whilk your Kirk ascriues to the Popes of Rome before Constantine, be theirs: as is not lykelie that sik superstitions did creip into the Kirk of Christ it being vnder persecution: then, I say, the Popes of Rome euen before Syl­uester by their superstitious decreits, made a further entry to that Antichristian kingdome. And because the Romane 2. Thes. 2.7. [...] Empire, was the let that hindered Antichrist to step vp to his throne: and the Reuelat. 18 cietie of Rome behoued to be his seat: therefore Constantine the great leauing the cietie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop of Rome, made yet the way more easie: till at the last, they first got the primacy of honour, next of authority and iurisdiction ouer their brethren: and then last of all did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperours vnto [Page 177] them. The whilk they did not attaine vnto at the first, but peece and peece: and that not without long and great resi­stance, both of the Kirk, (as I haue proued before) condem­ning his Monarchie in all ages; and of the Emperours, as we shall see heirafter. And as they euer grew in their superiori­ty, so did the purity of the Kirk of Christ decay: and as a pest infects not a kingdome all at once, but peece and peece: so did your Antichristian heresie: it infected not all at once, but peece and peece, till at the laste it went ouer all. While as then Marchistoun makes the beginning of his raigne to be in the 316. yeare of God, and the Kirk from thence to become inuisible: his meaning is, that then that let whilk the Apostle speakes of, was begun to be remoued, that his seat & throne might be in Rome: and from thence as they grew in height, so was the Kirk ay more and more continually obscured, till at the last the Lorde did scatter that darkenesse by the light of his Gospell whilk came to passe in our dayes.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

The Kirk that is set downe to vs in the word of God, Num. 20.4. [...]. Reg. 8.14. Matth 16.18. Matth. 18.17. Act. 15.3.4. Act. 18.22. Act. 22, 28, 1, Tim. 3, 15 can no way be inui­sible: for when the holy write speakes of the Kirk of Christ, it speakes of an visible nomber of men and wemen: and no wayes of Angels or spirites, as may be seene in these examples on the margent.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

I come now to your arguments. First you say that the kirk that is set downe to vs in the word of God can no wayes be invisible, becaus say ye, when it speakes of the Kirk, it speaks of a visible nomber of men and wemen, and no waies of An­gels or spirits: I answere, this is most false: for the Scripture sets downe to vs that Kirk whilk is the Eph. 1.22.23 & body of Christ, and whereof he is the 5.23 head and Sauiour, and whilk is Col. 1.18 builded on the rock, whilk is called the Heb. 12.23 congregation of the firste borne, whose names are written in heauen, and that Gal, 4, 26 Matth, 16, 18 Ierusalem whilk is the mother of vs al. And this is the Catholick Kirk whilk com­prehends al the elect, aswell triumphant as militant, whilk is inuisible for the respects before said, as I haue prooued. And suppose the elect that are heir militant may be seene as they [Page 178] are men, and oft times also in respect of their outwarde pro­fession: yet it follows not but y^t they are invisible in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Kirk. And also that some­times through the extremity of persecution, they may be la­tent and lurke, so that they are not openly visible & known to all, as I haue saide before. As for these places of Scripture, to wit, Num. 20.4. 3. Reg. 8.14. Act. 15.3.4. & 20.28. & 18.22. & 1. Tim. 3.15. they speake all of particular Kirks, whilk we graunt vnto you are visible, suppose not ay alike, as hes bene proued. As for the 16. of Matthew, it speakes of the kirk of the chosen, for they only are builded vpon this rock, and against whome the gates of Hell preuailes not: and they are inuisible in respect before saide, as hes bene proued. As for the 18. of Matthew, it is quoted afterward: therefore I referre the answere of it vnto that place.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Psal. 18 6. Read S, Aug on th [...]s Math 5.15 Esa. 61.9. Dan. 2.35. Miche. 4 1.2. Read S. Hieron on these places. Aug. 1. Tract. in Ep [...]st. Io, Item de Bapt. lib. 4. c. 1 Matth. 18.17, Cyprian de simpli. prelat. Ier. 1. E­pist. ad Damas. Aug lib. 19. con­tra Faust cap. 11. Origen. homil. 30. in Matth Cyp. lib. de vni­tat. Eccles. Chrysost hom. 4. in cap 6 Es [...]. Aug lib. 3. contra Ep [...]st Parment. c. 3. Item. tract 1. in Epist. [...]o [...] tract 2. Item. E­pist. 166. ad [...]o­ [...]at [...]as. The Scripture also in many places compares the Kirk to visible thinges that cannot be vn seene. As, He hes placed his Tabernacle in the Sunne, A cietie cannot be hid set on a mountaine. It is also compared to a light set on a Candle-stick to lighten the whole house, and not to be put vnder a bed, or a bushell; with many the like whilk I haue omitted for breuities cause, sauing some noted on the margent. Moreouer our Sauiour commands vs to complaine to the Kirk if our brother offend vs: and also, we ought to ioyne our selues to the true Kirk, or els we cannot haue remission of our sinnes. But how can a man complaine to it, if it cannot be sene? or ioyne himself to it, if it be inuisible? The Kirk of Christ may neuer want the true preaching of the word and right administration of the Sacraments: but these things are alwaies visible, because by the Ministers they are the signes and markes of the Kirk: therefore the true Kirk may be alwayes knowne by them. To be short, not only the word of God affirmes the Kirk to be alwaies visible, as I haue noted before: but also the auncient Fathers in all their works, as part­ly I haue marked also.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As for the 18. Psalme, it speakes not of the visibilitie of the Kirk there: but of the Lords wonderfull and glorious works & especially, in disponing sik a glorious place or Taberna­cle, or throne, to the Sunne to shine in, the whilk demon­strates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustines exposition, it [Page 179] results of the corrupted olde translation, whilk was not ta­ken from the Hebrew fountaine, but from the version of the septuagints: therefore Pagninus, Vatablus, and Arias Montanus a Papist, and Tremellius expones it not so, but after the He­brew. Secondly, he meanes not heir of the Catholick Kirk, but of particular Kirks, whilk were exceeding far enlarged in his dayes: but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist, as it was foretolde, & your Kirk acknowledges. As for the 5. of Matthew, 15.16. there, not the Catholick Kirk, but the Pastors of particular Kirks are compared to this light, whilk is set vp in the Can­dle-sticke, and to the cietie set vp vpon the hill top, whilk cannot be hid, that is the eies of all is on them: and therfore they should be so much the more walk-rife and carefull, be­cause their doings cannot be hid. As for Esa. 2.3. and Esa. 60 20. and Esa. 61.9. and Dan. 2.35. and Mich. 4.12. they prophe­cie of the greatnesse and clearnesse of the Kirk of Christ in the time of the M [...]ssias, and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the world, and of the stabilitie and perpetuitie of Christs kingdome. But yet it followes not but both the Catholick Kirk is inuisible, as I said before, and that the vi­sible Kirks may be obscured and darkened, as it was fore­tolde in the time of the Antichrist. As for the the 18. of Ma­thew, Goe tell the Kirk, &c. The Kirk is heir taken for the Pa­stors and gouernours of particular Kirks, whilk we grant are visible: but yet it followes not, but that both they and the professors may be obscured & darkened, either through he­resie, or through extreame persecution, or through both to­gether, as it was foretolde in the time of the Antichrist, and hes bene fulfilled by your Kirk. As for the true Kirk vnto whome we should ioyne our selues. I answere. We can haue no saluation vnlesse we ioyne our selues first to the Catho­lick Kirk, that is, vnto Iesus and his members by a spirituall communion, out with the whilk there is no saluation. Next, vnto some particular visible Kirk, by the outward commu­nion of the word and Sacraments, &c. if we knowe it, and possiblie can ioyne our selues vnto it: for if either we knowe [Page 180] it not, or may not, as these 7000. that bowed not their knee to Baal, then I say, saluation is not perilled. As for your last reason, the true Kirk may neuer want the true preaching of the worde, and right administration of the sacraments, I an­swere, first, there is not the like necessity of the Sacraments as there is of the worde: next, suppose they haue it, & there­by are knowne amongst themselues, and some of them also to their aduersaries: yet it followes not that they are so opē ­ly visible, that they are patent and knowne to al. As for ex­ample: there is no questiō but these 7000. 1. Reg. 19 18 that did not bowe their knee to Baal, and these 1. Reg. 18.13 100. Prophets who was hid in the caues, and Act. 8.1 the Apostles when all were scattered through that persecution, as Luke testifies, had the exercise of the worde amongst them. And it is not likely that the Apostles wan­ted some to teach, suppose they were not knowne to all: no not to their persecuters: otherwise they would haue beene persecuted. And siklike we doubt not, but in the time of Queene Maries persecution in England, and in other partes vnder that Antichristian tyranny but the Lord had his own both Pastor & people, amongst whome the trueth was prea­ched, suppose neither we, nor their aduersaries knewe them all: for it is oft times for the safetie of the Kirk to lurke, and to be hid, that she may escape the furie and rage of her ene­mies. As for Augustine, Cyprian, Origen, Ch [...]ysostome, and Ierome whilk ye quote heir, they speake either of the perpetuitye & eternitie of the Catholick Kirk, or else of the largenesse and clearenesse of the particular Kirks whilk were in those daies whilk is neither against the inuisibility of the Catholick kirk nor yet against the obscure estate and small handfull of the Kirk of Christ, whereunto shee shoulde be brought in the dayes of the Antichrist, as was fore-tolde by the Scripture, and fulfilled in your Papisticall kingdome. For we graunt that in their dayes the Kirks of Christ was frequent & glo­rious, but yet they did not ay remaine in that estate. For the Kirks of the East are almost ouerthrowne by the Mahomet, and the Kirks of the West by the Antichrist. So that partly by the one, and partly by the other, the Kirk of Christ hes [Page 181] beene redacted to a small handfull, as hes bene said.

Maister Iohn Welsche.

Last of all I will set you downe the names of these worthy men, that in the midst of Poperie spake against their errors, and preached the same Reli­gion that we preache. M. John hes not the right diet of these his holy fa­thers. Answe [...]e. If it was so as you write it, it was error in scri­bendo: and that whilk I write af­terward might, haue taught you this, when I said this was 400. yeares past. I will but onelie name a fewe of them that was in the midst of Popery, when it was come to the hight, anno 1158. Gerardus & Dalcimus Nauarrensis did preach earnestly against the kirk of Rome, and called the Pope the Antichrist: and taught also that the Cleargy of Rome was become the whoore of Babylon, fore spoken in the Re­uelation: this was 400. yeares past. In the yeare of our Lord 1160 one This Waldus & his sect had wiues and all other things common and so must M. Iohn and he fol­low him. Answer This is falslie al­ledged of him & his followers: but either your ca­non law erres Causa 12. q. 1. Dilect ssimis, or els Pope Cl [...]mens was of this mind and so if you be of his Religion, you must be so; for albeit ye haue no wiues; yet o­ther mens wiues hes bene made common to your Popes and your Clea [...]ie in horrible adulte­ries. Waldus a Citizen in Lions in France, with a great nomber taught that same doctrine whilk we teach nowe, condemned the Masse to be wicked the Pope to be the Antichrist, and Rome to be Babylon. They were per­secuted by the Pope, & remained long in Bohemia. In he yeare 1112, the Pope caused an hundred persons in the countrie of Alsatia, whereof many were noble men, to be burnt in one day, for the maintayning of that same doctrine that we now maintaine against the Kirk of Rome. A­bout the yeare of our Lord 1230. almoste all the Kirks of the Grecians whilk with the rest of the Kirks of Asia and Africk, who doth not acknowledge the supremacie of your Pope, are moe then the Kirks of Europe, who submits themselues to him, did all renounce the Pope, and the Ro­mish Kirk, because of their execrable simonie and Idolatrie, in the yeare 1240. In the countrie of Sueuia there were many preachers that taught freelie against the Pope, and affirmed he and his Cleargy were hereticks and Simoniacks, in the yeare 1250. or thereabout Arnoldus de noua villa a learned Spaniard taught freely against the Kirk of Rome, and a­mongst the rest that the Pope led the people to Hell, for the whilk cause the Pope condemned him as an heretick, about the same time. Guliel­mus de Sancto Amore, Maister & chief ruler of that Vniuersitie, taught that all the testimonies of the Scripture, spoken of the Antichrist, should be applied to the Pope and his Cleargie, and so taught them to be the Antichrist, and the whore of Babel, anno 1290. Laurence an Englishman and Maister of the Vniuersi [...]ie in Paris, proued mightily that the Pope was the Antichrist, and his Cleargie the synagogue of Babylon. About the same time Robertus Gallus a man of noble parentage, taught the Pope was an Idole, and said the iudgement of God would fal vpon him, and his Cleargie. Because I haue no time to write the doctrine of the rest that spake against the Pope. I wil but note their persons, Robert Grosshed Iohn Geyll [...]s, ane preaching Frier, anno 1253. Gregory Ariminensis, Fran­ciscus de Rupe Scissa, Taulerus in Germanie, Gerhardus Rhidit, Michael de Cesena, Petras de Carbona, and Iohannes do Poliaco. Iohannes Ritheta­landa, anno 1360. Armachanus the archbishop in Ireland 1360 Nicho­las Orem, Matthias Parisiensis, Nilus archbishop of Thessalonica, Iohn Wiclef, and the Lord Cobham, and sundry others.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

Maister Iohn hes set downe heir a nomber of It is false obscure and infamous persons, for the moste parte And this also iustlye condemned for heresies, without their workes or bookes whereby they affirme this that he alledge [...]: and all This is also false for Gerard and Dulcimus Nauarensis whilk I first cit­ed was almost 400. yeare be­fore M. Luther and Caluine, & the Waldens [...]s was more nor 30 [...] yeare before them. two hundreth yeare before Caluine began their Religion, or therabout. Of the whilk I contend not, whether they spake against the Pope, or not. For all hereticks from the beginning hes barked against the Pope: but our contention is, whether sik heades of Religion, as they denied, were heresies, or not? whilk as yet Maister Iohn hes not But these heads is prouen that the Pope is the Antichrist & Rome Babell they are not he­reticks, & there­fore our religion was before Mar­rine Luther. proued, nor is not able to defend these, whome hee calles, his worthie men: for appearandly by this all hereticks are worthie men by him, albeit they be not of his Religion in al things.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You calumniat our Religion of noueltie, and sayes Mar­tine Luther began it anno 1517. Vnto the whilk I answered, that our Religion hes Christ Iesus in the olde and newe Te­stament to be the authour thereof, and hes the primitiue Kirk many hundreth yeares there-after, to be the teachers and professors thereof, the whilk I haue proued already by some examples, and that euen till the smoake of that Antichristi­an darkenesse of yours did ouerspread al, as it was foretolde by the holy Ghost. At the whilk time also the Lord did reserue his owne elect to himself, euen these hundreth fourty and foure thou­sand, whilk did not bowe their knees to your Baal, as it was fore-prophecied: whereof also a great manie is recorded in histories, and of whome I set downe some examples heir. V­pon the whilk I reason: That Religion whilk is warranted by the Scriptures, and professed in the primitiue Kirk, &c. and hes sundrie that taught and professed it, and that euen in the middest of Poperie, when it was at the hight thereof; is not a new Religion, nor inuented by Martine Luther: but ours is sik, as hes bene prooued: therefore vnrighteous and blasphemous must ye be, who slaunders the Lords trueth & Religion of novelty, and fathers it vpon flesh and blood, whereof he is the authour. Your answere to the first two, we haue examined: now let vs see your answere to this: first you say they are obscure men, I answere: If you call them obscure because they wanted the outward glorie, welth, and renown of this world: then, suppose it were so, yet haue they Iesus [Page 183] Mat. 13.54.55.56. Christ the Prince of life, who was called a Carpenters sonne: and his Prophets, of whome some were Amos. 1 1. heard mē and his M [...]t 4.18.21. Apostles who were fisher-men: and his Kirk who consists not of Cor. 1. [...] [...] 28. many wise, mighty, or noble, but of the foolish, weake and vyle of the world. For them God hes chosen to confound the wise & noble, to be companions with them, and so they are the liker both the head and the members. It is true indeede your Popes and Cleargie are not obscure: for they haue the wealth and glorie of the world. But as Ber­nard saide to the Pope, In this they succeede not to Christ or Peter, but to Constantine. But they receaue their good things in this life with the riche glutton, and therfore they must receaue their paine with him in the life to come. But why doe you call these obscure whome I named heir? are not some of them Friers, some of them Prouincials of gray [...]riers, some of them Maisters and rulers of Vniuersities: some of them excellently learned, whilk your owne Kirk cannot deny: some of them Bishops, and Arch-bishops: some of them noble men: And some of them, as namely the Greeke and Eastern Kirks, in nomber, learning purity of doctrine, and godlinesse, farre exceeding your Papisticall Kirk. Who is worthie or famous, if these be obscure? are all men obscure and infamous to you but your Popes, and those who submits their necks to him? And if you think these too obscure men, to be called worthy men, then behold yet Maister Gilbert, more noble personages who hes resisted your Popes Monarchie. As K. Philip le bel of France, the Prelates of France ioyning vvith him in his dominions, about the yeare of God 1300. And Edward the third, King of England despised the Popes curse, & appealed from him to God, about the yeare of God 1346. And also sundry Em­perours, as Constantine the fifth, Leo his sonne, and Constantine the sext in the East, and Henrie the 4. and Henrie the 5. and Frederick the seconde in the West. Will you call these Kings and Princes of the whole vvorlde, obscure men? So all sorts of men, Maister Gilbert, both rich and poore, Prin­ces and subiects, and these also vvithin your ovvne bovvels being ouercome vvith the strength of the trueth of God, hes [Page 184] spoken against your Religion. Why you call them infa­mous and hereticks, iustly condemned I knovv not, except it be because they taught and professed the trueth of God, & condemned your Antichristian idolatrie and abhominati­ons. But all are not infamous and hereticks vvhome ye call so: and surelie if murtherers, heretickes, adulterers, Sodo­mites, open bargainers vvith the Diuell, and the vile mon­sters of the earth, is to be called obscure, infamous, and he­retickes: then your Popes are to be called so, who of all men that euer the earth hes born, hes bene the vilest monsters & hereticks, as I haue proued in my other treatise, concerning the Masse and the Antichrist.

You say next that you cōtend not whether ye haue spoken against the Pope or not, for al heretickes hes euer barked a­gainst him, and that sore against your hart, (Maister Gilbert) because you cannot deny but yee haue taught this doctrine with vs: and if it bee so (Maister Gilbert) that these men and Kirks and many thousand more of all sortes hes taught this doctrine with vs manye hundreth yeares before Martine Lu­ther, for the first two whilk I named was almoste 400. yeare before him: then why were you so shameles both to write it & also speake it, to blinde your poore countriemen to their and yours damnation that our religion was begun by Mar­tine Luther, & neuer professed before him. So leaue off (Mai­ster Gilbert) to beguile the simple and ignorant people with this sottish and blasphemous reason of yours, (Martine Luther is the author of our religion) for nowe you are inforced to graunt the contrarie that infinite nombers hes taught the same doctrine before him. The truth is too strong for you (Maister Gilbert) that compels you to graunt the thing that ye woulde wish with all your hart the people neuer knew it: but comfort your selfe (Maister Gilbert) for the trueth will be victorious at the last, and your darknes daily more and more will be discouered. Indeede the least stroke that ye can giue for the defence of your Pope is to call them all heretickes who hes spoken against him, for I graunt the Pope and his Clergie is not sik fooles, as being their owne Iudges to con­demne [Page 185] them selues, and to iustifie them, who not onely hes taught it, but also sufficiently did prooue it, and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist, & his Kirk Babell. But with them, they haue the sonne of God, & the Apostles, Paule and Iohn heretickes: for they also did con­demne his Idolatry, and tyrannie, and errors. But where a­bout now will ye contend (Maister Gilbert?) ye say whether their doctrine be heresie or not? I would you and your Kirk would stand vpon this, and giue ouer all your other conten­tions whill this were first prooued, whether their doctrine in so far as they aggree with ours: & ours, in so far as it dissents from yours, be heresie or not, that is, be against the scripture or not, the whilk if you would doe, then I hope our conten­tions would soone be ended. But for as fast as you runne to this now, you will flee from it as fast againe, when we desire to haue yours & our doctrine, tried by the Scriptures whilk of them is heresie: and consequently, whether ye or we be heretickes? And therefore you euer refuse to let your doc­trine be tried by the scripture, but runnes to your pretēded antiquitie, and successions, Councels, and lying miracles, & many other vaine starting holes, like a vvilde Fox, when he is hunted out of one hole he flies to another, and dare neuer abyde the faire fields. And marke their craft, reader, vvhen vve affirme that our religion hes Iesus Christ to bee the author of it in the Scriptures, as vve offer to proue the same, yee refuse this triall by the Scriptures, and sayes that Martine Luther inuented our religion, and vve had none that professed it, and taught it before him. When vve againe re­ply that vvee had sundry of all sortes manie hundred yeares before him, euen vvhen your Kingdome vvas at the hight, and produces their names, they not beeing able to deny it, they slyp from that againe, and saies they contend not whe­ther there was sik that taught sik doctrine or not: but they cōtend whether that was trueth or heresie: so they run from one starting hole to another. But I will ask you (Maister Gilbert) if it be proued that this their doctrine was not here­sie, wil you contend any more then, shal the pley cease then? [Page 186] will you euer slander our religion of noueltie in saying Mar­tine Luther was the first that began it, and vvee had none who professed before him: but you will say, this you haue not proued? It is true I had not proued it then; but now I hope I haue proued it sufficiently that your Popes are the Antichrist, & your Rome Babell, whilk was one of the prin­cipal heads of the doctrine whilk yee taught, and sundrie o­thers also. Disproue you it if you can (Maister Gilbert.)

Maister Gilbert Browne.

But, he sayes, they preached the same Religion that he preaches, &c. Let Maister Iohn name any of these his Doctors, that he will abyde at in Religi­on, and I shall let him see, that he was not of his Religion in all things. For that is the thing that we say, that albeit Maister Iohn and his brethren haue renewed many olde condemned heresies of heretickes: yet they were not of their religion in all things. And therefore this that Maister Iohn calles the only trueth, was neuer professed in all heades, as it is now in Scotland, before in no countrie, no not by any one man, let be by a nomber, whilke thing Maister Robert Bruse graunts himself in his sermons, in these words: And God hes chosen a few hearts in this countrie, where he hes begun his dwelling place, for God dwelles now in the harts and consciences of his own by his holy Spirit. And surely so hes he dwelt with vs these thirty yeares, in sik puritie, that he hes not done the like with no nation in the earth, he hes not remained with any nation without error and heresie so long, as he hes done with vs, &c. So God dwelt in no place without error and heresie the space of 10, yeare whill now in Scotland.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

But you say, they dissent from vs in some things, and is not of our Religion in all things. Wherunto I answere: that suppose this were true, yet it wil not follow but that they are of our religion, seeing they and we doe aggree in the maine foundations thereof. For we haue learned to call them bre­thren, whilk do holde the foundation, as the Apostle sayes, sup­pose they haue builded haye, 2. Cor. 3. strawe, or timber vpon the same. O­therwise, if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure vs, if you will haue none to be accounted of your religion, but these onlie that professes with you in all things, as your Kirk does now: then not only (by your reason) shall ye want the Lord Iesus, his Apostles, [Page 187] the primitiue Kirk, as ye doe indeede: and that not onlye in the first 600. yeare, but long after, till the thousand yeere: & long after that also, to be of your profession: because not on­ly the waightiest points of your doctrine hes not their origi­nall in the Scripture, and are vnwritten Traditions, by the testimonie of some of your selues: but also sundry points of your religion hes bene brought in after these dayes, beeing vnknowne in the former ages, as your selues will not deny, and I haue proued in some heads, in the other part concer­ning the Masse. Yea, you shall want all the Fathers by this reason of yours. For there is not one of them but they haue their owne errors, whilk ye your selues will not defend: and the most part of thē are with vs against you, in many things, whilk you cannot deny: and that whilk is more, ye shal want almoste, all the generall Councels, except three or foure, & many of your owne Popes, Doctors Bishops, Cardinals, and Iesuites: for not onlie hes some of them had errors, and some of them bene heretickes by your whole confessions: but also some of them haue bene with vs in some points against you, as I haue proued before, so that I need not repeat thē now. As for example, lib. 19. c. 16. [...] morali. Pope Gregorie affirmes that the bookes of the Machabees are Apocrypha: and so hes sundry others of your Cleargie, as in lib operis biblioth. Sixtus Senensis, in fine coment veter. test. Caietanus, in editione, quadam hebr. bibli. Cum in­terlineari in terr. Gelasius de du­abus naturis in Christo. Arias Monta­nus, Nugo Cardinalis, against you and with vs in the bookes of Apocrypha. Gelasius is against your Transubstantiation, also against your Communion vnder one kinde: and Pope A­drian the 6. against this, that the Pope cannot erre and teach heresies. Panormitane against this, that it is not lawfull to Mi­nisters to marrie after their ordination. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Cle­ricis, c. 19. Bellarm. lib. 2. de purg. cap 4. Michael Bai, Gerson, & Roffensis all Papists, against your veniall sinnes. Bellarm. lib. de imaginibus. c. 8. Abulensis and Durandus & Peresius Pa­pists, against your making of the Images of the Trinitie. A great many of you, as Alexander, Thomas, Caietan, Bonauenture, Marsilius, Almayn, Carthusianus, and Capreolus teaches, that that same worship should be giuen to the image, whilk is giuen to that whilk the image represents: and yet Durandus, and Alphonsus à Castro, & others is against this: therefore either the one or the other [Page 188] 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 hes beene prooued before. And certainlie, Maister Gilbert, if this reason of yours holde forth, you shall cut off from your profession sik a nomber of Popes, Councels, Iesuites, Cardinals, & Doctors frō your re­ligiō, that it is to be feared, that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholick faith, yea from beeing 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 owne apologies and writings, whereby it ap­peares that it hes bene alwaies your fashion, the more to dis­credite them, to charge them with a number of absurde opi­nions, whilk they neuer held. As for example, you charge heir Waldus and his followers to haue had their wiues, and al other things common, whilk is your calumnie of them, and not their practise, or doctrine. For Gulielmus Parvus wrytes that their life was commendable, & Reinerus in his booke of inqui­sitions, one of your owne religion, a writer of 300. yeares a­goe, who was often at the examination of them, as he him­self saies, confesses that they had great shew of holy lyfe, and that they beleeued all things well of God, and all the articles contained in the Creed, and liued iustly before men: and charges them that they ha­ted and blasphemed solam Romanam Ecclesiam, the Romish Kirk 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 beleeue all things well of God, nor yet to haue a shewe of holy life, and to liue iustly 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 whilk I affirmed they taught heir was heresies, nor yet themselues hereticks. But you and your Kirk who hes condemned them for the trueth of God, and hes renewd olde condemned heresies, as shall be proued afterward. And we haue renewd no heresie at all, but onely the trueth of God whilk your Kirk hes ob­scured [Page 189] and buried. Therefore your conclusion is false, that our religion was neuer professed in all points as it is now in Scotland before in no countrie, no not, say you, by anie one man. For it was taught & professed by Christ and his Apo­stles, and also by all the primitiue Kirks in their daies, in all points, throughout all the partes of the world, where they preached the Gospel, as it is now in Scotland, as we offer to proue by their writtings, and I haue proued the same in sun­drie heads heir. Next, the substance thereof was continued manie hundreth yeares in the Kirks of Christ, whill partlie by the heresies that sprang vp (for the popple was soone sowne among the good seede, and the mysterie of iniquitie began to work in the Apostles daies) and partly by the Ma­homet, & partly by the darknes of Poperie, it was corrup­ted peece & peece. And what difference can you finde be­tweene the religion that the Waldenses professed, and vs; if ye will giue credite to their Apologies, and Reinerus testimonies of them? As for Maister Robert Bruses testimonye whilk yee produce, it serues no waies to confirme your purpose: but seeing ye abuse the testimonies of Scripture, it is no wonder suppose yee abuse the testimonies of men. For it is most true whilk he affirmes that the trueth of God hes continued for that space in this kingdome without heresie or schisme, as we neuer read it did in any nation in the earth, in sik purity without heresie and schisme for sik a long space. And yet it followes not but he hes dwelt in sundrie Kirks in sik puritie before, suppose not so long together, whilk you omit in your conclusion. Doth it follow by his testimony, but that our re­ligion hes bene preached & professed in all true Kirks, in all points, suppose not so long in sik purity, as it is in Scotland? neither doth it followe but that the substantiall and maine points of our religion hes beene professed in all Christian Kirks, longer nor that space, suppose mixed either with som heresies or schismes. So you must coine a new logick (Mai­ster Gilbert) before ye can confirme your proposition by his testimonie.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

But That is con­trarie to that whilk you saide before that they were all two hundreth yeare before them. heir it is to be noted also, that Maister Iohn can finde none be­fore the yeare of Christ 1158. that said against the Pope and his religion, & none immediatly before Luther, the space of an 100. yeare and more. So the Kirk was without his Doctors, elleuen hundreth yeare and fiftie, or there­about. And siklike Martine Luther had no predecessors to whome he suc­ceeded in his Religion.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

You note two things heere whilk are both false: the one that I can finde none that said against the Pope and his re­ligion before the yeare of Christ 1158. for our Sauiour and his Apostles and sundrie learned Fathers in all ages, and councels, both general and prouincial: and sum of your own doctors and Popes, hes spoken against the Monarchie of your Pope, and your doctrine & religion, as I haue proued before. And Reinerus a man of your ovvne religion testifies that some saide the Waldenses who had the same religion whilk we proses, was continued from Siluesters daies, who liued about the 320. yeare of God. And some said that it continued euen from the Apostles daies: therefore the first is false. The second thing is, that I can finde none before Luther immediatlye the space of 100. yeares and more. I see you are not ashamed to speake anie thing for the defence of your Kingdome, vvere it neuer so manifestlie false: for it appeares that eyther yee are not ac­quainted vvith the histories of that age, or else yee dissemble it of purpose: for Iohn Wickles he left so manye behinde him in England vvho professed our religion, that though your Pre­lates did molest them vvhat they coulde, yet they & their fauourers in short tyme grew to sik strength & multitude, that by the yeare 1422. (whilk was 100. yeares immedi­ately before Luther) Henrie Chichesley the Arch-bishop of Can­terburie writ to the Pope, that they all could not be suppres­sed they were so manie, but by force of warre. The professors of our religion began to gather so great force in Bohemia af­ter the burning of Iohn Hus, and Ierome of Prage at the coun­cel of Constance, whilk was about the yeare 1417. (whilk was iust ane hundreth yeare immediatly before Luther) that they [Page 191] were able not only to defend themselues by force of armes against the tyrannie of your Popes, but also obtained many notable victories, against the strongest power that the Pope did raise against them. In England William Tayler, was bur­ned, anno 1422, and two yeares after that William White was burnt. And betwixt that time, and 1430. Father Abraham of Colchester, Iohn Wadden, and Richard Houington were burnt. And after that, Richard Wiche, and Iohn Goose, one Braban, and one Ierome, and others with him were burnt. Hie­ronymus Sauonarola, a Monke in Italie, with two others, na­med Dominick and Sylvester, were condemned to death at Florence, in the yeare 1500, with sundry others whome for shortnesse I omit heir. Nowe surelie, I cannot but wonder, Maister Gilbert, that ye should haue bene so impudent as to haue set it downe in write, that I could get none that profes­sed our Religion, an hundreth yeare immediatly before Martine Luther. But the reader may gather what credite he may giue to your notes: and yet vvith sik impudent lies ye blind the poore people. Vpon the vvhilk I gather, that both these conclusions of yours, is false. For the Kirk of Christ in all ages, euen from the Apostles dayes to this day, hes euer had her owne teachers and professors, (vnto whome Martine Lu­ther hes succeeded in his religion) suppose not in the like fre­quencie and puritie, Apoc 9. and that by reason partly of the smoak of that bottomlesse pit, that is of your doctrine, Reu. 15. whilk darkened both the Sunne and the aire, that is, both teachers and people: and partly by your extreame persecutiō, whereby ye made warre with the Saints of God and ouercame them. But your smoak will euanishe away at the last, and the cleare light of the Lorde shall shine more and more, maugre all your hearts.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

But that Maister Iohn shall not thinke that we slander him and his with olde condemned heresies, let him read S. Augustine, Epiphanius, and others noted on the margent as of these, and many the like.

1 Nouatus forsooke the Pope of Rome Cornelius, and caused others doe the like, as Histo. l. 6. c. 33. Eusebius and lib. 6 c. 30. Nicephorus reports.

2 Aerius the heretick denied that offering or prayers should be done for the dead, & that fasting should be free, as Heres. 55. wrong cited is suld be 75. S. Augustine & Epiph declares.

3 Eunoninus and Aerius held that only Faith justifieth, as Heres. 55 & lib de side & operi­bus. Augustine and Heres. 76. Epiphanius writes.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Now are we, by Gods grace, come vnto your last calum­nie, in affirming that wee renew olde condemned heresies. This is indeede (Maister Gilbert) a heauie challenge, if it were true: but it is but like the rest of your calumnies: yea, it hes lesse appearance of trueth, nor any thing whilk ye haue spoken against vs. Alyar, Maister Gilbert, shall not enter in that heauenly cietie, Psal 15 Reuel. 19 & 2 [...]. but his portion shall be in that lake that burnes with fire and brimstone, and he that slandereth his neighbour (much more then be who slandereth the trueth of God) shall not rest in the Lords holy mountaine. But to come to the first, Nouatus intruded himselfe in another mans charge, and caused set vp himselfe against Cornelius the lawfull Pastor in the Kirk in Rome then, & that craftilie: and withdrew many of his flock from him, whilk is as contrarie to our doctrine, as black to white. For we teach that euery pastor should haue his owne particular flock, as Cornelius had then in Rome, and no man should intrude him­self in another mans charge, as he did. So this is a calumny, Maister Gilbert. But your Popes are like Nouatus, who not only hes disturbed al the Christian congregations in Europe almoste, by setting vp and thrusting downe sik Pastors as he would, but also all the kingdomes in Europe. As for this do­ctrine of Aerius, I answere you, as ye did me: I contend not whether he taught this doctrine or not, for the scriptures hes taught the same. But our contention is, whether they be he­resie or not, whilk you haue not prooued, nor euer will be a­ble to proue by the Scripture. It is true Epiphamus, & Augu­stine following him, reckons him amongst heretickes, but The­odoretus in his booke de fabulis Iudaerum, and the Ecclesiastical historie reckons him not amongst hereticks: and he was not condemned for an heretick in any Councell: that therefore whilk he taught according to the Scripture we imbrace. But as for the errors of the Acrians, whilk are errors in deede, and whilk are ascriued vnto them, as the damning of marriage, vr­ging of continencie, requyring them whome they receaue to their fellow­ship to forsake their owne proper things: these heresies, I say, your Kirk hes renewed, who damnes marriage, and vrges conti­nencie [Page 193] in your Cleargie, and receaues none to your religi­ous orders, but sik as refuses their owne proper things. As to the third, the Aetian and Eunomian heresies, they secluded ho­linesse of life from that faith of theirs, and taught sik a faith that might stand with whatsoeuer sinnes, and with perseue­rance in them. Will you stand to this (Maister Gilbert) be­fore the Lord, that we teach sik doctrine? Is not this our do­ctrine, that only liuing faith whilk works by loue, & brings forth good fruits doth iustifie? But you are like to them that knowes no other iustifying faith, but sik a faith, as both the reprobates and the Diuels may haue. So this is your third calumnie.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

4 Symon Magus, Marcion and Manichaeus denied that man had Fre-will as Heres. 46 S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and Heres. 42 Epiphanius makes mention.

5 Iouinianus affirmed, that Priests marriage was lawfull, after the lawfull vowe of chastity. He moued sundry Nunnes to marrie in the cietie of Rome He made fasting and abstinence from meat superfluous, as Heres 82. Item lib. 1. cap. 7 de peccat. merit. & remis. S. Augustine wrytes of him.

6 Vigilantius denyed the prayer to Saints, as Contra Vigi­lant. S. Hierome writes: he despised the burning of lights and candles in the Kirks, in the day time, and the Relicks of Martyrs.

Iulian the Apostata, was of the same opinion, as cont Iulian. Cyrillus declares. The same Iulian despysed the image of Christ and his Saints, as the forsaid lib. 9. contra Io lianum. Cyrillus makes mention.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

As to this fourth heresie, they tooke away all the liberty & freedome of the Will in man, but this is not our doctrine. For we affirme that man hes a libertie and freedome in his Will in naturall, morall and sinfull actions: but not in these things whilk pleases God, before he be renewed. This is your fourth calumnie.

As for the fifth, Iouinian taught, as Heres. 82 Augustine and In his 8. epist. in his defence of his bookes a­gainst Iouinian. Ie­rome sets it downe, and De Ecclesia militant. lib. 4. cap. 9 Bellarmine reports, that the married estate was equall with Virginitie. Vnto the whilk we an­swere, that true and vndefiled Virginity we prefer alwaies, as the more noble and excellent gift in them to whome it is giuen: but we doubt not to say, but that marriage is better [Page 194] in them, that cannot containe. And generally we dar prefer the honest marriage of Christians, before the proud & fained virginity of many Monasticall votaries, as In Psal. 99. Augustine saies, Lowlie and humble marriage is better then proud and hauty virginity. As to the second point, he affirmed indeede that the choyse of meates and fasting was no merite, and this is no heresie: But if this be heresie, Rom. 6.23. then the doctrine of the Scripture is heresies: for it teaches vs that life euerlasting is the free gift of God: as hes beene prooued before. This is your fift ca­lumnie.

As for the sixt of Vigilantius heresies, if the denying of prai­er to be made to Saints be an heresie, then it is an olde here­sie: Psal. 50.15. Isa. 42 8. Aug. de ciuitate de [...] l. 22. c. 20. for it is the Lords who is the auncient of daies, for this is his doctrine: call vpon me in the daye of thy trouble, and I will deliuer thee. And let Augustine also go for an hereticke who saies that the Saints are not called vpon. As for the dispysing of the burning of lightes and candles in the Kirks in the daye time, I know not to what vse it serues, except to bee a signe that yee are blinded of the Lorde, who in the midst of the day, lightes your candles: did Iesus Christ or his Apostles so? And this was the custome of Pagans, whilk you haue taken from them. Irenaeus lib. 6. cap. 2. As for the despising of the relicks of Mar­tyres: if he despised these, then he erred: for we both teach & practise that the bodies of the Saints should bee honorablie buried, and we do not despise them. But if he taught that they should not be worshipped, then I say he is not an here­tick in this, Matth. 4.10 Deut. 6.23. but you are hereticks and idolaters who expres contrarie the commandement of God, doth worship the crea­ture. And Vigilantius was no hereticke, nor his opinions con­demned as heresies, only there was a hoate contention be­twene him and Ierome. And as for Iuliane, he calumniated the Christians that they adored dead men for Gods, and the tree of the croce. Vnto whome Cyrillus answered that they adored not the signe of the croce, but God only. So this was but Iulians ca­lumny against them. But if he had liued in your dayes hee might iustly haue obiected it vnto you.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

7 Valentinus the heretick denied the very bodie of Christ to be in the sa­crament, as lib. 4. cap. 34. Irenaus sayes.

8 Symon Magus, Marcion, and the Manichees held, that God compelled man both to doe euill and good, as Ha [...]es. 46. S. Augustine, Vincentius Lar [...]nensi [...], In recognit. S Clement of Rome, and Haeres 42. [...]piphanius hes in then works whilk is the doctrine of the most learned of the Protestants, as Melanchton, Caluine, In lib. de prae­dest cont. Ca [...]ui­sycophant. Be­Za and others.

9 The Nouatians denied Pennance, as Haeres. 38. S. Augustine affirmes.

10 The Manichees denied the necessitie of Baptisme, as the same Haeres. 46. S. Augustine reports.

11 Aerius, Eustachius, and the Manichees condemned fasting dayes or­dained by the Kirk, as Epist. [...]3. cap. 4. Leo, Haeres. 75. Epiphanius, the councel of In prefat. Gangra, and as lib. [...]0. cap. 3. cont. Faust Ma­nich. S Augustine recordes.

12 The Manichees vsed to fast on the Sonday only, as Haeres. S. Augustine, & scr. 4. de qua. S Leo witnesses Read for this also Concil. Gang cap. 13. & de consecrat. dist. 3. Ne quis. Ignatius ad Philip. de consecrat. distinct. 3. Ieiunium.

13 The Pepusians and Collyridians denied holy orders, and made it no Sa­crament, as Haeres 4.24. S. Augustine and Haeres. 44.7 [...]. Epiphanius writes.

14 The Pelagians denied that confession should be made to a Priest, as our Hect. Boc [...]. lib 9. cap. 19. Chronicle writer testifies. They deny also that Baptisme was neidfull to bairnes or infants, as Haeres. 88. S Augustine reports.

15 The Donatists denied the order of Monkes, and other religious per­sons, as In psal. 132, S. Augustine, and Tom. 5, against the dispraiser of the monasticall life. S. Chrysostome writes.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Whether Valentinus taught so or not, I contend not: but the question is of this doctrine, of the reall presence, whether it be contrare to Gods word, or not; the whilk I haue proo­ued sufficiently before in the fourth point of doctrine: and so the denying of it is no heresie. But yet it appeares not by this testimonie of Irenaeus, whilk ye cite heir, that he taught sik doctrine.

As for the 8. heresie, it is a calumnie to ascriue it to vs, for Melanchton, Caluine, and Beza hes no sik doctrine. You are not ashamed, Maister Gilbert, of impudent lying.

As for the 9. of Nouatus heresie, that is a calumnie to a­scriue it to vs. I or Nouatus denied that there was any place of repentance to these, who after they were baptised, fel from the faith, by ony infirmitie, or violence of persecution, as E­piphanius testifies of him that hee saide, No man who hes falne after Baptisme can any more obtaine mercie. But our doctrine is [Page 196] contrare to this: for we teach that there is place to repentāce for any sinne, except the sinne against the holy Ghost, whilk is euer punished with finall impenitencie.

As for the 10. of the Manichees heresie, their doctrine was as Augustine sayes there, that Baptisme serued nothing for saluati­on to anye: and that none, who followed their sect, should be baptized. and therefore they broght in a contempt of Baptisme, whilk is contrarie our doctrine. For we teache that Christians and their children is to be baptized: and that the contempt of it is damnable, suppose not the want of it.

As for the 11. and 12. heresies, we contemne not fastings that are appointed by the Kirk, for lawful causes: but we de­ny that they should be tied to certaine and prefixed dayes, as your Kirk does: and we thinke it no heresie to fast on the Lords day, more then other dayes: both to stirre vp our re­pentance, and to make vs more meet to holy and spirituall exercises, because it is not contrary to the word of God. As for Leo his Epistle, it is wrong quoted, for it should be Epist. 91. and there fasting on the Lords day is not like ours: for they fasted on the Lordes day, because they beleeued not that Christ was a true man, as Leo in that same place testifies whilk you will not say your selfe that we do, for we acknow­ledge him to be a true man.

As for the 13. heresie of the Pepusians and Collyridians, their doctrine was that wemen might be Bishops, and Elders, & might vse these publick functions, as these places whilk ye haue quoted, testifies: whilk is not our doctrine, but rather yours, who permits wemen to baptize, in case of necessity. That they denied orders to be a Sacrament, there is no sik thing to be found in these places whilk ye quote heir.

As for the 14. heresie of the Pelagians, if they denied that these who were accused of any scandalous offence, & guilty thereof; should make their confession of it to God, his Mini­sters, & the Congregation, for to take away the offence of it, then they erred, and our doctrine and practise condemnes this: but if they denied the absolute necessity of your auri­cular confessions, then is it no errour, because there is na sik [Page 197] thing commanded in the whole Scriptures of God. Nowe as for the testimonie of Boetius, I haue not seene it. As for their second heresie concerning Baptisme, they taught, as Augu­stine reportes in that place, that Baptisme was not needfull to chil­dren, because they were borne without original sinne, as they taught whilk is an heresie indeede: but this is a calumnie to ascriue it to vs, for we teach that children are borne in originall sin, and so shoulde be baptized. And surelie this heresie rather aggrees to you, who teaches that Marie was not borne in o­riginall sinne, and therefore she needed not to be baptized.

As for the last of the Donatists, denying the order of Monks. I answere: first, your Papisticall and Idolatrous Monkes, Bellari 2. de indulgentus are farre different from these whilk Augustine and Chrysostome de­fended, and these of the Primitiue Kirk. For first they were bound to no prescript forme of diet, apparell, or any thing else, by solemne vowes of wilfull pouertie, and perpetual cō ­tinencie, as yours are, next, the former Monks remained in the order of priuate men, and laicks, and had no thing to do with Ecclesiasticall charges, whilk was afterward broken by Pope Boniface the 4. anno 606. But yours are not so: they haue Ecclesiasticall charges, and are more then priuate men. And last of all, suppose their kinde of life was mixed with some superstition, for the enuious man sone sowed the popple amongst the good seede, and the mystery of iniquity began sone to worke: yet their religion was not defiled with Idolatrie, worshipping of Ima­ges, praiers to Saints, opinion of merite, the sacrifice of the Masse, and other abhominations wherewith your Papisticall Monkes are defiled. Next I say, these Monkes and religious orders of yours, hes not their foundation within the foure corners of the Scripture of God.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

These and many the like new renewed heresies by the Ministers, was old condemned heresies in the primitiue Kirk of the former heretickes, as testi­fies the ancient Fathers: and therefore this is a true argument. What euer was heresie in old times is heresie yet, and the defenders thereof hereticks, as they were of olde: but these former heades that I haue set downe, with many the like was heresies in olde times, and the defenders thereof here­tickes, [Page 198] as testifies the auncient Fathers: Therefore they are heresies yet, & the defenders thereof heretickes.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

Now heere was all the cause (Christian reader) that made (Maister Gilbert) so oft to cry out of vs, that wee renued old condemned heresies, whereof some are sik as wee our selues condemne, and some are sik whilk doe better aggree vnto themselues, nor vnto vs: & some heresies he forceth vpon vs whilk wee neuer taught nor maintayned: and some are sik whilk are not heresies indeede, but aggreable to the Scrip­tures of God. So that if we erre in these, suffer vs to erre with Iesus Christ and his Apostles. Now to answer to your argu­ment whilk ye bring. What euer was heresie in olde times, is heresie yet, and the defenders thereof heretickes. I answer, if ye define heresie to be an error obstinately maintained a­gainst the Scriptures of God: I graunt your proposition. But if ye define heresies in generall, to be whatsomeuer any one Father or Doctor, or some more hes rebuked as an heresie; then I deny it, for sundrie of the fathers hes maintained er­rors themselues against the Scripture, and hes accused some doctrine to bee heresies, whilk hes bene aggreeable to the trueth of God, whilk you will not deny, I hope. For if you would, I could proue it both of the Fathers, Councels, and your owne Popes. Now to your assumption. But these former heads, say ye, whilk ye haue set downe with manye the like was heresies in olde tymes, and the defenders thereof here­ticks, as testifieth the aunciēt Fathers. I answere that some of these are heresies indeede, and we abhorre and condemne them more nor yee, and some of these as falslie laide to our charge, and some of these are not heresies indeede, but ag­greable to the Scripture. And therefore, your conclusion fals not vpon vs, who hes renewed no olde condemned he­resie, and therefore is not heretickes. And where you saye many other like. I answere: It is true they are like, for they are both calumnies and horrible vntruths, and lyes as these hes bene, whereof one day ye shall make answer to the great [Page 199] God that Iudgeth the quick and the dead. But the pit whilk you [...]gged for others you haue fallen in it your selfe: for certainly in this you doe as theeues does, who the better to eschew the crime of theft whilk is iustly laide to their charge, and that they may the more easily escape in a fraye, doth cry out and shout out vpon others, common theeues, common theeues. Euen so do you: for these crimes whereof yee are guiltie your selues you falsly charge vs with. Therefore that all men may se that you are the men who hes renewed the olde condemned he­resies, I will not do, as yee haue done to vs, that is eyther to lay to your charge sik heresies as yee maintaine not, or sik thinges to be heresies whilk are not heresies indeede, whilk ye did to vs. But in this I will deale sincearelye with you, fai­ning nothing neither of them nor of you.

1. Simoniani, worshipped the image of Simon and Selenes, Ederus in Baby, pag, 5, whose heresie they followed: so doeth your religious orders worship the image of these, who were first authors of their orders.

2. The Basilidians worshipped Images, Irenaeus lib, c. 23. and vsed inuoca­tions, so doe you.

3. Ireneus lib, 1, [...].3.24. Carpocrates had some painted Images in great estima­tion, both of others, as also of Christ: So doe the Papistes paint Christ, and sayes that his forme was painted by Luke the Euangelist.

4. The old Idolaters did excuse their idolatry, August, in Psal, 113, in, con, 2, & Lactan, l, 2. c, 2 that they did not worship the Images, but the thing represented by the image: so doe you excuse your idolatrie.

5. Iren, lib, 1, c, 21, It was the custome of the old idolaters to afflict and whip their owne bodies, that they might please their owne Gods, so doe some of you nowe.

6. Iren, lib, 6, c, [...], It was their custome also to light candles at noone dayes, in the time of their seruice, so doe you.

7. Basilidiani, and Carpocratiani kept secret their doctrines, Iren, lib, 1, c, 23 Epiph, haeres, 24. counting all other men dogs and swine: so doe you keep se­cret your mysteries from the common people, and will not suffer the Scriptures to be read of all: least, say ye, precious pearles be cast before swine.

[Page 200] Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18 8. Marcosij they spake some Hebrew words in Baptisme, to astonishe and afray the hearers: but you are worse, who in all your seruice speakes nothing but a vnknowne lan­guage: and that, say you, to make there mysteries to be had in greater reuerence.

August. de heres. cap. 16. Epiph. heres. 36. 9. The Heracleonites annointed their dead with oile, balme, and water superstitiouslie, and so doe you.

Epip. [...]er. 42 Au­ad quod vult c. 27 10. Marcion and the Pepuzians hereticks, permitted wemē to baptize, so doe you.

Ep [...]ph. her. 19 an te Ch [...]istum. 11. The Ossenes taught, that it was not needfull that pray­ers should be made in a knowne language: so doe you: and therefore your praiers are in Latine.

Theodoret. diuin dec et. cap. de Bapt. 12. The Messalians affirmed Baptisme only to serue for the washing away of the sinnes going before it, so doe you.

Epiph. heres. 46 13. The Tatians and sundry other heretickes affirmed marriage impure: so doth your Pope Siricius in their Priests. Gratianus epist. 82. cap. Proposuisti.

14. The Manichees damned marriage in their elect and perfite, but suffered it in the rest: so doe the Papists, in their Priests and religious men they damne it, August. epist. 74. but they doe tolle­rate it in the laicks: 1. Timot. 4.1.2.3. and yet the spirit of God calles it, a do­ctrine of Diuels to forbid marriage.

15. The Manichees they had the Communion vnder one kinde: Leo serm. 8. de [...]uadragesi [...]. so doth the Papisticall Kirk. The Councell of Con­stance so decreed it, against the Scriptures, with these here­tickes. Siklike their Fasting and your Fasting is alike: for they made choise of meates, and abstained from fleshe: but yet vsed their delicates, and so doe you.

16. The Manichees affirmed there was two beginnings: so doth Augustinus Steuchus a Papist, in sua cosmopoea, in principio Genes. where he sayes, that the Chrystalline heauen is coeternal with God. The whilk if it be true, then certainly it is God: for that whilk is without beginning is God, & so there are two gods. If Caluint or any of vs had written sik, how would heauen & earth haue bene filled with cries against vs?

Epiph. heres. 48. 17. Montanus an heretick receaued the whole Scripture, but yet he denied that it contained all doctrine needfull to [Page 201] saluation: so doth the Papists: & from this error springs their Traditions, their Ceremonies infinite in nomber, partlye Iewishe, partly Ethnicke.

18. Apollo. apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 17. This Montanus was the first who prescriued certaine Lawes of Fasting, the Scripture appointing no sik thing: so doth the Papists, their fastings are vpon their prefixt and set dayes.

19. Tertul. de a [...]im [...] in fir [...]. Montanus taught that small faults was to be suffered for after this life neither was the soules to be deliuered from the prison, till they had paied the vtmoste farthing. So doth the Papists also.

20. Siklike the doctrine of the Montanists was, In ib. de anima & Tert. de co [...]. milius. that Abra­bams bosome was beside Hel, or in the vppermost part of hel.

21. That the Patriarckes before the comming of Christ, was in Hell.

22. That onlie the Martyres soules goes immediatly to Paradise.

23. That praiers and oblations shoulde be made for the dead.

24. That extreame vnction shuld be giuē after Baptism.

25 That the signe of the Croce should be vsed, all whilk your Kirk hes renued.

26. Helcesaitae made two Christs: one aboue, Theodore [...] another be­neath: so doth your Kirk make two Christs: one in heauen hauing a true natural bodie with his owne essentiall proper­ties, in a certaine place, visible: another in earth, made of the bread and wine, with all the essential properties of a true bo­die, inuisible, in the Sacrament.

27. Sampsaei, kept the dust of the feete, Epip. haeres. 53. & haeres. 19. ant [...] Christum. and the spittle of two wemē whilk they worshipped as Goddesses, whilk they affirmed did serue to cure diseases, and whilks they vsed as amulets: so doth your Papisticall Kirk, keepe the relickes of Saints, worships them, and carries them about, as seruing ei­ther to preserue, or to recouer health. The like also was the superstition of the Ossens.

28. Cathars gloried in the merites of their workes, Isid. Etymol. lib. &c. de h [...]efib. Christi and af­firmed that they were made righteous, vvith an inherent [Page 202] righteousnesse. The Papisticall Kirk in this heresie goes be­yond them: for both they glorie of their workes, & affirmes that we are iustified with an inherent righteousnesse.

Aug ad Quod­vult, cap. 39 Epiph. haeres, 38 29. The heretickes called Angelici, and also the Caim, they worshipped Angels, so doe the Papists.

30. The hereticks called Apostolici, admitted none in their nomber, August. de haeres. cap. 40 Epiph. haeres. 61 but these who vowed wilfull pouertie, and chastity. So the Papists admits none to their religious orders, but sik, who vowes both.

Augqst ex Phila­strio quo. undam cap. 68. 31. There were some heretickes who went bare-footed, so doe the Franciscan Friers, & these who are called Cordigeri.

32. The Donatists denied that the true preaching of the word was a note of the pure Kirk: and therefore Augustine in sundrie places calles them back to the Scriptures: so doeth your Kirk.

Epiph. haeres. 74 33. The Collirydians worshipped Marie, and therefore they are called Idolaters by Epiphanius, so doe the Papists.

Epiph. in Pano­plia. 34. Armenij worshipped the croce of our Lord, and ther­fore they were called [...] that is, worshippers of the croce, so doth the Papists.

35. The Pelagians affirmed Adam would haue died, sup­pose he had not sinned: so doth Augustinus Steuchus, a Papist of great name in his annotations vpon the 2. of Genesis. Hee sayes, Death is natural, and sinne is not the cause of it, and the infants and Adam would haue died, suppose they had not sinned.

36. Also, they affirmed that after the fall there was left in mana fredome to will good, and so doth the Papists, suppose they differ in this, that the Papistes ioynes grace to be a pre­veener and worker with free-will.

37. The Pelagians affirmed that the Gentiles might by Philosophie haue knowne God, and bene saued. So Andra­dius a Papist, lib. 3. orthod. explic. so Catharinus a Papist, who was present at the councel of Trent affirmes in his commentary vpon 1. Timoth. 4. That some vnfaithfull men may be saued, whilk is as mekle to say, as some may be saued who knowes not God, nor Christ, whilk is horrible, and more then Pelagian.

38. Also, they affirmed that a man may fulfill the Lawe, [Page 203] and be perfitelie righteous, so doe all the Papists.

39. They affirme that infants wants originall sinne: so doth Pighius a Papist in his booke of controuersies, In 3 parte sum. mae quest. 27. art. 7. in the cō ­trouersie of original sinne, that in them that are baptized, original sinne is taken away: and he writes also that Marie was borne with out originall sinne: and Thomas of Aquine writes that Marie had the fulnesse of [...]ll graces, whilk is to equall her with God. For only in him the fulnesse of all dwelleth: and many other he­resies of the Pelagians hes the Papists renewed.

40. A kinde of heretickes called Anomi, taught that the obedience to the Law was not needfull, so doth the Papists. First, in affirming, that concupiscence without consent is not sinne, & is not forbidden in the Law. Secondly, some of them sayes, as Syluester Prierias, It is honesty (says he) but not of necessity that God should be loued aboue all things. And so De theolog. practit. tractat 3. cap. 16 concl. 1. numer. 11. Molanus another Pa­pist affirmeth. The same cap. 8 conclu. 3 numer. 19. Molanus also sayes, that it is not cō ­manded of God that we should pray for our enemies in special: and yet the Scripture sayes most plainlie, Pray for them whilk persecute you. And in cap. 16. conc. 3. another place he affirmes that it is not comman­ded that we should salute our enemies with a friendly and louing hart. And also he Tract. 2. cap. 20. conclus. 2 sayes, That he who doth not tell to him who is igno­rant, his manifest defect is not vnrighteous. And againe cap. 23. conc. 5 he saies He who giues counsell to doe a lesse euill to eschew a greater, sinnes not. Siklike contrar the second command they vniuersally teach, that the worship of Images is no break of it. And they call the Croce their only hope. What horrible blasphemie is this? And In his booke de residentia cont. Cathar. Torrensis a Papist, obiected to Catharinus another Papist, that he denied the Law of Moses to be Gods law, and the precepts of Paule to be Christs precepts. Moe also I might bring, but these will suf­fice. Nowe of these things I may most iustly conclude, that your religion hes renewed many of the old condemned he­resies. And as you made one argument, so I will make ano­ther. What euer was heresie in old times, is heresie yet, and the defenders thereof heretickes: this you cannot deny, be­cause it is your owne proposition: but these former heades whilk I haue set downe (wherein I haue vsed no calumny as ye haue done) was heresies in olde times, and the defenders [Page 204] thereof heretickes, as witnesses the auncient Fathers: Ther­fore they are heresies yet, and the defenders thereof here­tickes. And so by your owne argument many points of your religion, are old condemned heresies, and your selues here­tickes, who doth defend them.

Maister Iohns conclusion.

One thing whilk I hope will cut off all controuersie, I offer to prooue, the Pope to be the Antichrist. And if this be true, then all men that professes him, secretly or openly, as it is said in the Reuel. 14. shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God.

Maister Iohn Welsche, preacher of Christs Gospell, at Kirkcudbright.

Maister Gilbert Browne.

If this controuersie of ours shal not be cut away whil Maister Iohn proue the Pope to be the Antichrist, certainly it will indure ten hundreth thou­sand yeare after the Laird of Marchistouns doomesday. Then it must follow (seing that is a thing impossible to be done) that all they that wil not opē ­lie and priuatlie obey the Pope, and reuerence him as the Vicare of Christ, because he is chosen by God to rule his Kirk heir on earth, that they muste drinke of the wine of the wrath of God.

Maister Iohn Welsche his Reply.

It is not impossible to proue your Popes to be the Anti­christ. It hes beene prooued alreadie by the learned on our side: to the whilk you, and all your Cleargie of Rome is not able to answere. It hes bene taught & sealed with the blood of infinite nombers of Christians: and I haue not taken so long a tearme as you haue set downe heir, and yet, I hope, I haue proued it sufficiently. Put all your might to disproue it if you can. And as to that threatning of yours, Maister Gil­bert, wherein ye say that all these, who will not openly and priuatelie obey the Pope, &c, must drinke of the wine of the [Page 205] wrath of God. If it may be beleeued, then howe doth this stand first with your Popes pardons, whereby he giues men pardon or licence to professe, subscriue, and sweare to our re­ligion: as it is reported that some of your owne religion hes confessed it? Next, howe stands it with the dissimulation of your Iesuites, and seminarie Priests when they come to any place where our religion is openlie professed? Thirdly, what comfort is this whilk ye haue pronounced to your own poor countriemen, who doe not openly avow Papistrie, but hes subscriued and communicate with vs? Is this an open profes­sion, or not? And if it be not, if ye be a true Prophet, then must they drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, then must they be condemned in Hel by your iudgemēt, because they professe him not openlie. And last of all, if this threatning of yours be true, then beside the many infinite thousands who professes him to be the Antichrist, you condemne to Hell all the Greeke and Eastern Kirks, who in nomber far exceedes them who obeyes you, and all the Kirks that hes bene 600. yeere and more after Christ: for they obeyed not the Pope openlie nor priuatlie as Christs Vicare ouer them, as I haue prooued before. And also you condemne a nomber of your Anti-Popes to Hell, with their Cardinals, Bishops, & Kirks who followed them: for they gaue out themselues to bee Popes, and did not obey the other. As also a nomber of the Fathers of your owne religion, who in two general councels the one of Constance, where there was almost 1000. Fathers: the other of Basile, did not obey the pope, in defining general councels to be aboue the Pope. So, if ye speak trueth, infinite millions of Christians in all ages, and innumerable Kirks, & thousands of your owne religion are condemned to hell. But this is false, Maister Gilbert, and who will beleeue you? And to the end nowe my conclusion yet holdes sure, that seeing his kingdome is that second beast that hes two hornes like the Lamb and speakes like the Dragon: and himself is that man of sinne, Reuel. 23. [...]. Thes. 2. and sonne of perdition, that aduersary and Antichrist that was to come: Reuel. [...]. & his doctrine is that Apostasie and abhomination foretolde in the Scripture: and his seat that Harlote and mysticall Babylon, that [Page 206] mother of hoordomes, who is drunken with the blood of the Martyres of Iesus, whosoeuer receaues his mark on his forehead or hand, that is, openly or priuatlye professes obedience vnto him, shall, as the Angell proclaimed, drinke of the wyne of the wrath of God, yea of that pure wyne in the cup of his wrath, and he shall bee tormented with fyre and brimstone before the holy Angels, and before the Lambe. And the smoake of his torment shall ascend for euer more: and they shall haue no rest daye nor night whilk worship the beast or his image. And as for your praier, I beseech God (Maister Gilbert) that he may open my eies, and inlarge my harte to vnderstande and imbrace his trueth more and more, and to make me to growe vp in that spirituall communion with Christ and his members more and more. But that whilk ye call trueth is he­resie, and that whilk yee call the true Kirk is Babell: and therefore that doctrine and Kirk of yours is that strong de­lusion and whore of Babell, with the whilk whosoeuer shall communicate is excluded from the me­rites of Christ, and shall be pertakers of her plagues, and finallie shall bee damned.