BEcause I perceaue, bothe in your protesta­tion and artickle, that ye dispute not vpon these maters, as disputable, but as of things al­readie concluded, by the Kirk, general coūselles, and doctors: I must say somwhat in the begin­ning, how farre I will admit of any of the fore­named.Ephe. [...]. And of the Kirk first (I say) that I ac­knowledge it to be the spous of Christs Iesus, builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets: so that into all doctrine, it heareth [Page] the voice of the spous onelie, and an stranger, it will not heare,Ioh. [...]0 according to the wordes of our master Christ Iesus. My shepe heare my voice. &c. And therefore if y^t any multitude, vnder the ti­tle of the Kirk, will obtrude, vnto vs, any doc­trine necessar to be beleued to our saluation, and bringeth not for the same, the expres worde of Iesus Christ, or his Apostles, &c. men must aper­done me, althogh I acknowledge it not to be y^e Kirk of God, for the reason foresaid. And vnto the generall counselles, I answer the same, to wit, that suche as hath bene gathered duelie & in the name of God, for extirpatiō of heresies, with my whole harte I do reuerence. Prouided al­wayes, that the doctrine, that they propone to be beleued, haue the approbation of the plaine worde of God, or els with that ancient I must say, that more credit is to be giuen to an man, bringing for him,Panor­mita. the testimonie of Gods Scrip­tures, then to an generall counsell, affirming a­ny doctrine without the same. And as cōcerning the authoritie of the doctors (for whome I prai­se my God, as that I do for all them whome he maketh profitable instrumentes in his kirk) I think my Lorde,Let the godlie iudge if these pe­ticions be reasonable. will bind me no straiter, then he hath desyred to be bound him self, that is, that men be not receaued, as God. And therefore with Agustine I consent, that whatsoeuer the doctors propone, and plamly confirme the same by the euident testimonie of the Scriptures, I am hartlie content to receaue the same, but els, that it be laughful to me with, Ierome to say, [Page 10] whatsoeuer is affirmed, without the authoritie of Gods Scriptures, with the same facilitie it may be reiected, as it is affirmed. And these thre admitted. So forth I enter in disputation.

Thair ar diuers heides quhair with I am of­fended, willing that the purpose we come for, may go shortlie to passe. Thairfore presentlie I will omitt. And as the occasion sall serue of the doctoures, counsalles and ocht elles, quhilkis ar not expresly contened in the Scriptures. And this quicklie go to the purpose.

Ye are not ignorant (my Lorde) that in euerie disputation, the ground oght so to be laide, that y^e mater disputable, or the question, either come vnder an perfite definicion, or els vnder an suf­ficient discription: and specially when the que­stion is, De woce simplici. As is, Missa. Yf it ple­ase your Lordschip to defyne the masse, or yet suf­ficientlie to discriue it, I will take occasion of y^t, which I think wrong. And if not, then must I explaine my minde, what masse it is, that I in­tend to impung, and haue called idolatrie, not the blissed institution of the Lorde Iesus, which he hath cōmanded to be vsed in his kirk,Let men iudge if this be not im­pugnation of the papisti­cal messe to his gaincomīg, but that which is cropen in, into the kirk visible, without all approbation of y^e worde of God. And this masse, I say, hath a name, a forme and action, an opinion conceaued of it, and an actor of the same. And vnto the whole foure I say, that neither the name, the forme and [Page] action, nor the opinion, nor actor, haue there assurance of Gods plaine worde.

As to the diffinicion or description that I gaif the last ȝeir, I will abyde at it this ȝeir, for I am not cūmin in vse of est, & non est. And as to y^e masse that he wil impung, or any mannes masse, ȝea, and it war the paipes awin messe, I will mantein nathing but Iesus Christes messe, cō ­forme to my artickle as it is writtin, and diffi­nition contened in my buik, quhilk he hes taine on hand to impung.

As I can conceaue, my Lordes answer, con­teineth thre heades, the first is, a relation to his booke as conteaning the difinicion of the masse. The second a declaration of his Lordschipes cō ­stancie.Let men iudge how fa­uorable the sone is vnto the Fa­ther. And the third, an affirmation, that he wil affirme no masse, but y^e masse of Iesus Christ, yea, not if it wer the popes owne masse. Vnto the first I answer. That I haue not red his Lorde­schipes booke (not excusing thereintill my own negligence) and therefore it appeareth vnto me, that rather his Lordship, should cause the diffi­nition to be red out of his booke, nor to burden me with the seaking of it. As cōcerning his lord­shipes constancie, I beseak the eternal God, to make vs all constant, in his eternal veritie: for inconstancie in the treuth, can not lack infamie, and great danger. But to me it appeareth, that in no wyse it can hurt, the fame, nor conscience of the godlie, to confesse them selues men, who [Page 11] bothe may erre, and also be occation that others erre. And yet, when that the fuller knowledge commeth vnto them, by the spirit of God, no mā oght to impute vnto them inconstancie, albeit they retreat there formar error, as in diuers hea­des did that learned Augustine. But the thride head doeth moste delite me, to wit, that my lord hath affirmed that he will defend no masse, but the masse of the Lorde Iesus:Note my offer which if his lord­ship will performe (as my good hope is) then I dout not, but we are on the werray point of an christiane aggrement. For whatsoeuer his lord­schip shall proue to me, to be done by the Lorde Iesus, that, without all contradiction, I shall embrace. Prouiding that his lordship alledge nothing to be done, by Iesus Christe, which his owne institution, witnesseth not to be done.

I define the messe, as concerning the substance, and effect, to be the sacrifice and oblation, of the Lordes bodie and blude, geuen and offered by him, in the latter Supper. And takis the Scripture, to my warrand, according to my artickle as it is written. And for the first confirmation of the same, groundes me vpon the sacrifice and oblation of Melchisedec. To the second, I thank Iohn Knox of his prase and prayer of my con­stancie, and in lyk maner for christiane cheriteis saik, prase God with all my hart, for his indu­retnes and pertinacitie (gif swa be that he be in error) and will wish him, that he be willed to refuse his pertinacitie, as I sall do my cōstancie [Page] gif I be in error. To the thrid, for auoiding of cauillation, I mein that I will defend no messe as concerning the substance, institution & effect, bot that messe onelie, quhilk is institut be Iesus Christ.

Omitting to further consideration, the answer to the definition, to the last two heades I short­lie answer, that I praised no constancie, but that which is in the treuth. And as touching my ow­en indurednes, wherewith my Lorde seameth to burden me, I plainlie protest before God, that if I knew my self in error, in that cace, or in any other, that concerneth the doctrine of Sal­uation: I should not be ashamed, publictlie to confesse it. But the last parte of my Lordes an­swer, appeareth somparte to varie (in my iudge­ment) from his formar affirmation, which I tooke to be, that his lordship wold defend no­thing in y^e masse, which he was not able to proue, to be the verray institution of Iesus Christe. And therefore, must I haue recourse, vnto the formar diuision of the masse: which is in name, action, opinion, & actor. And humblie requireth of his lordship, that he wold signifie vnto me, if he wold be cōtent to proue the name to be gi­uen by Iesus Chrste:Note if this be to shoot an pistollet at the messe. the whole action and cere­monies from beginning, to the end, to be the or­dinance of almightie God. The opinion, which hath bene conceaued, taught, and written of it, for to be aggreable with the Scripturs of God. And finally, if that the actor, hath his assurance [Page 12] of God, to do that, which he there publictlie pro­testeth, he doeth.

As willing that the treuth cum to ane tryall, I will not trifle, bot schortlie geues for answer.A shiftīg answer. I wil begin at the best first, quhilk is y^e substance and effect. And as to the ceremonies, actor and name, sal defend them abūdantlie (Godwilling) conform to my artickle quhen I cum thairto.

The ceremonies vsed in the masse, and the opi­nion conceaued of the same, haue bene holden substanciall partes thereof,Let the papests answer if this be trew or not. into the conscience of a great multitude. And therefore, oght the cō ­science of the weak, and infirme, first to be deli­uered from that bondage. For what my Lorde affirmeth of the masse (to wit, that it is a sacri­fice) this perchance may be also alledged to apar­teane to the right institution of Iesus Christe, in some cace, which ones wes woid, bothe of those ceremonies, and that damnable opinion.

I am not cumin heir to mantein the opiniones of mē, but to defend y^e institution of Iesus Christ, conform to my artickle.

It appeareh to me yet againe,This is a dow­ble can­nō aga­inst the messe. that my Lorde is willing to defend no thing, but the werray institutiō of Christ Iesus. And I haue alreadie affirmed, that neither the name of the masse, the ceremonies vsed in the same, the opinion concea­ued of it, neither yet that power, which the ac­tor [Page] vsurneth, hath either the institution or assu­rance of Iesus Christe.

I am willing to defend my diffinition concer­ning the messe, as I haue diffined it, and takes Goddes word to my warrand,My lord fled the Barras for the first. and as to the ce­remonies actor and all the rest fall defend God willing to be aggreable with Goddes word all throuch abundantlie as tyme and place sal serue beginning first at the substance and effect.

I answer, that albeit in my iudgement, the conscience of man, oght first to haue bene sett at libertie, yet hoping that my Lorde wilbe cōtent, according to his promes, that the name, ceremo­nies, and the rest of the accidents of the masse suffer the tryal by the worde of God. I am con­tent shortlie to enter in the bodie of the mater.

And desireth the difinition to be resumed.

Let my Lord re­member his pro­mes.I promes, before this honorable auditor, to defend that all cōtened in the action of the messe to be aggreable with Goddes word, prouiding alwayes we gang to the substance.

The difinition being resumed.

Your lordship is not ignorant, that in euerie difinition, there oght to be, Genus, which I take your lordship here maketh this term (Sa­crificium) but because the term is generall, and in y^e Scriptures of God is diuersly taken, there­fore, it must be broght to a certane kinde. For in [Page 13] the Scriptures there be sacrifices called EVCHA­RISTICA that is, of thankes giuing. The mor­tification of our bodies, and the obedience that we giue to God, in the same, is also called Sa­crifice. Prayer & inuocation of the name of God hath also the same name within the Scriptures. Liberalitie toward the poore, is also so termed. But there is one Sacrifice, which is greatest, and moste of all, called, Propiciatorium, which is that Sacrifice, whereby, satisfaction is made to the iustice of God, being offended at the sin­nes of man. &c. Now I desire of my Lord that he appoint vnto the masse, whiche of these Sa­crifices best pleaseth him.

Quhat ȝe mein be the Sacrifice, Propiciatorium, presentlie I will not dispute. But I tak the sa­crifice vpon the cro [...], to be the onelie Sacrifice of redemption, and the Sacrifice of the masse, to be the Sacrifice of cōmemoration, of Christs death and passion.

So farre as I can conceaue of my Lordes an­swer, he maketh no Sacrifice, Propiciatorie,Heir are mo can­nons thē one. in the messe: which is the chiefhead, which I in­tend to impung. For, as for the cōmemoration of Christes death and passion, that I grant, and publictlie do confesse, to be celebrat in the right vse of the Lordes S [...]pper, which I denie the messe to be.

It is ȝour deutie according to formall procei­ding, [Page] to impung my warrand,If this be shif­ting or not let men iu­dge. quhilk I haue chosen, to defend my diffinition be, and artickle euen as it is writtin.

Protesting that this mekle is win, that the Sacrifice of the masse, being denied by me to be a Sacrifice Propiciatorie for the sinnes of y^e quick and the dead,Let men now iudge whit­ther the messe gat a wond or not. according to the opinion thereof before conceaued, hath no patron, at this presēt: I am content to procede.

I protest that he hes win nothing of me as ȝit, and referres it, to black and quhite, contened in our writing.

I haue openlie denied the masse to be an Sa­crifice Propiciatorie for the quick.Note. &c. and the de­fence thereof is denied. And therefore I referre me vnto the same iudges that my Lorde hath clamed.

Ȝe may deny quhat ȝe pleis, for all that ȝe de­ny I tak not presentlie to impung, bot quhair I began thair wil I end,Shift on that is, to defend y^e messe, conforme to my artickle.

Seing that neither the name, the action, the opinion, nor the actor of the masse, can be defen­ded for this present, I wold glaidly knowe what I should impung.

All aboue rehearsed can be defended, and salbe [Page 14] defended (Godwilling),I did nothing but as my lord commā ­ded and quhair ȝe are glaid to knaw, quhat ȝe sould impung, apperanlie that sould be na newinges to ȝow, for I certifie ȝow ȝe sould impung my warrād alledged for defence of my diffinition and artickle.

If be your warrand,Haue at your ground. ye vnderstand the obla­tion made in bread and wine by Melchisedec, I plainly deny, that Melchisedec made any oblati­on or Sacrifice, of bread and wine vnto God, and desires the text to be iudge.

It is ȝour pairt to impung, and myne to de­fend, for I am the defender, and salbe Godwil­ling.

Can I impung more plane, then when I de­nie your ground?

I say the denying of the ground is na proper impugnation.

Your lordships ground is, that Melchisedec is the figure of Christe, in that,Let men iudge now if my lords ground for the messe be not sha­ken. that he did offer vnto God bread and wine, and therefore y^t it be­houed Iesus Christe to offer in his latter supper his bodie and blood, vnder the formes of bread and wine. I answer to your ground, yet againe, that Melchisedec offered neither bread nor wine vnto God. And therefore it, that ye wold there­upon conclude hath no assurance of your groūd.

[Page]Preue that.

Whether that the probatiō of a negatiue, should be deuolued vpon me, especially when I haue denied your chief ground, I am content the le­arned iudge.

Moued throuch feruor of the tryall of y^e treuth of Goddes worde, I refuse logik captious ca­uillationis for the present (not perchance for ig­norance) bot y^t we tyne not tyme,Gather what is spoken. to finnish and establis our godlie pretence for the ease and qui­etnes of the conscience of the noble men heir pre­sent.

I haue els protested, that I abhor all cauilla­tiones, and yet againe declares vnto your lord­ship, that in my iudgement it is the way moste succinct, y^t your lordship proue your own groūd, that is, that Melchisedec, offered vnto God bre­ad and wine, which I denie.

I tak the text to be my warrand and ground.

The text being red, the 14. of Genesis. There is no mentiō made of any oblation of bread and wine, made by Melchisedec vnto God, but one­lie y^t Melchisedec being King of Salem,Gen. 14. broght forth bread and wine. And that being Priest of the moste hie God, he blessed Abraham as the text beareth witnes. And therefore I say that the text, preueth not that any oblation of bread [Page 15] and wine, was made vnto God by Melchisedec.

Ȝe do affirm that Melchisedec brocht furth bread and wine. I speir at ȝow to what effect?Iudge now if my lord shiftes.

Will ye deuolue vpon me now, the persone of an answerer, seing that ye refused your self of before the same?

This quhilk he calles answering, is mair ꝓ­perlie to be called impungnation in this cace,Marck what is confessed by my lord. in that, finding the text to serue nothing for my pur­pose, is plaine impungnation to my pretence.

And swa are ȝe cled rather with the personage of ane impungnar, nor ane defendar.

Whether that I susteane the personage of an impungner, or of an defender, I am not bound to answer, what wes done with the bread and wine, after that it was broght forth. It suffiseth to me for my formar purpose, that there is no mention made in the text, that bread and wine by Melchisedec was offered vnto God.

It ryndes to ȝow to preif,Let the learned Iudge if this be trew. that Melchisedec made no oblation of bread and wine vnto God.

It suffiseth to me, that in the text there is no mention made that Melchisedec, made any ob­lation of bread and wine vnto God, as ye before alledged, and hath laide for your ground.

[Page]I say the wordes of the text ar plain that Mel­chisedec maid oblation of bread and wine vnto God,Note if so be. and desires ȝow to impreue the same be the text.

My inprobation is alreadie ledd. For in the text there is no mētion of oblation of bread and wine made vnto God. And therefore I am con­tent, that the whole world iudge, whether the ground be not sufficientlie inprouen or not.

Melchisedec brocht furth bread and wine, quhilk he did not without cause, and ȝe deny yat he brocht it furth,Cōsider in what straitnes my lord was now, for the cause, that I alledge, ergo, for some other cause. Quhilk gif ȝe wil not, nor can not shaw presentlie, I sall do deligence to cause the present auditor vnderstand cleirly, that he brocht furth bread and wine for the cause alledged be me. Prouiding that gif ȝe will not shaw the cause presently, that ȝe sal haue no pla­ce to shaw it heirefter.

I answer, that he broght forth bread & wine, the text plainly affirmeth, and I haue alreadie granted. But that he made oblatiō of the same, because the text ꝑporteth it not, I can not grāt it. As touching the cause wherefore he broght it for­th (if place shal be giuen to coniectors, and that not groūded without great probabilitie, and also with sufrage of some of the ancients, to wit, Io­sephus & Chrysostom.) It may be said that Mel­chisedec being an King, broght forth bread and [Page 16] wine, to refresh Abraham and his werie souldi­ors. And this, for your satisfaction of the cause, why he broght forth bread and wine: euer still sticking vpon the principal groūd. That because no mention is made, that Melchisedec made ob­lation of bread and wine vnto God, I deny it, as of before.

Of Iohn Knox saying is aboue reheirsed, I con­ceaue twa heides in special, the ane is,This was the beginni­ng of the second dayes trauell after that my lord had slea­ped. that Mel­chisedec maid na oblation vnto God, dot he did bring furth the bread and wine, to refresh Abra­ham and his companie. I will answer vnto the saides heides formally, and on this maner. First I wil mak impugnatiō vnto ye last heid quhair it is thocht that he did refresh Abraham and his companie. In that the text is manifest in ye con­trar, in sa far as the text testifies, that Abraham and his company war refreshed be the spolȝe of the enimies, and was not refreshed,Let my Lordes argumēt be noted nor mistered na refreshing of Melchisedec, quhairfore it is ma­nifest that Melchisedec brocht furth bread and wine vnto ane vther effect, nor to refresh Abra­ham and his companie.

My formar proue, that Melchisedec, did not offer bread and wine vnto God, standeth vpon this ground, that the text maketh mention of no maner oblation made there vnto God of bread and wine. And therefore in a mater of so great importance, darre not I affirme oblation to be [Page] made, whill that the holy Ghost kepeth silence. And now vnto my Lordes argument,Answer to the formar argumēt first, I answer, that there is no contradiction betuix these two, Abraham and his company, were re­freshed of the spoolies of there enimies: and A­braham and his company were refreshed of the liberalitie of Melchisedec. And first, because in the tyme when Abraham and his company re­ceaued there nourishement of the substance of there enimies, they were out of the presence of Melchisedec: and not returned vnto there coū ­trie. But albeit that they had bene euen in the presence of Melchisedec, yet they might haue bene nourished, partlie be his liberalitie, and partlie be there owne prouision. And thridly be­cause the text doeth not affirme that Abraham and his, wer nourished onely of the spoile. I can not admit my Lordes argument.

For satisfaction of the auditoure, and to cum quicklie to the point without drifting of tyme I will refuse reasoning, after scoolmaner, and will go ȝit to the text, and depend thairupon. And on this maner sayaud (Saif onely that, quhilk the ȝong men hes eatin) I inferr of this text, that it dois appeir, ȝe and is manifest, that thair rema­ned mair nor was eitin, be Abraham and his company, for the present.

I do not deny, but there remaned substance, which wes neither eatin nor consumed by Abra­ham and his company, but what shalbe hereof [Page 17] concluded?

I infer yat not onely thair remaned substance, bot thair remaned mekle mair substance, nor A­braham and his company was able to consume, ȝea, and to gif ane great deale away, for quhy, Abraham was victor of foure Kingis, quhair­throuch he obtened ane great spolȝe, & not onely of foure, bot also he gat the spolȝe of vther fyue, and gat all thair viuers and meat, quhairthrouch it is manifest be ye verray plaine text that Abra­ham and his company, had mekle mair meat nor they war able to consume, and swa mistered he nor his company na refresching of Melchisedec, considering he and his company was bot ane meine nomber (as I wold say) thre hundreth & auchtene.

The victorie of Abraham is in the text speci­fied, as also the nomber of the Kinges vainque­shed. And that there remaned substance, yea, me­kle more then was spent; I do not deny. But this wil not necessarlie conclude, but that Mel­chisedec of his liberalitie broght forth bread and wine, to the purpose forsaid: as be coniecture, is moste probable. For men of godlines and ciuill honestie, do not onely shaw them selues, liberal in tyme of extreme necessitie, but also wil declair there beneuolence without great neid, yea, and in greatest aboundance.

Because Iohn Knox speakis of substance in­differentlie, [Page] I will desire him to declair his opi­nion, conforme to the text, quhither Abraham and his company, recouered of the nyne Kingis spolȝeis bread and wine, and vther sustenance, quhilk treulie, albeit the text do not proport the same in plaine wordes, ȝit can na man of iudge­ment think vtherwise, as I can gif many hun­dreth examples in the Scriptures, and ane in speciall, quhair Iesus Christ our Lorde speakis in his awin prayer, called the Pater noster, of day­lie bread, quhairinto is to be vnderstand all re­quired vnto the sustentation of man, albeit the text dois not expresly declair the samin.

I haue spoken of substance in generall, so in­structed by the plaine text, which maketh men­tion neither of bread nor wine, in expressed wor­des, other nor of that which Melchisedec broght forth. And by all apperance, there could not any great store, of bread and wine be caried back a­gaine, by Abraham and his company, after the victorie of his enimies. For plaine it is, that he broght nothing back, which they before did not carie away (him self and his company onely ex­cepted) we read that they toke the pray of So­dom and Gomorra, and caried with them the substance,Let this cōiectur serue for answer to my lords ar­gumemt yea, & the victual, Loth, his substāce. &c. Now albeit that in the beginning there vic­tualles had bene great, yet being suche a compa­ny as we may iustlie suppose them to haue bene: and also being arriued within there own costes, it is not appearīg that great store wes reserued. [Page 18] But howsoeuer it be, this mater standing in cō ­iecture, we wil of necessitie conclud no thing, se­ing that the holie Ghost hath not expressed it. As touching my Lordes allegation, of the daylie bread. &c. I acknowledge with his lordschip that to be the familiar phrase of the Scripture, that vnder the name of bread, is commonly ta­ken all thinges necessar for the vse of mānes bo­die, like as these, Frange efurienti panem tuum. &c.

Hauand consideration, that Iohn Knox, wald cast in ane suspicion in the hartes of the honora­ble auditor (saifand his pardone) be continual repeticion of this word coniecture, we wil do as God will giue vs grace, to tak this policie out of the hartes of the auditor, and that by proper discription of argumentes of inferrence or con­iecture, quhairfore the auditor sall consider, that thair is sum conietures and argumentes of in­ferrēce quhilk necessarlie concludes and follow­es vpon.Let the learned consider this pro­per dis­cription of coniectural ar­gumēts whiche do neces­sarly cō ­clude. And arcalled nottheles argumentes of coniecture or inferrence, because the ane worde is not the other, nor dois not expresly conclud the other, as for ane familiar example, Spirat, ergo viuit, as I wald say, he aindes ergo he liues. Quhairfore I infer that this conference of phra­se, or maner of speach quhair it is said in the text, al thair victuallis, necessarly inferris breid wine, and all vther thingis expedient to be eatin, cōsi­dering thair was great aboundance in the cite­is quhilk war spolȝeit as do this phrase, break vnto the hungrie thy bread, and swa quhatsum­euer [Page] may be inferred of the ane phrase, necessar­lie may be inferred of the vther.

Hitherto I haue trauelled, to make difference betuix that, that man of necessitie is boūd to be­leue, and that which man may either beleue, or not beleue, without any hurt of conscience.

What God in expressed wordes and sentences, hath committed to vs within the Scriptures & cōmanded the same to be beleued, he requireth of vs that necessarlie we beleue the same. But where the spirit of God hath keped silence, and hath not in plaine sentences, declared vnto vs the will of God our Father, there may a man suspend his iudgement, without hurt of consci­ence, yea, and more sure it is, not bouldlie to af­firme, that which is keped close, by the wisdome of God: then that we should rashelie affirme any thing, without the warrand of Gods worde as we are taught by the admonition of Augustine. As touching y^e diuersitie of arguments. I know bothe the strength of them, that are called Neces­sario Concludentia, and of those whiche stand in probabilitie,The groūd of fayth is the word of God reuealed which bothe I grant to haue the strength in persuasion: but the faith of man re­quireth a surer ground, then any argument that can be deduced from nature (to wit) it requireth hearing, and that hearing of the worde of God, according to the doctrine of the Apostle. Now to my Lordes argument, I say it doeth not ne­cessarlie conclude, that Abraham and his souldi­ors broght more reddie meat, suche as bread and [Page 19] wine back from there victorie, then they were able to spend, albeit that they caried with them the whole substance, yea,That is the Kin­gs vicust by Abraham the whole victualles of Sodom and Gomorra. &c. Because that in the iorney some might haue bene lossed, in the iorney no dout but muche wes spent, and in the victorie the rest might haue bene dispersed or lost. For by all apperance Abraham had smal respect to bread & wine,Let the reader aduert. more then to that which might reasonablie susteane him and his company vnto there returne. And thus from coniecture we shal cōtinually pas to cōiecture, onles that my Lord be able to proue, that the text affirmeth in plane wordes, that suche superflouous aboundance of bread and wine wes broght back, vnto the time that Melchisedec met him (& althogh his Lor­dship be able so to do as I am assured no man is able) yet shal alwayes Melchisedec and his libiralitie stand still vnconuicted.

To meit all the heides cōtened in Iohn Knox, partickle aboue rehearsed, notwithstandinge appearanlie I am constrained to the same. Ȝit alwayes in fauoris of the auditure,Let the indiffirēt iudge I will go schortlie to sum speciall heides. And first quhair he makes ane meine, that I go by naturall res­sonis to persuade, to take the suspicion of men iustly of me in this heid, I say and do affirme, y^t I haue done not in that cause as ȝit, bot cōforme to the Scriptures althrouch. And quhair Iohn Knox speakis in general of meat, our contention was for bread and wine, quhilk I inferred ne­cessarlie of the text. And desires him to giue me [Page] ane resson schortlie, grounded vpon the Scrip­ture, quhairfore the phrase alledged be me con­cerning the meat sal not include bread and wine asweil as his phrase concerning the bread, be his opinion, without expres Scripture sall include all kinde of vther meatis.

I purge me first, that I neither burden my Lorde, with informalitie, neither yet, that his lordship, trauelleth by naturall reason onelie, to persuade to man. But because the whole state of the cause (as I vnderstand) standeth in this, whether that Abraham and his souldiors broght back againe, superfluitie of bread & wine or not, I haue desired the same to be prouen by the expressed worde. The phrase is not mine onely, but I did aggre with my Lorde,Let all men iu­dge if this rea­son be not fuf­ficient. bringing in the same first. And now why I think that Abraham, and his, broght no superfluitie of bread and wine back againe? the reason is, because the text do­eth plainlie affirme, that victualles, besydes the other substance, wes caried away by the enimi­es. But that any victualles, besydes the substāce were broght back againe, there is no specifica­tion.

Because I perceaue Iohn Knox, dois not meit the heid of my partickle quhair I do mark the conferrence, betuix the phrases of the Scrip­tures alledged be vs baith: quhairin (efter my iudgement) consistes the marckis point of the purpose, I will trauell na further thairin, not­withstanding [Page 20] that I haue ground of ye Scrip­ture abundantlie. And swa I wil go to ane v­ther heid, to assure the reader that Melchisedec brocht not furth bread & wine, to refresch Abra­ham and his company, I wil ground me proper­lie vpon the text, and on this maner. The text sayis, Protulit or proferens, quhilk is in the singu­lar nomber as, ane, person bringand furth bread and wine, quhairfore necessarlie it concludes he brocht not furth bread and wine to refresch ane multitude, as Abraham and his company was, quhllk was not possible to ane person to do: but onelie to mak Sacrifice conforme to my begin­ning.

What I haue answered, the beneuolent rea­der shall after iudge, to the present coniecture of my Lorde, I answer that if Melchisedec allone without al cōpany had broght onely furth so mu­che bread & wine, as he wes able goodly to carie, yet shal it not be necessarlie concluded that there­fore he broght it not forth to gratifie Abraham, for an small portion may oftentymes be thank­full to many, but my Lorde appeareth to shoote at that ground, whiche I haue not laid for my principal. And therefore albeit his lordship shuld win it, yet my formar strength were litle demi­nished (in my iudgement) for onles his lordship, be able to proue by the ꝑtaine wordes of the text that the bread and wine wer broght forth to be offered vnto God, my principall ground doeth alwayes abyde. But y^e phrase of the Scripture, [Page] and als the ordinarie manere of speaking, do­eth often tymes attribute to the principall man, that which at his cōmandement, or wil is done, by his seruandes or subiectes, whereof I offer my self, to shaw in Scriptures, mo testimonies then one, with tyme. And yet this is not my chief ground, but this I speak for explaning of the text.

Of the formar pertickle I mark twa heides in speciall, quhilk dois not onely giue apperance for my pretence, bot plainlie dois conuict, as the godlie and ineffectionat reader may cleirly per­ceaue. The first heid is, quhair Iohn Knox dois allege that Melchisedec brocht furth bread and wine,Cōsider what shifts my lord sou­ght. to refresch Abraham and his werie com­panie, quhilk plainly differis fra his speaking present, say and that it was to gratifie Abraham and his company, quhairinto thair is sic mani­fest diffirence as it giues plaine persuasion, his ground in this heid to be nochtis. Secondly, it is against the ordur of nature, to think that ony ane man (lat be ane King and ane Preist) sould bring furth that might gratifie, lat be to refresch sic ane multitude as, thre hundreth and auch­tene werie personis.

What my Lordes iudgement doeth moue in the harts of the auditure, I remitt to there own iudgement, but I plainly affirme: that neither in my worde, nor in my dytment is, there any such repugnance or diffirence, as iustlie may conuict [Page 21] me to haue an euil ground. For in my formar sayinges, my wordes were, that by probable coniecture, the bread & wine were broght forth by Melchisedec, to refresh Abraham and his we­rie company. I did not affirme,Note that he and his whole cōpanie were thereof wholylie refreshed. And in my latter wordes, I say, that albeit there had bene no more bread and wine, then Melchi­sedec onely broght forth, yet doeth it not thereof necessarlie conclude, y^t the same were not broght forth, to gratifie Abraham. In which maner of speach, this terme gratifie, doeth nether repung, nor yet differ, from the terme refresh, otherwise, commonlie doeth in maner of speach Benus and Species, that is to say, the more generall, and the inferior. For in sofar as Abraham and his com­pany were refreshed by the bread & wine (were it neuer so litle) in sofar doeth he bring it forth, to gratifie him. Protesting plainly, that vnwil­linglie I am compelled thus to answer.

And thus endeth the second dayes trauell, all whole spent to answer my Lordes shifting.

Whereto he wes moued, because he wes not a­ble to proue that Melchisedec offered bread and wine vnto God, as willinglie ones he tooke to proue.

As dois Iohn Knox, sa do I with all my hart, remit me to the iudgemente of the auditor, in this heid: and will not report the heides, of his formar pertickle for auoiding of prolixtnes.

But now will I conclude with ane argument.

Quhatsūeuer opinion is conceaued of the Scip­tures of almichtie God, hauand na expres testi­monie nor apperance of the same, is alluterlie to be refused (as sayis Iohn Knox him self). Bot swa it is, that Iohn Knox a win opinion, conce­aued or contracted of the Scripture, cōcerning the bringing forth of bread and wine, by Melchi­sedec, to refresche or gratifie Abraham and his werie company, is not expresly contened in the Scripture, nor hes na apperance of the samin: therefore it followis weill, that it is alluterlie be his awin iudgement to be refused.

Moued on godlie zeill (honorable auditor) that in this dangerous tyme, the treuth sould cum to tryall, in sic maner, as the conscience of sic, as ar perturbed (safar as lies in oure sober possibilitie) sould be establesed, and at quietnes: we set furth certane artickles (as plesed God to gif vs grace) vnto the quhilkis, Iohn Knox tuik on hand to mak impungnation: specially to the artickle concerning the messe. Day houre & place beand appointed and obserued, I come to defēd my artickles, and in speciall my artickle concer­ning the messe.Let the blindest amongs the Pa­pistes iudge. And according to the samin, tuik me properlie to my warrand, grounded vpone Goddes word: vnto the quhilk warrand, Iohn Knox, as ȝit hes maid na impungnation, bot de­syred me to sustene and defend the name, the ac­tor, the ceremonies, the opinion of men cōceaued [Page 22] of the messe, and gif it wes ane Sacrifice Propi­ciatorie. I beand willed, that we schortlie sould go to the ground, and effect, and substance of the purpose quhairfore we come, I stude be my artickle and warrand, as they ar written: not refusand to defend, the heides aboue reheirsed, as tyme and place sould serue. And notwithstā ­ding that I was sufficientlie grounded vpon Gods worde, quhilk I tuik to be my warrand,Note that my Lorde confesses that he wes per­sewer & that he hes hurt his own cause. and tuik lykewise vpon me, farr aboue my ha­bilitie, the place and personage of ane defender: nottheles throuch occasion that serued (as work will beir witnes) I was cōstrained to tak vpon me the personage of ane persewer, farre by my appetit, ȝea, and the weill of my cause: and als by the opinion of all sic as wald the weill of the samin, moued on godlie zeill (as God be iudge) that the trueth sould cum to a tryal,Sed sero sapiunt Poriges. to the plea­sure of God, and satisfaction of the honorable auditor, I beand cled with the personage of ane impungnar, expres contrar to my mynd, for sic causes as ar abone reheirsed, I maid impūg­nation, not be manlie imaginationis, bot be the manifest worde of God. And that thre maner of wayes,Let your freinds yet iudge first to tak away Iohn Knox conceaued opinion, that Melchisedec brocht furth bread & wine, to refresche or gratifie Abraham and his werie company, I called to remembrance, how that the spulȝeis of nyne Kingis, and of certain citeis to, was recouered be Abraham, quhairthr­ouch, he and his company, was sufficientlie re­fresched, and had yneuch to be refresched on, swa [Page] that they mistered not to be refreshed with breid and wine of Melchisedec. Secondlie quhair Io. Knox maid question, that they had not bread & wine. I returned againe to the text, to werifie the samin. Quhilk sayes, and all thingis, perte­nand vnto meat. Inferrand that in this phrase, was contened bread and wine, conforme to the phrase of the Scripture, quhair mention is maid onelie of bread, contenand all thingis necessar for mānis sustentacion, he find and this not suffi­cient satisfaction. Ȝit ȝeid I not to mānis imagination, bot to the plaine text, and grounded me vpon the wordes of the text sayand. Melchi­sedec brocht furth bread and wine. Inferrand, in that it was spokē in the thrid person singular,How shal that be pro­uen. it was against the ordoure of nature, to think that ane mā, sould bring furth (especially he that was ane King and ane preist) to tak that paines to bring furth bread and wine, that micht grati­fie (lat be to refresch) thre hūdreth and auchtene men. Seand that inuinsible persuations, proper­lie gathered vpon the text,But did nor does not so appeir to others. could na wise bring Iohn Knox, to confesse that thing quhilk appe­red vnto me conforme to the Scriptures of al­michtie God, and all gude resson he sould haue confessed. Then concluded I with the Scrip­tures,Nor yet will do to hurt a iust cause as I did begin, as my conclusion wil beir witnes, that he wald haue iustified his opinion conceiued of the Scripture, cōform to his awin sayingis, be the expres word of God. And of my liberalitie wil grant him ȝit, gif he hes any ma­ner of apperance of the samin, notwithstanding he said to me, he wald not gif me ane hair of his [Page 23] heid, gif I sould stand thir seuen ȝeires.

Protesting first, that I may answer, in writ, vnto the formar argument (because as I per­ceiue it wes before conceiued in writ) I enter in shortlie vnto the long discourse, made by my Lorde: not willing to answer euerie part there­of, but onely so muche, as may appear to infirme the iust cause. And first, where that my Lorde affirmeth, that I haue made no impungnation vnto his lordships artickle concerning the masse, I am content, that not onelie this honorable au­dience, but also the whole earth be iudge, in that point. For I haue plainly denied,Note, that ether the masse, hath approbation of the plaine worde of God, ether in name, action, opinion (to witt written of the masse, taucht of the masse, and in the conscience of men, conceiued of the masse) & finally that the actor therof, for his vsurped power, hath no greater assurance of Gods wor­de. Which whole heades being denyed to be dis­puted, at the present, against my Lordrs artickle and ground, I did thus reason: that his lorde­ship wes not able to proue that Christ Iesus, in his latter Supper did offer his bodie and blood vnto God his Father, vnder the formes of bread and wine. His lordeship taking for his proue, the alledged Sacrifice of Melchisedec in bread and wine, offered vnto God. I did lykewise deny, that Melchisedec did at that tyme (to wit in the presence of Abraham) offer ether bread or wine vnto God, which hath bene these two dayes by­past [Page] in controuersie betuix his lordeship and me. I haue alwayes denied, that the holy Spirit, in any notable or euident place of Scripture do­eth affirme suche an sacrifice to haue bene made by Melchisedec vnto God: & whil y^e I did hear no place of Scripture adduced, for the approbation thereof, my Lorde demandand of me, what then I thoght wes done with the bread & wine, I answered, that albeit, I wes not bound to giue my iudgement, because that he wes bound to proue his affirmatiue (as yet I say he is boūd) and thereof I wilbe content,Consid­der what iudges I admit that his lordshipes moste fauorable freindes, of best iudgemēt, yea, euen if his Lordeship please, the Lordes of the Session, be iudges in that point. I answered, I say, that be coniecture, the bread and wine were broght furth by Melchisedec, to refreshe Abra­ham, and his werie company. Vpon which oc­casion, his lordship (how iustlie let all mē iudge) did cleith him self againe,Contrar the obiectiō made of impossibilitie & that it was against na­ture that Melchi­sedec al­lone sho­uld brīg forth bread. &c. without my procure­ment, with the personage of ane impungnar.

And did adduce suche thinges, as best pleased his lordship, whereto I did answer, as y^e whole conference will report, and as I suppose, suffi­cientlie to euerie thing obiected, except that be­cause my Lord did not touche the exposition al­ledgede by me, vpon the wordes, Melchisedec allone did bring forth bread and wine (as my Lorde alledgeth) I differed to bring in the con­ference of Scriptures, to proue that it is an thing in Scripture verrie commone, that the thing, that is done at the cōmand of any notable [Page 24] persone, is attributed vnto him self, althogh it be done, be seruandes or subiectes at his com­mand, which I do now shortlie. It is said in Scripture, that Noie did all that God cōman­ded him: and plaine it is, that God cōmanded him to make the Arck,Gen. 6.7. which wes ī building the full space of a hundreth yeares. God further cō ­manded him to furnish the Arck with all kynde of victualles, which the text affirmeth, that he did. Now if we shal conclude, that Noie allone cutted euerie tree, Noie allone did hew euerie tree, and so forth: it appeareth to me that we shal conclude a great absurditie. The same is euidēt in Dauid, of whome mention is made, that he being Prophet and King,2 Sam. [...] deuided to the whole people, yea, vnto the whole multitude of Israel, yea, bothe to men and women, an portion of bread, an portion of flesh, and an portion of wine.

If we shall think, that Dauid did this with his own hand, we shall conclude in my appea­rance, y^e formar absurditie. The same is manifest by many other phrases, yea, and by our daylie maner of speaking. And therefore yet as of before. I think my Lordes exposition coact, in that he will admit none to haue broght forth the bread and wine, but Melchisedec allone. But howso­euer it be, it moueth me nothing, for vnto suche tyme, as that my Lorde, in plaine wordes pro­nounced by the holy Goste, proue that Melchi­sedec, did offer vnto God bread and wine: he hath prouen nothing of that, which he took on hand to proue. And therefore I greatlie feare, [Page] that whill that,The best ground, culd find no grou­nd with­in the word of God. which his lordeship calleth the best, is so long in finding an sure ground within the Scripture, that the rest in the end, be found altogether groundles, at the least within y^e boke of God. And therefore I desyre, as of before, to hear his lordshipes probation of the principal.

I am sorie that we ar contrined on this ma­ner, to driue tyme, ather parteis in iustification of his a win cause: bot wisses quicklie to go to the markis point, as I haue euer done, conforme to my artickle and to my warrand: and makis the haile warld to iudge, quhither it is my deutie, efter formall ressoning, to defend the saides ar­tickles, or to proue, or to impung. Quhair Iohn Knox makis ane meine, that I haue brocht my argumēts or purposes in writ: quhat I haue in worde or writ, or vtherwayes, I praise God.

Bot the trueth is, according to my custome, I maid memorie, efter my repose, of sic heides, as I thocht, I was able to haue busines ado with all. And that I did be the grace of God onely, not that I am eschamed to be learned with ony man that wil teach me. And as to the conclusiō of his partickle, quhair he dois mak meine, yat I haue na groūd of the Scripture for the messe (as he beleuis) will God sall frustrat his expec­tation in that,When ye perform promes let men beleue you. and all vthers. And assures him will God sall iustifie the messe als sufficientlie, conforme to my artickle, as he and all the rest of his opinion in christendome, salbe able to iustifie be expres Scripture, or ony vther meine, that [Page 25] Iesus Christe is ane substance with the Father.Homonsi­on siue cō ­substantialis And that it be not thocht that thir ar wantone wordes, like as the mater sould not cum to pas, bot that I wald trifle the mater: I will desyre Iohn Knox maist humblie & hartlie, for Christes saike, lat vs go schortlie without trifling to the purpose, and lat wark beir witnes. And swa re­quires, to resume my argument, and say thereto formalie as effeires.

Because that euerie man muste giue accomp­tes before God, not onely of his workes, but also of his wordes and thoghts. I will make no fur­ther protestation, whether that I haue defended hitherto my own opinion, or a manifest treuth, or whether that I haue impungned any treuth of God, or a manifest lie (let this be said with reuerence of all persones, for the iustnes of the cause) leauing, I say, the iudgement to God: I say that I haue in plaine termes iustlie oppung­ned bothe the groūdes, broght forth by my Lord, for defence of his artickle. For in plaine wordes, I haue denied, that Iesus Christe, into his lat­ter Supper, did make any Sacrifice of his bo­die and blood, vnder the formes of bread and wine, vnto God his Father. And lykewise I haue denyed, that Melchisedec did offer vnto God, bread and wine as of before. which groū ­des, because my Lorde hath not hitherto ꝓuen, I must hold them as impunged and oppūgned: euer whill, I hear the ground of Melchisedec, plainly prouen, by plaine Scripture (to wit) [Page] that the plaine Scripture say, that Melchisedec offered vnto God bread and wine:Let my lord an­swer when he pleases. or that it be of any plaine and euident Scripture, plainlie conuicted, that so he did. His lordship, oght not to think it strange, althogh I require to answer in writ, to that argument, which his Lordeship hath ꝓponded, conceaued before, and cōmitted in writ, for such I take to be, the libertie of all fre disputations. Whose lauboure it wes, or is, I no­thing regard. For so long as God doeth minister vnto me, spirit & life, with iudgement and habili­tie, I intend (by his grace) til oppūg, that which in my cōscience I hold to be damnable idolatrie. And where his lordship sayeth, that he is als a­ble to affirme the masse (which I impung) to be the ordinance of God, as that I or any of my o­pinion, is able to proue Iesus Christe to be one substance with the Father:Let the godlie iudge if the masse & Christ Iesus & his di­uinitie oght to hing in one bal­lance. with reuerēce of his lordshipes personage blood, and honor, and with the reuerence & pacience, of the whole auditor, I say, that the assercion is not onelie rashe, but also moste dangerous, yea, and in a part blasphe­mous. For, for to compare the greatest mysterie, yea, the whole assurance of our redemptiō, with that, which as it hath bene vsed, hath no appro­bation of Gods worde (for that I haue impūg­ned, and intendes to impung) can not lack sus­pition, of a lightlie esteaming of our redemptiō. And to cut the matter short, the formar question being decided (to wit whither that Melchisedec, did offer vnto God bread and wine) I offer my self, without further delay, to proue, that Iesus [Page 26] Christe, is of one substance with the Father: and that by the euident testimonies of Gods Scrip­tures. And therefore yet as of before, I humbly require his lordeship, to prepare him for his pro­bation of the formar, to witt, of the oblation of Melchisedec.

Quhair Iohn Knox dois affirme, that in plaine termis, he hes iustlie impunged, baith ye groūd­es, brocht furth be me, for defēce of my artickles. I answer, I deny that he hes maid ony impūg­nation. And quhair he sayes, that in plaine wor­des, he hes denied, that Iesus Christe, into his latter Supper, did make ony Sacrifice of his bodie and blude, vnder the formes of bread and wine, vnto God his Father: or that Melchise­dec did offer vnto God bread and wine,Your warrād is so weak that it neides no other impug­nation, thē to say it is not as of be­fore. I answer, that it is his deutie to mak im­pugnation, to my assercion, conform to my war­rand, for denying, is na proper nor sufficient im­pugnation. And quhair he sayes, that because I haue not hidderto prouen the saides groūdis. &c. I answer, that it is my deutie to defend and not to preif, conform to my artickle, & my war­rand. And quhair he desyres tyme to answer to my argument, ꝓponed this day in writ, I frely grant it vnto him. And quhair Iohn Knox sayes,Then ye ouersaw yourself. yat my assertiō is not onely rashe, bot also maist dangerous, ȝea, and in ane pairt, blasphemous. I answer, that quhair he sayes, I am to rashe: I wis his modestnes in this samin, sic as becū ­is ane sinceir christiane, like as he is reckned to [Page] be.Blasphemie is blasphe­mie be­fore that mā pro­ue it. And quhair he callis my assertiō in ane pairt blasphemous: than had bene tyme to haue cal­led it blasphemie, quhen he had prouen it in deid sufficientlie. And quhair he sayes, it is dange­rous, thair is na danger, it be and vnderstand, as I say, and treulie meines. For I am mair nor assured, that Iesus Christ our Lord, is ane sub­stance with the Father,Not as papistes haue v­sed it. & als that Iesus Christ is the author and institutor of the messe. And swa dois not ane veritie, mak impugnation to ane vther. Bot in this maner of speaking, I wil plaine my industrie, giuen vnto me be the grace of God,Aduerr what ye speak. willing to contrafit the wisdome and prudence, of the wise and prudēt medicinar (for we are, and sould be of resson, medicinars to the saule) for lyke as the prudent medicinar, dois expell ane vennome or poysome, be contrapoy­sone. Swa wald I expel the damnable herisies, of the Caluinistes,My lord wolde haue bursen if this byle had not bro­ken. Lutherians, and Accolam­padians, against ye blissed Sacrifice of ye messe, be conference with the damnable herisies of the Arrians, quha did alledge ten testimonies of Scripture for ane, geuand mair appearance, to preif that Christ was not ane substance with the Father: nor dois the Caluinistes, Lutherians, and Aecolampadians, to preif that the messe, is idolatrie: as I fall sufficientlie iustifie, as may stand to the glorie of God, and weil of my cause. To the latter pairt, quhair he sayes, to cut the mater schort, the f [...]r [...]nar question be and decided (to wit quhither that Melchisedec did offer breid and wine vnto God or not) he offeris him selfe [Page 27] without farther delay, to proue yat Iesus Christ is ane substance with the Father. &c. I answer to the hinder pairt of this partickle. I wis of God, he and all vthers of his opinion mistered als lytle probation or persuasion, to the ane, as I do to the vther, as I wald say, to beleue the messe, to be the institution of Christ Iesus, as I do mair nor assuredlie beleue, Christe to be ane substance with the Father,That ar you ne­uer able to do. and desyres na pro­bation thereof: bot sall God will and preif ye ane be the Scripture als expres, as he sall preif ye vther. And quhair he humblie desyres me, to prepair me for the probatiō of the formar (to wit of the oblation of Melchisedec) I humblie and hartlie desyre Iohn Knox, as he will testifie his feruor, that the treuth cum to ane tryall, and as he will satisfie the expectation of the noble audi­tor, that he will mak impugnation formallie ac­cording to his deutie, to my last argument and conclusion.

Where my Lord to vnburden him self of that, which by all reason, he oght to susteane, to wit, to proue his affirmatiue, by him self proponed,Your lordship took to proue your gr­ound by the text, and that you haue not don. sayeth, that to deny, is not properlie to impung. I answer, that in that cace, it is moste proper. For he that ꝓponeth for him self an affirmatiue, and his aduersar denying the same, is euer still boūd to the probation thereof, and the aduersar hath euer still impungned it, vnto he proue it, and thereupon I desire iudgement. To the Se­cond, I stil affirme that it is his lordships deutie, [Page] to proue his affirmatiue, whereupō standeth the victorie of his whole cause: w^c is be me in plaine wordes denyed. To the thrid, I thank his lord­ship hartlie,And that he hes receaued and promises vnto him an answer, againe in writ, this present conference being put to an sufficient end. To the fourt. As my prote­station will witnes, I speak against the asserciō onelie and not against the persone: whiche yet (in my iudgement) lacketh not suspicion of the formar crimes. For howsoeuer my Lord be per­suaded of the ground and assurance of the messe (the assurance whereof I haue not yet hard) I my self am fully assured, that there be mo then ten thousand, which euidentlie do knowe, the vanitie and impietie of that masse, which I haue impungned: who nottheles, moste constantlie beleue Iesus Christe, to be of one substance with the Father: yea, that do beleue, whatsoeuer by the Scriptures of God, can be prouen necessa­rie, for y^e saluation of man. Therefore yet againe, I say, that to lay in any maner of equalitie, that which is moste sure, and that which was neuer yet plainlie prouen by the Scriptures of God, to be the institution of Iesus Christ: is more sub­iect to the crymes foresaid, then that I can be subiect to any suspicion of immodestie for my for­mar wordes. To the blasphemie, I answer, as before. Immediatlie to the sext. How that euer my Lord vnderstandeth and meaneth, that his lordship is als able, to proue the masse to be the institutiō of Iesus Christ, as I am able to proue Christ, to be one substance with the Father: I [Page 28] think that an great nomber will think my lords affirmation, verrie hard to be prouen. And I my self will still continually dout, vnto the tyme, I hear the probation led. To the seuent, as touch­ing my Lordes comparison of the mediciner, and of his lordships industrie. What the pastors of y^e Church oght to be, the Scriptures plainly do teach vs: but what vniuersallie they haue bene these nyne hundreth yeares bypast, histories, ex­perience, and recent memorie, hath taught vs, yea, and presentlie do teach vs: to the great greif of all Christianitie. Where that his lordship do­eth in plaine termes, condempn the Caluinistes, Lutherians and Aecolampadians, of herisie: I wold haue required of his lordship delay of time, according to his desyre of me, vnto the tyme, that there cause had bene sufficiētlie tried, in an lawfull, vniuersal counsell, deulie indicted, and conuened. But where that he compareth, the doctrine of the forenamed, with the damnable heresie, of Arrius: I wold lykewise haue wished vnto his lordship greater foresight, in so graue a mater. For howsoeuer the Arrians appeared to aboūd in testimonies of Scriptures, without all ground, indistinctlie cōgested (and that because they made no diffreence betuix the two natures in Iesus Christe,Let my lorde ac­cuse be­fore he cōpai [...]. but did foolishlie appropriat to the Godhead, that, which did onelie aperteane to the manlie nature) yet think I, that my lord shall neuer be able, by plaine Scripture, to im­pung any chief head, ether affirmed, or denyed, in doctrine of saluatiō by the foresaides persons: [Page] lyke as did the godly and learned in there ages, the foresaid damnable herisie. To the last, I haue alreadie promised to answer, to my Lordes ar­gumēt in writ: and therefore oght not to be bur­dened with it now, especiallie because it is with­out our formar ground, and doeth not properlie aperteane to the cause. And yet therefore now last for conclusion, that we shal not be compelled continually to repeat on thing, I desyre my lord according to his deutie, and reason of disputati­on,Heir my lord stayed & for answer offerred to me a book. to bring forth his probation of his two for­mar groundes, be me plainly denyed.

This conference being ended, for this tyme, my Lorde presentlie did rise, for trouble of body, and then Iohn Knox, did shortlie resume, the principall groundes. And because the noblemen heir assembled, were altogether destitute of all ꝓuision, bothe for hors and man, the said Iohn, humblie required the foresaid Lord, that it wold please him to go to Air, where that better easi­ment migh be had for all estates. Which because my Lord vtterlie refused, the said Iohn desired when that the said conference should be ended. My Lorde did promes, that vpon licence pur­chased,Whither I haue so done or nor mo then them sel­ues can witnes. of the Quenes maiestie, and her honora­ble counsell, that he wold cōpeir in Edinburgh, and there, in there presence, finish the said confe­rence. The said Iohn did promes, to trauel with the secret counsel, that the said licence might be obteined. And desired the foresaid Lorde, to do the lyke with the Quenes maiestie, whereupon the said Iohn Knox, took instruments and do­cuments.

At the conclusion of our ressoning,The answer wes gi­uen be­fore, so that it apperte­aned not to me to proue my interpretatiō, but it ap­pertened to my lord to proue that mel­chisedec offerred &c. But that can not my lord vn­derstand I gaif Iohn Knox ane argument in writ, desiring him that he wald iustifie his opinion be expres testi­monie of Scripture, or ony apperance thereof. Quhairto the said Iohn required tyme to gif answer, and the tyme, micht nawise serue, of farder ressoning, for sic causes, as ar compre­hended in the said Iohn Knox writing. And as toward his desyre of me to Air, treulie it was y^e thing that I micht not presentlie, cōmodiously do. Bot alwayes, I will copeir before ye Que­nes grace, and sic as hit grace, plesis to take to be auditors, to defend the saides artickles, and in special the artickle concerning the messe, as thay ar written, qu [...]en and quhair it be hir grace plesure, swa that the habilitie of my bodie will serue ony wise as I hope to God it sall, to quhom be praise glorie and ho­nor for euer.

The answer to my Lordes last argument, proponed by him in writ, the last day of disputation. The argument is this.

WHatsumeuer opinion, is conceaued of the Scriptures of almichty God, hauand na expres testimonie nor ap­perance of the samin: is vtterlie to be refused, as sayes Iohn Knox him self. Bot swa it is, that Iohn Knox a win opinion cōcea­ued or contracted of the Scripture, concerning the bringing furth of bread and wine, be Mel­chisedec, to refresh or gratifie, Abraham and his werie company, is not expresly conteined in the Scripture, nor hes na apperance of the samin, thairfore it fal [...] wis wei [...], that it is all [...]terlie be his awin iudgement to be refused.

Yf I should grant vnto you, my Lorde your whole argument, I should but declare my self ignorant of the art, and [...]lyndful of my owne affirmation: but yet had ye prouen nothing of your intent. The chief question, and controuer­sie betuix you and me, is not whether that my interpretation of that place which [...] your in­stance and [...] not: but whether that Melchisedec the figure of Christe, did offer vnto God bread & wine, whiche ye haue affirmed, and haue laid it to be the ground and cause, why it behoued Christe Iesus, to haue made [Page 30] oblation of his bodie and blood, vnder the form­es of bread and wine, in his latter Supper. Which bothe I denyed. So that it rests to you to proue, that Melchisedec the figure of Christ, did offer vnto God bread and wine. &c. And ap­perteines not vnto me, to proue my opinion, nor interpretation. For supposing that my opinion, cōceaued of that place were to be reiected (as ye are neuer able to proue it to [...]e) yet is your af­firmatiue, neuer the better prouen, for if ye will conclude: it wes not broght forth to refresh A­braham (which yet is not prouen) ergo it wes broght forth to be offered vnto God: babes will mock you, and send you againe to your logick. But yet my Lord with your leaue I must come nerar you, and say, that the maior or first part of your argument is fals and that ye falsly alledge vpon me, that which I neuer spak nor ment.

Read the whole conference betuix you and me, and ye shall not find that I haue simple affir­med that all opinion of man, conceaued of the Scriptures, is vtterlie to be reiected: onles the same be prouen by the manifest worde of God. For I am not ignorant that some interpretatiōs ar tollerable, yea, and may be to the edification of the Church, althogh they do not fully expres, the minde of the holie Goste, in that place. But I haue affirmed, and yet affirmes, that nether the authoritie of the Church, the determination of the counsell, nor the opinion of the doctor, is to be receaued in matters of faith, & in the doc­trine concerning our saluation: onles the same [Page] be prouen by the expres word of God. And ther­fore my Lord, with your leaue, I must say, that ether wilfully or els by some ouersight, ye haue omitted bothe in the maior & in the minor of your argument, that which should haue bene, y^e cause and assurance of your conclusion. For thus ye oght to haue reasoned. Whatsoeuer opinion is conceaued of the Scripture of almightie God, concerning faith and the doctrine of Saluation, hauing no expres testimonie of the same, is to be reiected. But so it is, that Iohn Knox owne o­pinion, concerning the bringing forth of bread and wine by Melchisedec, is a matter concer­ning faith, and the doctrine of our Saluation, and yet hath no testimonie of Gods expressed worde: therefore it is to be reiected. Yf on this maner ye had reasoned, my Lord, (as of necessi­tie ye must do, if ye conclude any thing against me) I wold haue immediatlie denied the second part of your argument, and haue said: that to know or define, what wes done with the bread and wine, broght out by Melchisedec, is no ar­tickle of our beleue, nether yet is it a doctrine, necessarie to the Saluation of man. For nether did Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Henoch, Ma­thusalem, nor Noie, beleue any suche thing, ne­ther yet is there since the dayes of Abraham, any cōmandement giuen by God, to beleue suche an artickle, yea, further in the whole Scriptures, there is no mention made what wes done with that bread and wine, and therefore it can be no artickle of our beleue, nor yet no doctrine con­cerning [Page 31] our Saluation, and so hath your argu­ment broken the owne neck. Yf I list, my Lord to sport a lytill with you, I might find some oc­casion in the second part of your argument. For where ye affirme that my opinion cōcerning the bringing forth of the bread and wine, by Mel­chisedec, to refresh Abraham and his companie, is nether expresly conteined in the word of God, nether yet hath appearance of the same: and therefore vtterlie it is to be reiected. Now my Lorde giue me leaue, to turne this part of your argument in your owne bosome, if I can, and that so I may do, thus I reason.

The opinion conceaued by my Lorde Abbote, concerning bread and wine, broght forth by Melchisedec to be offered vnto God, is not expresly conteined in Gods Scriptures, therefore it is vtterlie to be reiected. Bewarre my Lorde, that ye be not beaten with your own batton:Let my lord de­gest this for then must the masse, yea, the best part of the same, stand vpon an vnsure ground, that is to say, vpon the opi­nion of man, and hauing no assurance of Gods expressed worde. But now my Lorde, meryues set asyde, I humblie require you, by my pen, as I did by mouth, that depelie ye consider, with what cōscience before God, ye da [...] affirme y^e doc­trine to be holsome, yea, & necessary to be beleued, [Page] ye are able to bring no prufe out of the manifest word of God. The second day of our conference and disputation, when I wes cōstrained to an­swer, your treuole cōiectures and vanities: your bragges and boste, ofter blowen out then ones, were, that your probation should be so euident, that the stones should heare your probation, and y^e dead walles should se the iustnes of your cause. I paciently did abyde (althogh perchance with the greif of some brethren) these your wantone wordes, and thoght with my self Parturiunt mon­tes. &c. But what is now produced and broght forth; the world may se. It may appeare that ye were hard beset, when for to auoide the prufe of your owne affirmatiue, ye fled to impugne, that which apperteaneth nothing to the purpose. For as I wes not bound to haue shewen vnto you what I thoght wes done with the bread and wine, broght forth by Melchisedec, so wes I not bound to haue defended, my interpretation and iudgement of that place: but vnto you it alway­es aperteineth (and if euer we meit againe vpon that head, it wilbe yet iudged to aperteine to you) to proue that Melchisedec, did at that time offer bread and wine vnto God, which I am well assured, that ye are neuer able to do, by any testimonie of Gods worde.Note. And therefore must I say, the masse standeth groundles. And the greatest pa [...]r [...] thereof, for all his sicker riding hath ones loste his stirropes, yea, is altogether set besydes his sadil. And yet the common brute goeth, that ye my Lorde, your flatterers, and [Page 32] collateralles brag greatlie of your victorie, ob­teined in disputation against Iohn Knox, but I will not beleue you to be so vaine onles I shall knowe the certantie by your owen hand writ.

Let all men now iudge vpon what ground the Sacrifice of the masse standeth. The hea­uenly Father hath not planted within his Scriptures suche a doctrine. It followeth therefore that it oght to be rooted out of all god­lie mēnes hartes.