Reply Against Gilbert Brown

M. Gilbert Brown.

Ane answer to ane certain Libell or Writing, sent by M. JOHN WELSCHE to ane Catholic, as ane answer to ane objection of the Roman Kirk. &c.

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

M. John Welsche Reply.

AS to your judgment and censure of this my answer to your objection, wherein ye think there is meikle promised and little done: I do not regard it, for so long as your heart is bewitched with the pleasures of Babel, your light is but darkness: so while the Lord annoint your eyes, with that eye-salve promised in the Revelation. 3. and purge your heart by faith, ye cannot discern of things different, and give upright judgment. What I promised, I am now by the grace of God ready to perform. And whether it was some-thing or nothing, meikle or little, that I did, let work bear witness, and let them that loves the truth judge.

M. Gilbert Brown.

First he titles his libel, Ane answer to ane objection of the Roman Kirk, whereby they go about to deface the verity of that only true Religion whilk we profess.

God forbid that we Catholics, whom he calls the Roman Kirk, seeing that we are the only defenders of the truth, as our predecessors the pastors of the true Kirk was before us, suld go about to deface the truth. But we go about to impugn all false doctrine repugnant to the truth, as the holy fathers of the primitive Kirk did before us, against the heretics in their days, as Irenaus, Cypriane, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, with the rest of the true pastors of the Kirk. And seeing that the Ministers of this new Evangel hes not only invented sum heresies themselves, but also hes renewed many auld condemned heresies confuted by them before (as they cannot deny) as I fall give sum examples afterward, as the heresy of Simon Magus, of Manichaeus, Pelagius, Arius, Iouinianus, Vigilantius, with many vthers, what le • can we do nor impugn the same, as our predecessors did before.

M. John Welsche his Replye.

As to your answer: first ye deny it and detestes it as a blasphemy: Nixt ye go about to clear yourselves from the suspicion of it: Thirdly ye challenge us and our doctrine with the crimes of novelty and heresy: And so ye conclude ye could do no less nor impugn it.

As to your denying of your defacing of the truth of God, so doth the hoorish woman after she hes eaten, she wypes her mouth and says, she hes not sinned, whilk is true as well in spiritual as in bodily fornication: So not-withstanding your Kirk hes buried the truth of God in the graves of darkness, and did ouercure it with their traditions and glosses thir many years bygane, yet you wype your mouths, and says you have not sinned. But look to it in time, for ignorance, and zeil without knowledge will not excuse you in the day of the Lord. That you detest it as a blasphemy, so did the hie priest rent his clothes and said Christ blasphemed, when he spake but the truth. As for your golden styles whilk you take to yourselves of Catholics, defenders of the truth, successors to the pastors of the true Kirk and impugners of all false doctrine. Your doctrine indeed could not deceive so many, if it were not covered with thir styles; your poysone and abomination would not be drunken so universally, if it were not in sick a golden cup as this. So these are the byssope wherewith ye would wash you from this iniquity, and clenge you from this sin. But may not false prophets come in sheep's clothing? And the ministers of Satā can they not transform themselves as though they were the Ministers of Christ? The Scriptures hes foretold it: & did not the false Apostles in Ephesus, call themselves the Apostles of Christ, and yet they were found liars? And did not the synagogue of Satan call her self the synagogue of the Jews, (that is, the Kirk of God) and yet they were not so, but the synagogue of the devil? yea and did not Abraham's seed, and they that sat in Moses chair, and was the successors of Aaron, condemned the Savior of the world? Therefore not by your styles, but by your fruits ye must be tried. For if ye be catholicks &c, ye will teach the doctrine of that good pastour, and chief shepherd the Lord Jesus. So it is your doctrine and not your styles that must defend you.

And because (Christian Reader) by this style of Catholic, whilk they ascriue only to their Kirk, they cause the simple to err, and leads many blindlings to damnation, therefore I will take this visard frō them. Ye are not the Catholic Kirk, as ye style yourself, and thus I prove it. Pope Pius the fifth, who write a Catechism according to the decree of the council of Trent. He there says that the Kirk whilk is called the body of Christ, whereof he is the head, is called Catholic, because it is spread in the light of ane faith frō the east to the west, receiving men of all sortes, containing all the faithful whilk have been from Adam, even until this day, or shall be hereafter to the end of the world professing the true faith, &c.

Now I reason thus. The Catholic Kirk comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter to the end of the world, or else Pope Pius, and the fathers of Trent errs. But the Roman Kirk comprehends not all the faithful from Adam till now, and that shall be hereafter: Therefore the Roman Kirk is not the Catholic Kirk. Choose you now whilk of these ye will deny. The proposition I trow ye will not: for then ye should bring twa inconveniences, the ane upon Pope Pius and the fathers of Trent, that they have erred in defyning the Catholic Kirk, and so the Kirk & the Pope may err. The other is upon yourself, who said that your Kirk hes not erred. And so ye lose your style of a defender of the Catholic faith: for this is a chief point of their faith, that the Kirk cannot err. I hope therefore that these are Labyrinths whilk ye will not wittinglie cast yourself unto, and so you must hold fast the proposition. All the question is then of the assumption. Whether the Roman Kirk comprehends all the faithful 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 faithful from Adam &c. But the Roman Kirk is a particular Kirk, or else the fathers of the counsel of Basil, and Verratus a papist errs, for they call the Roman Kirk a particular Kirk. We grant (say they) that the Roman Kirk is a principal Kirk among vthers, but while you commend a parte forget not the haill. And they say, the universal Kirk cōprehēds the Roman Kirk. Choose you then whether will you contradict the fathers of the counsel of Basil and a Papist Verratus, and be so absurd as to call the arm of the body the haill body, ane arm of the Oceane sey the haill Oceane sey, or to go from your title that the Roman Kirk is not the Catholic kirk. Secundlie, the Catholic Kirk comprehendes them that were before Christ: But the Kirk of Rome comprehendes not them, for there was a Kirk, or ever there was a Kirk at Rome, and the Roman Kirk comprehends nane but them that acknowledges the Pope to be the head of the Kirk. But those that were before Christ never did that: Therefore the Roman Kirk is not the Catholic Kirk. Thirdly, the Catholic Kirk is invisible: for at the least, neither are they that ar glorified, neither are they that are to be borne, visible. But ye will not have the Roman Kirk, but always visible, therefore the Roman Kirk is not the Catholic Kirk. Fourthly, if the Roman Kirk be the Catholic Kirk, then either it shall follow, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Kirk, or else that the Roman Kirk wants a visible head. Choose you whether of these ye will, for the ane ye must, if ye will have the Roman Kirk to be the Catholic Kirk. But to say that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Kirk, I trow ye dare not be so blasphemous: for the glorified Saints, & Peter himself are of the Catholic Kirk, or else (as I said before) Pope Pius and the fathers of Trent errs. And so then if ye will make him head of the Catholic Kirk, ye must make him head of the glorified Saints and of Peter also. So then choose you whether will ye leave the style of Catholic, whilk ye claim as proper to your Kirk, or will ye have the Pope the head of the triumphant Kirk in heaven: or last of all, will ye have your Roman Kirk to want a visible head: ane of these ye must choose. So to ende this point, this style of Catholic it is like the numbering of the people by David: for as it brought him in a wonderful strait, when he saw it behooved him to choose, either seven years famine, or four months flying before his enemies, or three days pestilence. So this title of yours if you will bide by it, brings you in a wonderful strait: for ye have not the choice of ane of three evils, but these three things must ye either choose, or else let this style of Catholic go; ane of you fighting against ane other, the Kirk invisible, and the Pope not to be the head of the Kirk. Of the whilk, the least of these is more able to overthrow your Kingdom, then they all were able to have overthrown the Kingdom of David, for they are the main pillars of your Kingdom, your unity, your visibility, your Popes supremacy, all whilk you must either lose, or else let your style of Catholic go from your Kirk. But howe will ye wrestle yourself out of this? For if ye will believe the fathers of Trent, and Pope Pius, in defyning the Catholic Kirk, ye cannot eschew thir inconveniences. And if you will not believe thē, that they spake truly in that point, ye must accuse them of error. And so the Kirk hes erred, the Pope hes erred, and yourself hes erred that said your Kirk hes the truth in all things. And surly as Caiaphas being hie priest that year, spake the truth when he said that ane must die for the people, and not the the haill nation perish, suppose in 〈◊〉 evil sense. So hes the fathers of Trent and Pope Pius here spoken truly, both according to the Scriptures, for the Kirk is called the assembly of the first borne, whose names is written in heaven. And that new Jerusalem whilk is from above, whilk is the mother of us all. And also according to the fathers, who affirmeth that the Kirk is the company of the predestinate, and all the elect are within the compass of it, and are citizens of it. So as Christ said to the Jews. If I cast out devils by the prince of devils, by whom then castes your children them out? So if we speak now by ane erroneous spirit, that says the Catholic Kirk comprehendes all the elect, that was, is, and shall be, and the Kirk of Rome cannot be the Catholic Kirk. By what Spirit hes your council and Pope and thir fathers spoken the same? So not your children but your fathers shall be your judges.

Ye did mark some contradiction as ye thought between me and some vthers, unto the whilk I will answer in the own time. Let me therefore mark this ane now, and mark it (Reader). Ye have heard now howe that all these with ane voice hes said, that the Catholic Kirk comprehends all the elect, that was, is, and shall be: Is it any heresy then to hold this point? I think you will not, nor dare not say it. What will you say then to your general council of Constance who condemned John Hus for the same Doctrine, the first, and sixth article, for saying that there is ane universal 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 heretic, and his doctrine as heresy: whilk of thir will ye say now hes erred? whether the general council of Constance? or the fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregory, Augustine, Clement, and Bernard? For surly if the latter erred not, then not only did the council of Constance err, but also hes brought vpō them selves innocent blood, in condemning the innocent & y ^e truth in him. And if the council of Constance erred not, in condemning thir articles of John Hus, then have they condemned the doctrine of the fathers of Trent, Pope Pius, Gregory, Augustine, &c. and their persons, in the person of John Hus. Choose whilk of them ye will. I speak the truth to thee in Christ (Reader) be not deceived. But open thy eyes and behold the verity it self condemned by a general council, & the professor of it burnt for ane heretic: But his blood & the blood of the rest of the martyrs of God is found in this whore of Babel, and therefore ane day she shall be recompensed for all her iniquity. Go out of her therefore and save thy soul, that thou be not tormented in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, with her for evermore. Vtherwise I call heaven and earth to witness against thee, that thou sall die in her sin, and the smoke of thy torment shall ascend for evermore. What now will you say to these things, that your Kirk is not the Catholic Kirk, but a parte of it only. And is only Catholic, because of the Catholic doctrine that she professes? But if this be true, wherefore then did your general council condemn it in John Hus, and burn him for that doctrine, whilk both yourself must confess to be true, and is aggreable to Scripture, fathers, and your own Popes. Next I say, suppose when ye are brought to this strait, ye must say so: yet for all this, not only call ye your Kirk Catholic, because of the soundness of doctrine whilk ye suppose she professes, but also & specially to make the simple believe, that there is no salvation out of her. Therefore ye call it the only true Kirk, & y ^e Catholic Kirk: for out of the particular Kirk there is Salvation, but out of the Catholic Kirk there is no salvation. Thirdly I say, as the epistles of Peter, John, James, and Judas are entitled Catholic, not because of the soundness of their doctrine, whilk is common to the epistles of Paul also, and all the rest of the Scripture, whilk in that respect may also be called Catholic, but because they are written generally to all: So the Kirk is called Catholic properly, not because of the soundness of doctrine, for that is common to all the particular Kirks, that hes the purity of Religion, but because it comprehends all the particular Kirks and all the elect. And also to put a difference between the Kirk of the Jews, whilk did comprehend but ane certain people, & the Christian Kirk since the coming of Christ, whilk is not bound to any certain place or nation, or people, but indifferently receives all, both Jew and gentile that believes. & therefore is it called Catholic: & therefore in our belief we say not, I believe the Catholic doctrine, but the Catholic Kirk. So by this she is properly 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 properly of your Kirk, & not make your styles snares, to catch y ^e souls of the simple, call her but a particular Kirk, and a member of the Catholic Kirk, but yet dead and rotten, as shall be shown afterward by the grace of God. Vtherwise, if you will but call her the Catholic Kirk, you first rob the mother, for she is properly Catholic, and also iniures the rest of the daughters: For in respect of the soundness of faith, they may also challenge the same to them. And thirdly, ye deceive the souls of the simple thereby, by making them believe there is not ane other Kirk but yours. And last of all, you are sacrilegious in decking ane adulteress with the styles of the spouse of Christ.

As to the third point, wherein ye calumniate the truth of God whilk we profess, in calling it ane new Evangel, and old renewed, and new invented heresies of our own. These are indeed heavy words wherewith ye blaspheme the word of the Lord, and speaks evil of it to the people of this coūtry. And therefore as the Apost. saith of them that blasphemed his doctrine. Your damnation is just. For a woe by God's own mouth is pronounced against them that calls good evil, and evil good, truth falset, and falset truth, and darkness light, and light darkness: But as the Archangel when he straue with Satan about the body of Moses, did not blame him with cursed speaking, but said, The Lord rebuke thee, so we will not blame you with cursed speaking, but the Lord rebuke you. For ye speak here the vision of your own heart, and not from the mouth of the Lord: And ye are not the first that hes blasphemed the truth of God, for so did the Jews before you, call the doctrine of the Evangel a sect, a heresy, and the gentiles called it strange gods and a new doctrine, and the preachers thereof, a setter forth of strange gods, and of new doctrine, and a babbler. The Jews said that Christ had a devil, and yet as our Lord testifies, It was they that was the children of the devil. Ye say that we preach ane new Evangel, & old & new heresies; but this is the sin and the doctrine of your Kirk: For to let that pass of that new and everlasting gospel, whilk your fryats invented & devised, wherein was contained sic blasphemies as the heaven and earth abhors to hear them: That God the father reigned under the law: God the Son under grace. And the holy ghost was then that year to begin his kingdom and to continue to the end of the world. And that Jesus Christ was not God, his Sacrament nothing, and his Evangel not a true Evangel. (O horrible blasphemy) The whilk if God had not raised up some men in those days to have resisted it, as the Waldenses and vthers whilk ye call heretics and infamous men, the gospel of Christ had been loosed, and in steed of it, we would have gotten ane new Evangel: The dregs whereof yet remains in your Kirk. But I will let this pass, because the wise men of Babel (I mean your clergy of Rome) saw that that was too plain ane iniquity, therefore they caused it quietlie to be removed and buried, and yet they not condemned as heretics that preached it. But by the contrary, the Waldenses and vthers that withstood it, was condemned as heretics and their books burned. To let this pass (I say) whilk testifieth what the world might have looked for at your hands, if the Lord had not provided better for his poor Kirk. Your haill doctrine is Antichristian as shall be proven hereafter, your Kirk Babel, your Kingdom that second beast that hes two horns like the Lamb & yet speaks like the dragon, and your head the man of sin , and Son of perdition. And ye are they that hes renewed old condemned heresies, and hes invented new of your own, as shall be proved afterward, by gods grace.

M. John Welsche.

Say they, our religion is so ancient that it hes continued ever by a lineal succession of Pastoures and Bishops, from the days of Christ & his Apost. till now, never interrupted, never spoken against, but of late since Martin Luther's days: But yours, say they, is newlie forged, and invented, never hard tell of but since Luther and Calvin's days. Therefore yours cannot be the true Religion, and ours must be the only true Religion.

M. Gilbert Brown.

This objection consists partly of ane truth, and partly of an untruth. It appears be this that either M. John knows not our preeues, or if he dost he alteres the same that he may the better oppugn his own invention.

Our objection, or rather ane of our proves, whereby we prove that we Catholics is the only true Kirk of Christ, and hes the only truth in all things, is this.

We have abundantly set down to us by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy write, that the kingdom and Kirk of Christ shall never faill in this earth and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But shall be permanent forever, and shall have always the presence and assistance of the father, son, and holy ghost, who shall teach it all truth, and remain with it forever, as may be perceived be thir places noted here, whilks wereouer longsome to be set down at length. To the whilks I adjoin some of the ancient fathers exponing the same.

Out of the old testament.

Psal. 60. 5. read. August. upon this. Psal. 88. v. 1.2.3.4. 5, 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. Jerome. 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 Ezek. 17.25.26. Dan. 2, 44, Dan, 7.14.27. Miche. 4.7.

Out of the New Testament.

Luc. 1.33. read S. August. upon the 109. Psalm. Math 10.18. read heir Sainte Jerome upon this place Luke. 22.32. John. 14.16.17. John. 17.18.19.20. Math, 28.20. 1 Tim. 3.15. Act. 5.39.

Some of the ancient fathers.

Hilari. de Trinitat. lib. 7. August. de vtili. credent. ca, 87. Ambrose, 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 primitive Kirk concurs and agrees in ane unity. I would wish M. John to consider the same, that the Kirk of Christ be all men's judgments shall never faill, nor be interrupted nor broken.

M. John Welsche his Replye.

I will follow your foot-steppes and first answer to that parte whilk ye say is true, and then unto that whilk ye say is false: And as to the first, the ground whilk ye laid down whereupon ye go about to build the truth of your religion, is the Kirk of Christ shall never faill nor be interrupted &c. It is recorded in histories of one Thrasilaus a frantic man among the Greeks. Whensoever he saw any ships arrive at the haven of Athens, he thought them all his own, and took ane inuentarie of their wares, and met them with great joy. Even so it is with you, where soever you see the name of the Kirk in the holy Scripture, and the promises of God made unto the same, ye take all to be yours, and books the treasures of it: And boasts thereof as though they were your own. Crying, the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. It shall never fail. It hes always the holy Ghoste to lead it in all truth. To remove you therefore out of the haven and to give every merchant his own ware, and his own ship, and to set the Kirk it self in possession of the Kirk we must distinguish the name of the Kirk. The Kirk therefore is taken some-times for the company of the elect and chosen, whereof a parte is in heaven triumphing with Christ their Lord; a parte here in the earth fighting her battles, lying in her campe & awaiting for the victory. And these are termed the invisible Kirk, because gods election cannot be discerned by the judgment of man's sensis or eyes, and we cannot knaw wha are his chosen. And unto this Kirk, that is, to the chosen appertains all the promises set down in the scripture, and in them only are they fulfilled: And sometimes it is taken for the company of them wha professes the true religion, wherein both the chaff and the wheat; the popple and the good seed; the dregs and the wyne, the good and the evil 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 body are true and lively members thereof. So then if ye mean by the Kirk, The Kirk of the elect, and if ye mean by this, That it shall never fail nor be interrupted, &c. only this, That it shall never be utterly abolished, but shall have always the presence of the holy Ghaist to lead her in all truth, yea and in all halinesse also, in safarre, as shall serve for her salvation: We grant that with you, as Bellarmine confesseth of us. And therefore he saith, That many of their number spend but time, while as they go about to prove that the Kirk heir beneath absolutely cannot perish, or make absolute defection: for Calvin (saith he) and the rest of the heretics grant that, but they speak and mean (saith he) of the invisible Kirk. So if ye mean no farther but this, then Bellarmine telleth you that all the testimonies of scripture and fathers, that ye have heaped up here to prove the same, is but to spend the time, and so are fetched as needless witnesses in a matter that is not doubtsome or called in question. And if ye had understood his language, ye needed not to have combered yourself in fetching of this mortar and stane, to build up your Babel: for this was not required at your hands. But because it is Babel whilk ye are bigging, a tower of confusion, therefore the lord hath sent sic a confusion of language amongst you that few of you understands what another says, when some cries for mortar, others brings stone. Bellarmine, the great master-builder, cries for proofs to prove that the visible Kirk heir beneth cannot err, neither in the matters whilk are neidfull to salvation, neither in the matters whilk are not neidfull, whilk she propones to be believed, or to be done, whether they be doctrine contained in the Scripture or extra scripturam, that is, not contained in the scripture. He cries to prove that, and ye cumber yourself in bringing in a number of scriptures to prove that the Kirk shall always remain till the ende of the world, whereas in the examination of your proofs it will be found, that they will go no further with you. But if ye mean of the visible Kirk, that it shall never fail, &c. that is, it shall never fail in doctrine, nor be interrupted in the same, not only in matters neidfull to salvation, but in all truth, as ye affirm of your Kirk, and as Bellarmine says, as hath been said before, If ye go this far, as ye do indeed, and as Bellarmine does, and yourself must do, if ye be a right defender of your Catholic faith here, or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the purity and truth of your Kirk and religion. Then I say, that your ground is als false and erroneous, as the stuff that ye build upon it, for both they have failed, and hes been interrupted, as shall be proved afterward. And mark this, Christian reader, as the Philistines Kirk wherein they praised their God, & mocked Samson the Lord's seruand, had two chief pillars whereon the haill house leaned and was borne up, so hes the Kirk of Rome two chief pillars, whereon the haill wecht of their Kirk & religiō hings: y ^e one whereof is this, that the Kirk cannot err: the other that the Pope is the head of the kirk. Take these two from them, their house must fall, and their religion can stand no longer. For when they are brought to this strait that they see they cannot defend their religion, neither by the testimonies of the Scripture, nor yet by the examples of the Kirk of God, when she was in her greater purity and sincerity, they are compelled to lay this as a ground to hold all their errors on, that the Kirk of Christ cannot err: So take this ground from them, their Kirk and religion cannot stand.

Now, as to the testimonies whilk ye quote out of the old Testament, and out of the first of Luke, verse. 33. in the new testament, they only prove that the Kirk and kingdom of Christ shall endure for evermore, and that his covenant made with her, is everlasting. The whilk cannot exeeme the militāt Kirk from erring in points of doctrine, for both the chaff & evil seed in the Kirk, that is, these that are called, but not chosen, may err, and that to death and damnation, and yet his Kirk and kingdom, and his covenant, remaineth sure, stable, and inviolate: for the Lord only offers his covenant unto them, and they through incredulity reject it, and so he is not bund to sanctify or save them, meikle-less to keep them from error. And as for these who are called & chosen, all these promises are made and performed in everyone of them, and the covenant of God is so sure in everyone of them, that our Savior says, None of them can perish. And yet for all this, everyone of them may err in doctrine, suppose not to death and damnation, whilk ye will not deny. And gif ye would, infinite examples not only 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 own Doctors and Bishops, as a cloud of witnesses, would stand up and avowe the same in your face. Now 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 only called but not chosen, & both may err in points of doctrine, the one finally to death and damnation: the other may err, suppose not finally to death and damnation, & yet the covenant of God remain sure, everlasting, and inuiolate with his Kirk. Therefore, I say, the promises of the stability of Christ's kingdom, and the perpetuity of his covenant made with her, cannot exeeme the militant Kirk from erring in points of doctrine: sa ye have lost your vantguarde. Let us cum to the rest, and see if they will favor 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 upon this rock I will build my Kirk, and the yets of hell shall not prevail against it. And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of scripture whilk shall feight mair for you nor this: let us therefore try it to the uttermost, 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 never prevail against the Kirk that is built on the rock, that is, on Christ: Therefore the Kirk that is built on him, shall never be alluterlie exstinguished and abolished by Satan. Then Bellarmine tells you that ye spend but time in proving of this, for we grant it, That the Kirk of the chosen shall never perish. But if you go farther, and say: That the Kirk of Christ shall never err, because Christ hath promised that the yettes of hell shall not prevail against it: then, I say, either that exposition is false, or else y ^e gates of hell should have prevailed long since against your kirk: for whē it prevailed against y ^e rock whereon the kirk was built, it prevailed against the Kirk. For, raze & overturn the foundation of a house, the house cannot stand, seeing the standing of the house consists on the firmness and sureness of the foundation thereof. Now the rock whereon ye say the Kirk is built unto whom this promise is made, is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome, for so ye all with one consent expones the same. Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Kirk, as ye say, and the yets of hell hes prevailed against them, as I shall prove by the grace of God: it must follow, if your exposition be true, that the gates of hell hes prevailed, not once only, but at many times against the Kirk. For, first Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine, when he thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ, the kingdom of Christ not to be heavenly but earthly, not spiritual, but like the kingdoms of this world, proper to Israel, not common to all by virtue of the promise: and also he is commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, doubting nothing. Whilk testifies, that he doubted before whether the Gospel should be preached to them or not, & therefore erred in a matter of faith, & that after he had received y ^e promise of y ^e holy Gaist. And also he erred in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law: for he believed that some meats were unclean after the death and resurrection of Christ, and therefore he refused to eat thereof. And this was a matter of faith also. And last of all, the holy Ghaist testifies, that he went not a right foot to the truth of the Gospel, and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paul to his face. And as for them whom ye call his successors the Popes of Rome, not only may they be heretics, but also some of them have been heretics. And therefore if your argument be good, the gates of hell both may, and have prevailed against them. That they may be heretics, I will fetch no other witnesses, but your own councils, Canons, Cardinals, and your own Popes: for they shall be your judges in this matter. Bellarmine says, that the Pope being a manifest heretic, ceaseth to be Pope, and to be head of the Kirk. Cajetan a Cardinal saith, That the Pope being a manifest heretic, should be deposed by the Kirk. Johannes de Turre cremata a Cardinal saith, That when the Pope falls in heresy, he is deposed of God. Alphonsus de Castro, saith that the Pope as he is a Pope may be an heretic, and teach heresy, whilk also hath sometimes (saith he) fallen out in them. Innocentius the 3. and Hadrian the 2. Popes, as also the 6. and 8. Synod, and their own Canon law, do testify, that they may be heretics. And also Pope Hadrian 6. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Romano Pontif. cap. 2.

And some of them have been heretics also. Zepherinus a Montanist. Marcellinus, ane that sacrificed to devils the idols of the Gentiles. Liberius ane Arian, that denied the godhead of the son. Anastasius a fauorer of the Nestorian heresy. Vigilius ane Eutychian, whose heresy was, that after the incarnation of Christ, there was but one nature in Christ, made of his divinity and humanity, whilk overthrows the foundation of our salvation. Honorius a Monothe lite, and therefore damned and accursed in the 6. counsel of Constantinople. Act. 13. John the 22. held that the souls of the blessed being separate from their body, did not see the Lord before the resurrection. John the 23. denied eternal life, whereof he was accused, and deposed in the council of Constance. Eugenius the 4. deposed in the counsel of Basil for heresy. I omit the rest. Seeing then these whom ye call the rock and foundation of your kirk have erred, & that in matters of doctrine & religion, and in the principal points thereof, and that by the testimonies both of the scripture, & of your own councils, doctors, Cardinals, and Popes. Therefore, if your argument hald forth, then, I say, the gates of hell hath prevailed against your kirk, because they have prevailed against the rocks & foundations thereof, for they have erred as hath been proved, the whilk, I trow, ye will not grant. 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 finally overcome: so that suppose they may ischyousin, that is, be strong, & make them to fail in many things, yet they cannot prevail totally and finally against the kirk of God, that is, the elect and chosen, who are built, not on the Pope, but on the immovable rock the Lord Jesus. I say further, this promise is made and performed in everyone of the elect: For, the yettes of hell shall not prevail, that is, get the final and full victory over any of them. And therefore our Savior says, None of my sheep shall perish, and yet ye will not deny, but everyone of the elect may err. Therefore this promise doth not privilege the kirk of God from erring, but the chaff and evil seed, that is, these that are called and not chosen, may err, and err finally, because this promise is not made unto them, for they are not built upon this Rock: but upon the sand: for none is built upon this Rock, but these who are blessed, and heareth the word, and doeth it, as our Savior testifies. And the good seed whilk are these that are called and chosen, may err, suppose not finally and totallie.

The next place whilk ye quote, is that prayer of Christ for Peter, Luc. 22.32. But I have prayed for thee that thy saith sails not. It is true he prayed: It is true also that Peter faith failed not: but yet it swouned, as it were, when he denied his Lord and that by mainswering and cursing of himself: and yet he erred, both in the quality of Christ's kingdom, in the calling of the Gentiles, and in the abrogation of the Ceremonial law: as also, he went not rightly to the truth of the Gospel, as hes been proved. So this prayer was not that he should be kept absolutely from all erring, for then it shall follow, that Christ obtained not that whilk he prayed for: seeing he erred (whilk is impious to think) but that his faith should not decay finally and totallie. Secondly, the Lord Jesus prayed also for all the believers, John. 17.18.19.20. whilk place ye also quote, and yet there is not one of the believers but they may err, as yourselves cannot deny, & we have proved by examples of your own Popes: for if any were exeemed from erring, in your judgment it should be these that are the foundation of your kirk, whilk ye call your Popes, but they may err, and have erred, as hes been proved. Thirdly, I say, it will not follow, Christ prayed for Peters faith that it should not fail: Therefore he prayed for the Popes, whom ye will have to be successors to Peter, that their faith should not fail (for that is the thing ye would be at) for their faith hes failed. For if by faith ye understand the doctrine of the faith of Christ, as it is taken sometimes in the Scripture, then I say your own Doctors, canons, councils, cardinals, and Popes themselves as they have been cited before, testifies that not only they may err, but also that some of them have erred, and have been heretics. And if by that faith whilk our Lord prayed for, ye understand that lyuelie faith, that embraces the promises of God's mercy in Christ, whilk works by love, & shawes forth the self by good works: as by keeping of Christ's commandments, and by loving ane another: Then I say, your own writers, friends, favorers, & cardinals testifies of them, that they have gone from Peters steps, that they gote the Popedom by bryberie & 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 bargaining with the Devil, That they were monstrous & prodigious men yea, rather beasts and monsters. So that of all men that ever professed the faith of Jesus, they have failed moste foullie in that lyuelie faith, as I have proved in another place concerning the Antichrist.

As to that place whilk ye quote in the 14. of John, ver. 16. and 17. Where the Spirit of Christ is promised to the Apostles, to dwell with them, and to remain with them forever: and in the 16. chap. ver. 13. that he shall lead them in all truth. I answer. First, that was the Apostles prerogative, the master-builders of the kirk of Christ, that in writing and teaching the doctrine of salvation, they should be led in all truth, and in none ever since promised nor performed in that high measure. Secondly, this promise of the spirit of truth to dwell and remain in them forever, and to lead them in all truth, is made and performed in all the believers, in so far as may sanctify them and save them: & yet ye will not deny, but that everyone of the believers may err. Therefore this promise will not reach so far as to keep the kirk from impossibility of erring.

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

As to the 28. of Matthew, I will be with you to the ende of the world, I answer 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 tie the promises of God to persons & places) but to the Pastors of the kirk whom he sends forth, and to all the faithful: and is performed in them in so far forth as may save them, and enable them for his work. But yet this will not exeeme them from all possibility of erring.

As to that in the 1. Tim. 3. ver. 15. the kirk is called the pillar and ground of truth, therefore ye gather, It cannot err. First, I will ask you to whom the Apost. speaks so, & upon what occasion he speaks it? Ye must say, To Timothy, that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God, whilk is the Kirk: for so the Apost. writes. Then I ask, Is not that kirk wherein Timothy should have behaved himself, called the ground & pillar of truth? So the Scripture calls it, and ye cannot deny it. Now this kirk was the kirk of Ephesus, then the kirk of Ephesus is called the ground and pillar of truth. But first, the kirk of Ephesus fell from her first love, and the Candle-stick is threatened to be removed from her, unless she repent: She did not repent, but in time became worse and worse, and so heaped fault upon fault, till Christ hath now removed his candle-stick from her, and delivered her over to darkness and death, by taking his own elect to himself, and giving over the reprobate that hated the truth to the blindness of their own mind: so that cietie is left desolace to the impiety of Mahomete, and she that was once called by God's Spirit the pillar and ground of truth, hath now lost the truth. Now, I say, that whilk may befall one kirk, may befall any 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 quite overthrown: and being bereft of the light of Christ, is now a kirk no longer. Therefore, I say, that there is no kirk on the face of the earth, howsoever they flatter themselves with glorious styles of Catholic, pillars and ground of the truth: whose body, that is, the elect and chosen in it, may not be overshadowed with darkness, and overtaken with faintness: whose chaff, that is, the hypocrites in it, may not be haillilie consumed with rottenness and destruction, and whose whole frame and outward government, may not loose both their strength & beauty. Thirdly, I say, If the kirk cannot err, as ye say, because it is the ground and pillar of truth: and if the kirk of Ephesus be called the pillar & ground of truth, as the scripture says; and seeing the kirk of Ephesus with all the kirkes of the East, (as ye cannot deny) hath condemned the Popes supremacy as heresy: Therefore one of these two must follow, either that the kirk, that is, the pillar and ground of the truth, not only may err but hes erred, or else it is an heresy condemned many hundred years ago, that the Pope is the head of the kirk, & so Papistry is heresy. Judge ye whilk of these ye will choose. Last of all, I say, the kirk is called the pillar and ground of truth, because it is her office and duty to hold out the word of truth, as lanternes and lights, by preaching it and practicing it; as the Priest is called the Messinger of the Lord of Hosts, because his lips should preserve knowledge, and declare the message of God. But as there was Priests whilk show not forth the message of God, but caused many to err in the law, and corrupted the covenant of Levi: so there may be kirks, and have been, whilk have not upheld, and maintained the truth, but have fallen therefrom.

Now I come to your last testimony of Scripture, Act. 5.39. In that counsel of Gamaliel to the council of the Scribes and Pharisees, that if the doctrine of the Apostles be of God, that it cannot be destroyed. What do ye gather here? That the truth doth remain forever? Bellarmine telleth you, that ye spend but time in proving that, for we grant it unto you. It cannot (I grant) be destroyed, but yet it can be persecuted and removed out of places where it was before, and obscured and corrupted by men's glosses and traditions, as it hath been this thousand and five hundredth years by the Jews, to whom this was spoken. That if the doctrine of the Apostles was of God, they could not destroy it: and yet (as was said) they banished it, and made the Lord to deprive them thereof, and to give them over to the blindness and hardness of their hearts, because they would not embrace the truth when it was offered.

Seeing then there is not a sillab in God's word, that will uphold this main foundation of your kirk, (that the Kirk cannot err ) take heed to yourself, (M. Gilbert) in time: & build not the damnation of your own soul and the damnation of the souls of many others, upon a point of doctrine that hath not God to bear witness to it in the whole scripture. I might end here, but because this point, (as I said before) is the main pillar that vpholdes the whole weight of their kirk and religion: therefore I will utterly overthrow the same, and I will prove out of the word of God that the kirk in all ages, both may err, & hes erred. And first the Scripture testifies, that it is only proper to God alone by nature to be perfitelie holy, and true and free from all errors. And contrariwise man by nature is unholy, a liar, prone to deceive, and to be deceived: so that by nature he is nothing else but a mass of blindness and corruption: so that the light he hath, he hath it by free grace, by God's Spirit, to make him see so meikle of his light in the face of Christ, as may save him. But yet so long as they are in this house of clay, they see but in part: and that part whilk they see, is but obscurelie and dimlie, as the Apostle speaks. So that as long as they are in this world, they are subject to sin, ignorance, and errors. But as there are two sorts of men in the visible Kirk: some called and chosen, some called, and not chosen: and as in the diseases of the body some are curable, whereof men recovers, some are deadly whereof men dies: So is it in the errors of the militant Kirk, some are deadly, & some are curable. The chosen that are called may err but their errors are nor deadly, as the errors of the Apoles were, they recovered by grace from them. The called that are not chosen, may err and err deadly, and never recover: as these of whom John speaks: They went out from us (says he) because they were not of us, &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 err. Therefore it is manifest, that the Kirk militant heir beneath, may err. And to prove this more amplie, that she hes erred before the Law, under the law in Christ's time, and after Christ. First, Adam being made in perfect holiness and integrity, how foullie did he err when contrary God's commandment, giving more credit to the Devil nor to his maker, he brake that first covenant. For, Tertullian says Who will doubt to call Adams fall ane heresy? Now if Adam in his full light did not stand but so foullie erred, whilk is he that is come forth of his loins, borne in ignorance and blindness, that dare challenge this prerogative to himself, that he cannot err, except the man of sin and son of perdition: that is the Popes of Rome. Now, he being thrust out of Paradise hath two sons: the elder Cain, for the murder of his brother is accursed of God, and the author of the Synagogue of Babel, that is the wicked. The Kirk of God remained in the posterity of Seth, and at the last Religion began to be so profaned, that at length it grew to such a height, that Religion being contracted only in the family of Noah, it could be punished with no less nor with ane universal destruction of all living creatures by the floode, except only these y ^t were preserved in the Ark with him. Of Noah's 3, children two of them fell, both themselves & their posterity. The true Kirk and Religion remained in the family of Sem. And neither were they free from Idolatry, God calling Abraham out of his own country, serving strange gods. His eldest son Ishmael being circumcised, is commanded to be casten out of the Kirk of God. Isaac hes two sons, the elder is refused, the youngest is chosen, and so the elder with his posterity fell away. Jacob's family was not clean neither from Idolatry, being polluted with strange gods by his wife Rabel, till he cleansed his house. And as for his posterity, what stifneckednes, what rebelliō, what idolatry was amongst thē, so that no threatening, no blessing, no correctiō nor teaching, could keep them in the purity of God's worship and religion. In the Kirk under the Law, the people are Idolaters, the hie-priest Aaron the maker of the Idole to the people. In the time of the Judges after the death of Joshua, they worshipped Baal and strange gods, and every man did that whilk seemed good in his own eyes, when there was not a king in Israel whilk was very oft in these days, and therefore they are given over to the cruelty and tyranny of their enemies round about them. In the time of Heli, there was no open vision. And Solomon says, where there is no visiō the people perish. In Saul's time the Ark of the Lord was not sought, and so there wanted a chief parte of the public worship of God: for God was consulted at the Ark. And in the time of Solomon in his old age, when his heart was turned from the Lord, the Scripture testifies, that they forsook the Lord, & worshipped strange gods of the Ammonites. Such like in the time of Rehoboam Solomon's son, Judah committed Idolatry, and built hic places, wherein they worshipped contrary to God's commandment. Jehoram King of Judah, made Judah and Jerusalem to commit spiritual fornication and Idolatry, as the house of Ahab made Israel to commit idolatry. Seeing then the worship of God was corrupted both in Judah and in Israel, and there was na other visible Kirk is upon the earth, except in Judah and Israel, will it not follow then, that all the particular Kirk is on the earth may err, and fall also to idolatry? Siclike in the time of Ahaz, a strange altar is placed in the temple of the Lord, at the commandment of the king, by Uriah the Priest: & the king with the whole people at the kings commandment, offers upon that alter, and the alter of the Lord is removed out of his place. In the time of Joash, both the king and the nobility forsakes the house of the Lord and worships Idols, so that the hot wrath, of the Lord was kind led against Judah and Jerusalem for their idolatry. Siclyke in the time of Achaz, he made hie places in all the corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah, & there burned incense to strange gods. In the time of Menashe, the whole public worship of God was so defaced, and idolatry so universally set up, that the scripture testifies, Judah sinned more hainouslie nor the very nations did, whom the Lord cast out before their face. The whole host of heaven was worshipped instead of the true God. I beseek thee (Reader) to read this chapter, and there thou shall find that there was not sa meikle as ane outward face of a Kirk at that time. Yea, in the very time of good kings, as Joash, and Amatzia, who both in the beginning embraced the worship of God, but yet made defection in the end. The hic places were not removed, whilk was ane error in the worship of God. The scripture testifies that the feast of the Passover was not kept so precisely, according to the word of God since the days of Samuel, no not in the reign of the best kings, as it was in the 18. year of Josiah, and there was 400. years and more between. Also the scripture testifies, that y ^e feast of the Tabernacles was not so kept, as it was thē, since the days of Joshua, whilk was more nor 1000. years. And all the time of the captivity, where was there any public face of the Kirk of God, with his public worship uncorrupted in all things as the Lord commanded it? As concerning the kingdom of Israel from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Judah, they never had the worship of God in integrity: but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him, and after ane other manner, and by other Priests, nor they were commanded. Next, they fell to the worshipping of Idols, till they were transported out of their land, and scattered upon the face of the earth. What, shall I pursue the sayings of the Prophets, howe the only visible Kirk in the world is called an harlote? the Temple a den of thieves: the Prophets all blind guides, and dumb dogs that cannot bark.

Now, when God of his infinite mercy sent his only begotten son in the world, the light, the life, the salvation of the world, what did the Kirk and the Clergy, the Scribes & the Pharisees that sat in the chair of Moses? Surely Christ had none so great enemies, as they were, who were the Doctors, the lights, the successors of Aaron, to whom the law was concredited. When Christ testified of himself that he was the light of y ^e world, they said, his testimony was not true. When others believed in him, they said they were deceived. They ordain that if any man should confess Christ, he should be excommunicate. So that many that did believe in him durst not for them confess him. They watched him of purpose that they might have matter of accusation against him. And when he cast out devils, the Scribes and the Pharisees said that he did cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. They said they found him a man perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar. They condemn him in a solemn council as worthy of death. Yea, as Christ testifies of them, they neither entered in the Kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffered others to enter in. And yet they are these that if ye look to their antiquity, they have their beginning from Abraham: if to their succession, they succeeded to Aaron: if to their callings, they were Scribes and Pharisees, and sat in the chair of Moses: If to the place, it was the house of God. If to the people whom they taught, they were the only people of God. If to their perogatives, to them appertained the adoption, and the glory, & the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises, of whom are the Fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed forever, Amen. And if ye will look to their Council, they were solemnlie called together, where they condemned the Lord of life, and crucified the Prince of glory. What can you say to these? That they erred in the person of Christ, but not in the exponing of the Law, (as some of you says) But first, Moses did write of Christ, and Christ is the end of the Law: So that if they had not erred in exponing of the Law, they had not erred in the person of Christ, because the Law testified of Christ, and he was the end of it. Next, the Scripture testifies that they erred in exponing of the Law, that they both brake the Law, and teached others so to do. And therefore Christ says, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven. For, whereas the Law of God counts hatred murder, and lust adultery, and rash swearing unlawful swearing, and our enemies our neighbors, whom we ought to love and to do good unto: They by the contrary taught that our friends was only our neighbors whom we should love, and therefore they said that we should hate our enemies: that hatred was not the breaking of the sixth command, and lust no breaking of the 7. command: and rash swearing, no breaking of the third command. And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew, doth vindicate the true meaning of the commandments from their falls expositions. And he testifies of them that they did abrogate the Law of God through their traditions, and so in vain they worshipped God, teaching for God's Law (whilk he calls doctrine) men's precepts, whilk he proves there by an example of abrogating & annulling of that duty whilk we owe to Father and Mother, commanded us in the fifth commandment, by their tradition. And therefore he gives charge to his Disciples to bewar of the leaven (that is the doctrine) of the Pharisees. Seeing thē they who had their ordinary succession from Aaron, erred: how can the Doctors of your Kirk, yea, your Popes be privileged from erring? But it may be ye grant all this; for how can ye deny it? That the Kirk before the Law, under the Law, in the time of Moses, in the time of the Judges, in the time of the Kings, in the time of the captivity, and in the time of Christ erred: but yet the Christian Kirk hes greater privileges & promises that it cannot err. Let us examine this also, whether the Christian Kirk be privileged from erring, or not. And certainly, if any Christian Kirk, at any time had this praerogatiue, appearandlie the primitive Kirk whilk was in the days of Christ and of his Apostles should have had it. But they had it not. Therefore what Kirk since under heaven can challenge it? For, in the time of Christ's suffering the Apostles & Disciples, who only then were the Christian Kirk yea, after that they had been Apostles, and after that they had been sent to preach the Gospel, and work miracles, yet at that time, did they not err in the article of Christ's resurrection? and erred they not concerning the estate of Christ's kingdom after the resurrectiō? And concerning the teaching of the Gentiles, after that they had received the holy Ghost And Peter himself, as hath been shown. And sundry Papists says that true saith remained only in the heart of Marie in the time of Christ's suffering, was not heir then an universal erring? Now to go forward did not the Kirk of the Corinthians err in building hay & stubble on the foundatiō & in the use of the Lord's Supper, & some of them also concerning the resurrection of the dead? And the Kirk of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel, and in joining the Ceremonies of the Law with grace in justification? And what will ye say when the heresy of Arius (who denied Christ to be the son of God equal to his father) spread the self so far that it is testified that the Bishops of the haill world became Arians, that the haill warlde did grieve and wonder at it self that it was becum ane Arian. What will ye say unto all the Christian Kirks of the East, Grecia, Asia & Africa, Kirks planted by the Apostles: I mean not now of them that hes professed Muhammadism but of thē that admits the scripture, acknowledges Christ their Savior who hes their ordinar succession of Patriarckes and Bishops as well as your Kirk of Rome hes, who in number far exceeds these Kirks whilk acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Kirk. For first yours is but in Europe, except ye will claim to the new found land, & not all Europe, for all the Kirks in Greece, whilk is a great part of Europe, acknowledges not your supremacy. Now take the Greek Kirks from you, next the reformed Kirks in Scotland England, Germany, Denmark, France, Zealand, Holland, and other places, whilk hes gone out of Babel, whilks are all in Europe, your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy. And next take all Asia and Africa from you, whilk is the two part of the world, your number will be small in comparison of these that are against your supremacy. Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny, and the worship of Images, your transubstantiation in the Sacrament, the Communion under one kind, the single life of Priests. Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Kirks hes erred and does err, or else that your Roman Kirk does err and your supremacy, yea your religion whilk depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresy. But it may be ye will say, that all other Christian Kirks may err, but that it is only proper to your Kirk not to err. First therefore, let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular privilege whilk the Kirk of Rome hes beside all other Kirks whilk ever hes been, is, or shall be? Yea, above Adam when he was in his integrity (for he erred:) yea, above the Angels, for they remained not in the truth. Above the Patriarckes, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, yea, above Aaron, & the Kirk in the wilderness above the Kirk under the Law, yea, above the Apostles, & Peter himself before Christ's suffering, in the time of his suffering, after the resurrection, after the receiving of the holy Ghost: for they erred in all these times, yea, above the Christian Kirks that hes been founded by the Apostles as well as yours: that had the promise, the covenant, the service of god once in as great purity as ever yours had, that hes their ordinar succession, their antiquity, their vocation ordinar as well as yours hes unto this day. Great surly must be that privilege given unto the Kirk of Rome that hes exeemed her from error, all by having erred. What is then your prerogative above all other Kirks. I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him. First, then if Peters chair hes such an prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Kirk that cleaves to it. cannot err. I think surely the Lord's chair whilk was at Jerusalem, whilk was called the Temple and seat of God, and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sat should rather have that prerogative to freeth the Kirks and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring, yea the kirk whilk the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth, and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right clame to that prerogative. But since all their seats hes erred, for the Temple became a den of thieves: The Scribes and Pharisees that sat in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory: and Jerusalem it self cried out Crucify crucify 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 Jews frō erring, nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Kirk there gathered from erring. How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeeme that Kirk and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring? What is this but to prefer him before them all, whose seat hes a privilege that neither God nor his sons, nor Moses seat had? O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts. But let us see if it hes this prerogative whilk they ascriue unto it, or not. And first if it could have exemid any from erring, should it not have exemed himself especially from erring? But as it hes been shown he erred. Therefore it cannot exeeme neither his successors, nor yet the Kirk that acknowledges them, from erring. Secondly if it had exeemed any Kirk from erring, should it not have exeemed the Kirk of Antiochia especially, for surely Antiochia hes better right to clame to this prerogative, nor your Kirk hes. For first it was Peters first seat. Next the Scripture bears witness to it, that he was there. But neither was Rome Peters first seat, nor is there so much as a sillabe in all the scriptures, to prove that ever Peter was in Rome. But suppose Peter was there (for we will not examine this now) whether is this prerogative (not to err) given to your head, that is, to the Popes, or to the body, that is, the people, or to both? If ye say to the head, (as ye do indeed,) then what will ye answer to your own writers and Fathers, to your own councils and Popes. To your own cannon law, affirming that Popes may err and be heretics and should be deposed, and are deposed when they are manifest heretics (as hes been proved before.) And what will ye say to your Popes that hes been heretics indeed, one of them an Arian, another an Eutychian, the third an Nestorian, the fourth a Montanist, the fifth deposed as an heretic. The sext denying that the souls of the children of God saw God's face whill after the resurrection. The seventh denying life everlasting, and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom, others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors. Others such monsters and beasts, so cruel to the dead and to the living, that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the devil shot him through whill he was abusing another man's wife, and so died without repentance. Dare you say, and would ye have the salvation of men's souls, to lean to this point of doctrine that they cannot err which is the rock and foundation of your Kirk, whilk above all others hes erred most foullie. O malicious and cruel man that would deceive the poor flock of Jesus Christ, for whom he shed his blood, with such heresy & abomination. Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes the head and foundation of your Kirk. And surely if the foundation may be turned up side down, and the head may become senseless and dead, I see not howe the house can stand, and the body can be whole, and one of your greatest Papists Bellarmine plainly confesseth, that if the Pope err, of necessity, tota ecclesia errabit. That is, the whole Kirk shall err. Upon the whilk I reason, If the Pope may err, and hes erred, then the whole Kirk may err, and hes erred: (so Bellarmine one of the learndst papists that ever was, writ:) But the first hes been proved by your own Doctors, Cardinals, Popes, councils, cannon law: Ergo, by your own doctrine the whole Kirk may err. Here we might stay now and go no further: for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine, that the Kirk cannot err, & 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 Clergy. To the people, I trow ye will not; for if your Popes may err, much more may your people err: And if he Apostles & other famous Kirks may err, much more may your people err: yea, if not, it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope, whilk I trow ye will not say. If ye say the Clergy, then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves, or as they are gathered together in a council. But as they are several ye will not say. For your Bellarmine's controversies would convince you to the face: for almost there are few controversies whilk he handles (and he handles more nor 300) but he brings in some of your own writers dissenting from him, and whom in many places he confutes. And I think if Popes hes not this privilege, surely the Doctors of your Kirk severally hes not this privilege. But because (as Bellarmine confesseth if a general council err, then the whole Kirk may err, for it represents the whole Kirk. And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove ( that general councils cannot err, because the whole Kirk cannot err, for (saith he) the general council represents the whole Kirk, therefore it cannot ere. Let us examine this: for if it be found that general councils may err surely your cause is gone. First then what will ye say to thirteen general councils whereof seven is utterly rejected, and the other six are in part allowed, and in part rejected, whilk all hes erred as Bellarmine confesseth. But it may be you answer that these was not approved by the Popes of Rome, & therefore they might err, and hes erred, but these councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err, nor hes not erred. Indeed it it true that this is your doctrine that neither general nor provincial council can err that is allowed by the Pope, & that general councils lawfully conuened may err, unless they follow the instructions of the Pope. And therefore Bellarmine says that they may err three manner of ways, 1. in defyning of anything the fathers of the council dissent from the Popes legates. 2. If it be against the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the legates of the council agree together. 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirmation and judgment, suppose all both fathers and legates consent together, because (saith he) the Popes judgment is the last from the whilk no man may appeall, and he may approve and disprove the general council notwithstanding of their consent with his own legates. And therefore he says in another place that the whole strength or certainty of lawful councils depends only of the Pope. So then this is your last refuge. All depends on his instruction & confirmation, he hes a privilege that he cannot err and the general councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation. But I answer: The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others, nor he hes himself: But (as hath been proved before) the Popes may err, and have been heretics: Therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others. And if ye will say (as some of you does) that the Pope suppose he may err privately as he is a private man, & as a private teacher, yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office iudiciallie. Whereunto I answer first, That some of your own Kirk, as Gerson and Almane, Alphonsus de Castro, Cano, and Pope Adrian the sext: all these teaches That the Popes may err and teach heresy as they are Popes: Either therefore the Popes may err as they are Popes iudiciallie, and teach heresy, or else not only these Doctors of your own Kirk, but also the Pope himself hes erred, & that in a point of doctrine: and so howe ever it be, the Popes as they are Popes, judicially may err in points of doctrine. Secondly, I say, besides nine Popes whilk have been heretics, and that when they were Popes, sundry of them hes made decrees not only contrary to God's word, but also contrary one to another, and that in matters of doctrine. As for example. Pope Celestine the third made a decree that when of married persons the one falls in heresy, the marriage is dissolved, and the Catholic party is free to marry again, contrary to the truth of God. And also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third. Thirdly, either your Cannon Law errs, or else Clements decreit that all things should be common, and that wives also should be common. Gelasius Pope affirms that the mystery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided & that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacrilege: and yet the Council of Trent hes decreed the contrary, and the whole Roman Kirk practices the contrary. Pope Martin decreed that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may never be admitted to any degree of the Priest-hoode again. Pope Syricius, & Pope Calixtus hes decreed the contrary. Pope Gregory the third he permits one to have two wives if the first be siklie, contrary both to the gospel and to ane other decreet of the cannon law. Pope Nicholas saith, that that Baptism which is ministered without express mention of the three persons of the Trinity, is firm & sure enough. But Pope Zechariah hes decreed the contrary. All these decreites are set down in their cannon law, and hes the strength of a law in the Roman Kirk, not as private men's, but as Popes decreits. And yet some of them are directly repugnant to the word of God, that thenselves cannot deny but they are heresies, and some of them so directly repugnant to the decreits of other Popes, that either the one or the other must be heresy. But it may be ye will answer that suppose the Pope may err as he is Pope, and that in matters of doctrine, yet he cannot err with his council, either provincial or general (as Bellarmine saith). Wherevnto I answer, first if general councils lawfully convened together, may err in matters of doctrine, unless they be confirmed by the Pope, as Bellarmine grants: And if the popes may err themselves alone, and that iudiciallie in matters of doctrine, as hes been proved. Why may they not err also being joined together, seeing councils hes this privilege only by his confirmation and allowance? As Bellarmine saith lib. 4. de Rom. pontisi. cap. 3. Secondly, I say, either Pope Stephen the 6. with his council erred in condemning of Formosus & his acts whilk he made as pope, & in decreing his ordinations to be void & null, because the man was wicked by whom he was ordained: whilk is ane error of the Donatists, or else Pope John the 9. with his council of 72. Bishops, erred, in justifying Formosus and his decreetes, and condemning the acts of Pope Stephen with his council. Last of all, since general councils that hes been confirmed by their Popes hes erred, the sixth general council confirmed by Pope Hadriane hes sundry errors whilk they themselves will not defend, as the rebaptising of heretics. For the counsel of Cypriane is confirmed there, wherein this is decreted. And also it is ordained that Elderis, Deacons, subdeacons should not separate from their wives contrary to the canon of the Roman Kirk, as is said there. And the marriage of catholickes and heretics is judged null and void, whilk yourself cannot deny to be an error contrary to the express truth of God. And the forbidding of ministers to remain with their wives contrary to the sixth canon of the Apostles. Either therefore a general council confirmed by a Pope hes erred, or else the Apostles hes erred in this canon, for they judge them to be the canons of the Apostles. The first general council of Constantinople and the general council of Chal • edon whilk are both by their own confession approved by the Popes. And yet both these hes decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges of authority honor and dignity in ecclesiastical affairs with the Bishop of Rome, save only the first place or seat the whilk by their own confession is an error. Therefore either lawful general councils confirmed by the Pope, hes erred; or else the Pope is not the head of the Kirk, and hes not a preeminence of authority over the rest, for they have made the Bishop of Constantinople equal with him, or else there ar two heads of their Kirk, the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishop of Constantinople, I omit the rest. Augustine says that provincial councils may be corrected by general councils, and of general councils the former may be amended by the later, if they may be mended then they may err. And here he speaks not of a matter of fact but of a matter of faith, for he speaks of the baptism of heretics. Now to conclude seeing the 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 himself hes erred; and seeing the Kirk of Rome that claims this privilege of not erring above all other Kirks, hes erred also, and that not only her people whilk they call Laics, but also her clergy severally & together in councils, as well provincial as general. And seeing 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 private men only, but as Popes, both by themselves alone, as also with their councils, as well provincial as general. Seeing, I hope I have proved all these things sufficiently, then may I not with the judgment of all men safely conclude, that that main pillar whereupon the whole weight and pillar of your religion depends (that the Kirk cannot err) that it is an error, and such a dangerous and damnable error, whereupon all the errors of your religion is built, that whosoever will believe it, they hasard the endless salvation of their souls. Ground then (Christian reader) thy salvation not upon this, that the Kirk cannot err: for that is false: but upon this, that as long as she sticks to the word of God written in the old and New Testament she errs not, & when she swerues and it were but an inche braid from the Scripture, then she errs. And therefore two learned Papists Gerson and Panormitan affirms the one saith simplici non authorizato sed excellenter in sacris literis erudito &c. that is, that more credit is to be given to one unlearned & simple, but yet excellently besene in the holy write, in a point of doctrine: nor to the Pope. And such a learned man says he ought to oppone himself to a general council, if he perceive the greater part to decline to the contrary of the Gospel either of malice or of ignorance. The other saith that more credit is to be given to an unlearned and simple man that brings for him the Scripture, nor to a whole general council. And this for answer to the testimonies of Scripture whilk ye cited.

Now, as concerning the fathers testimonies whilk ye bring in, they will serve you no further nor the Scripture hes done, for they will go no further with you nor this that the Kirk of Christ and his covenant with her shall endure forever, the whilk we grant, and they that will read them will find them so. And if ye prove any further out of them it shall be answered by God's grace, for it were too fashions to the reader to set down here the particular sayings of everyone of them. And if ye had formed your arguments out of them, I should have formed my answer by the grace of God to everyone of them. And this much concerning your ground, and the proofs of it. Now I come to that whilk ye gather of it.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Of this we collect that our Kirk must be the only true Kirk, and not theirs, because ours hes never been interrupted, nor hes failed in any substantial point of faith & religion since Christ & his Apostles days, and theirs hes done. To confirm this, I say, that Master John, nor no minister in Scotland can be able to assign to us the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion: That is to say,

1. The author who first began 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 itself whilk was changed or begun.

6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed.

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

1. The first author of their Religion, albeit not in all things, was Martin Luther an Augustine Frier.

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

3. He began the same in Saxony in the country of Almanie.

4. The Kirk of Rome, Italy, France, Spain, Scotland, England, Denmark, Swaden, Pole, an great part of Almanie, with the east and west Indies whilks were the true Kirk, said against him.

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

6. He departed himself from all the Christian Kirks in Europe, in the Indies and other places, and therefore he had no predecessors of his own Religion, as we read in the Apology of the English Protestants, that he and Zwingli were the first that came to the knowledge of the Evangel, & therefore none immediately before them.

Then seeing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediately, neither visible nor invisible, he and his could not be the Kirk of Christ: for it hes ever stood, and never failed, no not the space of one day universally, because our Savior says, I shall be with you every day to the consummation of the world.

M. John Welsche his Reply.

As to your collection, the form of it must be this. That Kirk only must be the true Kirk that hes never been interrupted, nor failed in any substantial head of faith and religion since Christ and his Apostles. But say ye, yours is such, and ours not: Therefore your Kirk is the true Kirk, and ours not. The proposition I grant. But all the controversy lies in the probation of your assumptiō. Yea, instead of proving ye say it is not possible to me, nor to na Minister in Scotland to assign to you the circumstances of all mutations & changes in your religion, as the person, time, place, &c. And then ye attempt to assign all these circumstances of our religion, upon the whilk ye conclude the falset of it. So we will first see how ye prove your own, and then see howe ye disprove ours. Indeed this argument of yours is of such accompt with you, that there are not many of your writers, but they have set it, as it were, in the vaunt-guard of their host, and amongst the greatest of their strengths and bulwarks, for to up-hold their ruinous Babel. So Hammilton and Hay, in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland, so Campion, so Duraus Scotus against Whitaker in his defense: so your Rhemists: and so Bellarmine. Whereby it may be seen of what accompt this argument of yours is in the judgment of your Kirk. But to answer 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 whilk is set down in the Scripture of God. For you will not deny, I hope, but the Scripture doth sufficiently testify, what doctrine and religion was in Christ's and his Apostles days. And so let it once be put in the balance of the Scripture, and tried thereby, and then I hope it will sone be made manifest how far it is changed. So, and you dare, M. Gilbert let once your Religion be set upon the Pannel, and let it once have an assyse of the Scripture, and then the plea will end, I hope. Next I say, it will not follow, We cannot assign all the circumstances of changes in your Religion: Therefore your Religion is uncorrupted. For it sufficeth if we can prove the first only, that is, the matter or doctrine it self whilk is changed, and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God, suppose we could not assign all the rest of the circumstances of the mutation: as the time, place, author, and so forth: for the changes of many things are moste notorious, and yet all the circumstances of the change thereof not known. We say then it is not needful to seek the beginnings and circumstances of the decays and corruptions in your Kirk, when the corruption and change it self is so manifest, by comparing your doctrine with the written word of God, that it cannot be denied. For will you say, that he who is deadly diseased, is whole and sound, because I cannot tell you the first article of time, the place, and first occasion of the disease? When it is manifest that a city is full of misorder and confusion, will ye say that ye will not believe it to be so, unless you know the first beginnings and progress of these misorders. If you saw a ruinous house, would ye say, Prove me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it, otherwise I will not believe it? Will ye deny that a ship could be drowned, unless it were told you all the circumstances of the change of the lecke where-throw it drowned. If any found a man fallen in a pit, shall he not believe that he is fallen, whom nevertheless he sees to be there, unless it were told him, when and by whom he was caste into the same: Even so, will ye not believe, or will ye hinder all others to believe that your Kirk and Religion is ruinous, consumed, rotten, dead, drowned, & full of misorder, heresy, and confusion, unless the first beginnings of these changes can be told you? We say therefore it is sufficient to prove the ruin and consumption of your Kirk and Religion, if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the scripture, we make evident the direct opposition betwixt them, suppose we could not assign all the circumstances of the change of it out of the histories, leaving it free to Historiographers to write what they please, and omit what they please. Thirdly, it is manifest, that the Kirk of the Jews in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine & manners from that estate that it was in the time of Aaron, Eleazar, and sundry others: and also the Kirks of Galatia and Corinth 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 assign to me all the circumstances of the mutations and changes in the same, as the first authors, time, place, &c. & yet there was a great change in Doctrine and Religion in all these Kirks, as hath been proved before. And we read that our Savior and the Apostles, convicted them of a change, and yet they designed not the first authors, time, and place and so forth. The like I say of the Kirk of Greece, Asia and Africa, which in number exceeds yours. That there is a wonderful change in their Kirk and Religion ye will not deny, or else your Religion is heresy: for (as said is) they acknowledge not your Popes supremacy, Transubstantiation, &c. And yet I trow ye, nor na Papist in the earth is able to assign all the circumstances of changes in their Kirk, and Religion which they have presently: yea, more unable to do this, nor we are able to do the same in yours. I mean not the heresies of Arius, Samosatenus, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sergius, and the rest, whilk long ago were damned by the Councils of the Greek Kirks. (For I trow ye shall not be able to prove that they now maintain these heresies, whilk they condemned and refuted long ago.) But I mean of the present errors and corruptions in their worship and Religion, whilk now they maintain and profess. If then ye judge the kirks of the east heretical, because they are not aggreable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome, and yet not be able to assign the circumstances of the changes and mutations of the same? Will ye not grant the same liberty to us to accompt and judge your kirk and Religion failed, because it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, set down in the Scripture, suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of the same.

Fourthly I say, if you have read Epiphanius, there ye shall find many heresies, whilk I omit for shortness, whilks he accounts heresies, whose beginnings and authors are unknown.

Fifthlie, there is such ane universal complaint of the monstrous abominations and decays in your Religion, discipline, & manners, & that by your own councils, Fathers, Popes, Cardinals, & Friars, that I would have thoght it incredible unless I had read them, that either your own mouths should have so condemned yourselves, or else that the posterity afterward should have been so shameless as to have boasted of the purity of their Kirk and Religion. Therefore the Council of Trent hes proclaimed it to the world in write, that the Kirk hes need to be reformed in the head and members. Now, I ask that of you concerning these abuses in discipline and manners, whilk ye ask of us concerning your doctrine. Show me all the circumstances of mutation and change distinctly, if ye can, what time, what place, by what author &c. such monstrous abominations first brake in in your Kirk & religion. Now seeing there is no man who hes a spark of judgment, that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and discipline in your Kirk, and yet the circumstances of the changes unknown: think ye then that ye shall assure men that no changes culled fall in your doctrine, unless we knew the circumstances of the changes of the same?

Sixthly, the Scripture testifies that evē the tares whilk is the evil seed doth not appear so soon as they are sown, and that neither the times, nor the first author of them was known, no not to the most diligent laborers of the Lord's ground at the first: and yet it was enough to know them to be evil seed, by the difference that was seen betwixt them and the good seed, suppose the time, place, & author was unknown at the first. So it is proof enough against your doctrine, that it is but tares, if the difference be made manifest between it and the Lord's truth in the Scripture, suppose the circumstances of the changes of it, cannot be assigned.

Seventhly, theirs is likened to leaven and a canker, whilk doth not all at once infect the whole mass, and feister the whole body; but piece and piece: so your corruption came not in all at once, but piece and piece infected your Kirk & feistered your religion. And therefore it is no wonder suppose the beginnings of infection and circumstances of it, hes not been marked: for if they had broken in all at once, and in a suddentie overthrown the whole Kirk, it had been no difficulty to have assigned the circumstances of the overthrow of it. For if any having a whole constitution with an stroke were slain, if an ship with an wave were drowned: it were no difficulty to assign the circumstances of the sudden changes. But in a consumption, and in a leck that hes come in piece and piece in the body & in the ship, the beginnings thereof cannot be so easily perceived: for a little leck in process of time will sink a great ship. And if it be so hard to discern the beginnings of these things whilk our senses may grope, how much more hard is it to perceive the beginnings of these spiritual corruptions whilk cannot be perceived by the natural man, but only by the light of God's spirit by the spiritual man.

Eighthly, if now it be so in other heresies as the Scripture testifies of them that their beginning are ofttimes unknown, even unto the moste diligent laborers of the Lord's husbandry and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once, how much more is this true in your Antichristian religion, whilk (as it was fore-told) should deceive all nations and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication. And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture an iniquity, but an secret iniquity: an unrighteousness, but yet an deceivable unrighteousness: a delusion, but yet a strong delusion; an abomination and spiritual fornication, but yet put in a golden cup, that is, having the show of godliness and religion, and your Kirk is called a harlot: but yet finelie decked in purple, &c. not like a harlot, but a Queen. Your kingdom is called a beast that speaks like the dragon, but yet like the lamb in his horns, resembling the power & authority of the Lord Jesus. Seeing then your Kirk, kingdom & doctrine is such a mystery of iniquity, hes such a show of godliness, hes such a resemblance with the lamb, hes such cloaks of styles is so deceivable, and is such a strong delusion, as the Scripture testifies of it: is it any wonder, suppose the beginnings of this mystery, & of the whoredoms of this queen be not distinctly marked and set down?

Ninthly, it is likely enough that the great credit wherein the first Bishops of Rome was for their piety and godliness, and the lofty estate of their successors after them, together with their cruelty & tyranny did so dazzle on the one side the eyes of the godly, that they were not inquisitive in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions, and so bridled the mouths of other some that they durst not write the thing they saw, and if they write anything, 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 heretic and condemned and executed where ever your tyranny reached.

Last of all, suppose they had been written by the histories of every age, and that distinctly; yet considering the universal power, craft and policy of your Kirk and kingdom, is it any wonder suppose they be not now extant at all, but either burnt, or else so falsifyed and corrupted that the beginnings thereof should not have been perceived. For seeing in the purer times when the power and dominion of your Kirk was not yet come to the height, such was the ambition & falsehood of your Popes that in the presence of a council of 217. Bishops in Carthage, where Augustine was present, they did allege a false canon of the council of Nice, for to have established their supremacy, and under one of their hands sent it to the council by their legates: the whilk was espied 〈…〉 and found out by the whole council, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that council he should have no prerogative over the Kirks of Asrik, and that none should appeal to him under the pain of deposition and excommunication: but also he was rebuked by the fathers of that council in their letters to him. If he was so bold then, what marvel suppose since he hes falsifyed and corrupted every history & writing, that he saw might bear any ways witness of the corruptions, tyrannies & abominations of that Kirk and religion of his. And hence it is, I am sure, that we find so little written of the beginnings of their corruptions, & of them that resisted it. And your Index expurgatorius devised in the council of Trent for blotting out everything in the writing is of men that might testify of your corruptions, doth also sufficiently witness unto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclude this, suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of your religion, yet it follows not but your religion and Kirk may be corrupted and decayed.

But to satisfy your demand, (suppose I hope the things already said, will satisfy the consciences of the godly) what crave you? That all the circumstances of changes in your religion may be assigned to you? First then, I say, there is nothing that may serve either to make the man of God wise unto salvation, or yet that may make him perfect in every good work, but the Scripture testifies: for it is able to do both these. If these circumstances then serve either for salvation or perfection, I say they are set down in the Scripture, so that we need not to go to histories to search the same.

The first then ye crave, is the time when the change began. The Scripture tells you that the mystery of iniquity began to work even then in the Apostles days, and that it doth already work, and so grew on from degree to degree till he that withheld it was removed, that is till the Empire of Rome began to decay, and the seat of it removed from thence, as the fathers expounded it, Augustine, Chrysost. Hiero. & so the city left to the Pope the man of sin for him to set his th • • ne there: for Rome that seven hilled city behooved to be the seat of the Antichrist, as it was foretold by the Scripture. So, if you will believe the Scripture, you have the time. What crave you next? The place? I say the Scripture testifies of the same that that mystical Babylon, whilk Bellarmine your chief campion grants to be Rome, that sits upon seven hills, that had the dominion over the Kings of the earth, that is the place where first your Kirk and religion began to decay. So there the place if ye will believe the Scripture. What crave you next? The author? The Scripture also hes foretold that the beast that came out of the bottomless pit, and slew the witnesses of God and made war with the Saints, and overcame them, & made all to worship the image of the beast, and the harlot Babel, (the city of Rome) the mother of whoredoms, who made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, 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: the two witnesses of God whom she killed, the woman that fled in the wilderness, the Saints with whom she made war, & who would not worship the beast nor receive his image, the hundredth forty and four thousand that John saw standing with the Lamb in mount Zion, who was not defiled with your idolatry, but followed the Lamb whithersoever he went. These then are the true kirk whilk spak against your corruptions, who are like unto Elijah's seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baal. What crave you more? The matter itself they said against? The Scripture and ye will believe will satisfy you in this point also. The doctrine then that was said against was that mystery of iniquity, that deceiuablenes of unrighteousness, that strong delusion, that doctrine of the Dragon, that spiritual idolatry and abomination, that doctrine of Devils in forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence of meat, & so forth of the rest. What crave you last? The number from whom they departed? The Scripture will also bear witness of this, seeing your religion is a departure from the faith, then all these that ever professed the faith of Jesus set down in his written word, even the Lord Jesus the head, the Apostles, the layers of the foundation, the primitive Kirk, the woman that fled in the wilderness, the Saints with whom ye made war, and all the elect and chosen of God that abhorred your idolatry: These are the true Kirks from whom you departed. What now crave you more? Will not the abundance of the rivers of the Scriptures of God quench and satisfy this your desire, but that you must go unto the impure fountains of men's writings, as though the Scripture were not sufficient not only to make a man wise unto salvation, but to make him perfect in everything? These things I am sure will satisfy the souls of them that loves the truth. But because you give no credit to the Scriptures, but counts them as a nose of wax, and as one of your Popes speaking to Bembus a Cardinal called them a fable of Christ, and yet such a fable as hes enriched your treasures. And Sylvester Prierias writing against Luther, says that the Roman Kirk & Pope is of greater authority then the Scriptures. O horrible blasphemies of the holy truth of God. Therefore we will go to the histories, and se what they have testified of these circumstances. And although all things here be not expressed to the full, yet there is so much left uncorrupted and vnscraped out (by the gracious providence of God, that would not want his witness in all ages) out of the fathers and your own writers, that I hope will satisfy the consciences of all the modest & godly. Clemēs Alexandrinus says that the Apostles successors received the doctrine from them, as the sons from their fathers. But he subjoins that there was very few children that was like their fathers. Aegesippus as Nicephorus reports, says that the Kirk remained a pure virgins as long as the Apostles lived unto Traians time, but they being dead, he writes that it was speedily corrupted. So if ye credit the testimonies of these men, ye se the Kirk remaineth not long in her integrity. And if you would hear ought of your Rom. Kirk, Socrates says that Celestinus your Pope past the bounds of his priesthood. Read Basilius de spiritu sancto, & there ye may se what change of religion was in his time. Augustine testifies that the multitude of ceremonies grew so in his time, that the condition of the Jews seemed to be more tolerable, nor the condition of the Kirk. Now did not this sickness trow ye, grow be time? And to come to your own writers. Bernard says, that y ^e Ministers of Christ (meaning of the Roman Kirk) serves Antichrist. And to the Pope himself, Eugenius 3. he says And thou the shepherd goes forth being clothed with a glorious attire, if I durst say it: these are the feeding places of Devils rather then of sheep: thy court is accustomed rather to receive good men, nor to make them good: not the evil profits, but the good decays there. And in another place he says, From the sole of the foot (speaking of the Kirk of Rome) to the crown of the head there is no health, nor soundness. And in another place he says, What remains now (speaking of the corruptions of that Kirk of Rome) but that the mā of sin be revealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modo diurnum, sed & meridianum, that is, a deuilrie not only in the day tide, but in the very noon-tide. And to Fugenius the Pope he says, In these secular attyres and powers thou hes not succeeded to Peter, but to Constantine. The day would sooner fail me, nor the writing of his complaints against the Kirk of Rome.

Pope Hadrianus the 6. in his instructions to his Legates whilk were sent to the council of Noremberg, he grants and bids them say to the council, that We know that in this chair, (meaning Peters Sea in Rome,) for certain years many abhominable things hes been in it: the abuse in spiritual things, the excess in commandments, and in a word, all things are changed in a worse. And the council of the Cardinals to Paul the third: they say, Out of this fountain (holy father) as from the Troian horse, hes broken so many abuses in the Kirk of God, such heavy diseases, whereby we see now that she is dispaired almost of health. Aeneas Sylvius a Cardinal, who also was Pope afterward, says of your Kirk, That all faith hes perished in her, & love is grown ye-cold. And Cornelius Bitontinus Bishop, who was present at the council of Trent says, 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 have more? will ye yet be so shamlesse as to boast of the purity of your Kirk?) and from God to Epicureanism. I leave the rest, as Platin, Genebrand, Frier Mantuā, Nicolaus Clemangis, Franciscus Petrarcha, Auentinus, and a number of others who are full of complaints of the abominations of your Kirk of Rome, that certainly I cannot but wonder at your shamelesnesse in opening of your mouth, and saying, that your Kirk had the truth in all things, and never failed nor was interrupted, against such a cloud of witnesses, whose testimonies ye dare not refuse. But I leave you to the Lord. The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord. So your own mouths shall rise up in the day of the Lord, and condemn you that says, Your kirk hes not failed in any substantial point of Religion. But you crave more distinctly the time, place, and persons, and so forth, that hes brought in this mutation and change. If these are to be accounted authors of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders thereof: then I say the Popes of Rome (for the moste part) are the authors of the same, for they were the chief defenders thereof, suppose they had not been the first teachers thereof. For, otherwise Luther cannot be said to be the author of our Religion, as ye say, because he was not the first that taught the same, and that by your own confession. For ye say, that sundry other heretics before Luther taught the same heads of doctrine whilk he taught, & whilk we profess now. As, that Fasting should be free, that only Faith justifieth, that man hes not free will, &c. Next, because it were too longsom to go throw the whole heads of your Religion, therefore I will only bring a few examples, and that in some of the substantial points thereof. As for the sacrifice of the Mass, and the ceremonies thereof, I have shown the authors thereof in another place therefore I omit that now. The first that ever took upon him to exercise jurisdiction over the Kirks of the East, was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who took upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East, because they would not follow his fashion in the celebration of Easter. There the person, time, and place, resisted by Irenaeus bishop of Lions in France, & the Bishops of the East, & the brethren there, Polycarpus and sundry others. The first that took upon him the style to be called universal Bishop, was the Bishop of Constantinople, anno 581. Resisted by Pelagius, and after him Gregorius Bishops of Rome. And yet for all this, Boniface the 3. anno 607. obtained this style of Phocas the Emperor, the murderer of his predecessor, complained of by the Kirk of Rauenna in Italy, and resisted by sundry as shall be proved afterwards. The first that appointed laws of Fasting, was Montanus the heretic, anno 145. accounted heresy by Apolonius and Augustine, against the fasting of the Manicheans The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministered the Communion under one kind, as the Papists does now: and so forth of many other old condemned heresies whilk your Kirk hes renewed, as shall be proved afterward. The first that gave inkling of Transubstantiation, was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his enchantment having first caused a cup of white wine to bear the coullour of blood, made his followers believe that by his invocation over it, that grace whilk is above all things, had poured his blood into the cup, refuted by Epiphanius and Irenaeus. The first that decreed Transubstantiation in effect, was Pope Nicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in causing Berengarius to recant, but yet it was not decreed as an universal doctrine, before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a council of Lateran anno 1215. as Tonstall witnesses. The Greek Kirk never consented to it, Bertramus, Berengarius, Waldensis withstood it. The first that decreed the worshipping of Images was Hadrian in the 2. council of Nice, against the express Scripture, after the example of Marcellina an heretic, who worshipped the Image of Jesus, resisted by sundry Fathers and councils, The first that imposed single life and condemned marriage in their Clergy was Pope Syricius anno 390. as the Manichees did before him, resisted by sundry. Let these examples serve as a taist to the reader.

How strongly now ye have manned and fortified your own Kirk & Religion by your proofs, let the reader judge. Now let us see, how ye disprove ours. The question now comes in of the truth of our Kirk and Religion, whether it be from Jesus Christ, or not. You say, it is not from him, but from others since his time. If ye had gone the straight way to have proved this and to have satisfied the consciences of men, you would at the nearest have run to the Scripture, and by the same have disproved it. But you instead of this go a far by-way, and would father our religion on flesh and blood, dust and ashes: in pointing us out Martin Luther to be the father and author of the same, as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon unto, nor had not the beginning & foundation of it, from the root of Jesse, the bud of the Lord from whom it hes sprung. And for to get yourself the better credit you busy yourself 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 Martin Luther, that you can assign all these circumstances, it is no wonder, for that was the most notable and markable period of the decaying of your Babel, and of the erecting up again of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, whilk your head & clergy had stamped it under foot for so many years, whilk suppose the beginning of it was but like a little leaven, and as a grain of mustard-seed whilk of all seeds is the least. Yet now since it hes so soured almost the whole mass, even the most part of the kingdoms of Europe, whilk once was under your spiritual bondage, and hes grown up into such a high tree having fair and great branches, under the whilk the Lord's sheep may get rest and warmness, and in the whilk his souls that mounts up-wards to that kingdom, doth build their nests, so that neither can all your purgations, nor yet all your axes of fire and sword, of bulls and pardons of preachings and writings, stay the spreading of the one▪ nor cut down the branches & root of the other. That M. Luther began at that time, and in that place, and preached against these doctrines, we do not deny, and that is not controverted: But here lies all the questiō, whether if that doctrine that he preached against, was antichristian or not, & whether that religion whilk he neither invented, nor yet first preached (for sundry before him did preach that same doctrine, whose names I set down in my answer to your objection) but only raised it out of the grave of darkness wherein ye had buried the truth of God. Here then (I say) is the question whether that religion whilk he preached hes the warrant from Jesus Christ in his Testament or not? the whilk if ye ever disprove by the written word of God, then shall we grant you all that ye say, the whilk is as impossible to you to do, no not suppose your King would call all your wisemen & clergy together, as it was to all the wisemen of Babel to tell and interpret Nebuchadnezzar his dream: yea, suppose your King would reward yow gloriously with honor and riches if ye could do it, yet are ye not able to win your wages. Yea, suppose he would riue you in pieces and make your house a iakes unless ye did it, as the wisemen of Babel was, because they could not tell and interpret the Kings dream. This is therefore the point whilk lies in question betwixt us, whilk ye should have proved if ye could. But know ye for a truth, that suppose he raised out of the grave the truth of God 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, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the foundation of it in the New Testament of his holy Scripture. This for the author, time, and place whilks ye assign.

Now, to the Kirks that spake against him. I answer: they were but such as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication, and deluded by your strong delusions, being deceived by the golden cup, wherein you propyned them to be drunken out, as it was prophesied of you. But the measure of your iniquity being full, and the time of the lurking of the truth of God being run out, God of his infinite mercy by his ministry, and the rest that followed since, hes opened the eyes of a great part of these kingdoms who first said against him, to se your Kirk to be the whore: your kingdom to be the beast: and your head to be the Antichrist: your doctrine to be delusions, and your Rome to be that mystical Babylon. And so the Lord hes made them believe and give obedience to that commandment of his, go out of her my people &c. That ye call these the true Kirk that spake against him, that lies in the weights and balance yet betwixt us, for or ye prove them to be the true Kirk, ye must fi • st prove your doctrine whilk they then professed, to have the warrant out of the word of God. So, let them have 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 tyranny of your Pope and clergy, and consumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatry. So then it was not the true Kirk, that is, the called ones by the light of the Gospel (for they are the true Kirk) that spake against him, but only these that were infected and poisoned with your abominations, the whilk I grant did over-spread these nations as it was fore-told of her. And as for these first heads of religion whilk he oppugned: Of your pardons, justification by works, and the sacrifice of the mass, there condemnation is set down in the great register and Testament of Jesus Christ the Lord of life as shall be proved hereafter. So that he was not the first that oppugned them. Now as to the last the Kirks from whom he departed, he departed not from their body, but from the consumption of your heresy, that consumed the body: not from the Kirk, but from the corruptions of your Idolatry and abominations in the Kirk. Not from the common-weal of Israel, but from your tyranny & oppression of the common-weal. Not from the city of God, but from the pest of your doctrine, that infected the city. And last of all not from the spiritual communion & society of the Saints of God in these partes, but from the communion with Babel with Antichrist, with the beast, & with y ^e Dragon, & that at the commandment of the Lord fly from Idolatry; go out of Babel my people. Now after you have assigned the mutations of our religion since Christ and his Apostles (as you think) you gather the whole force of it together & makes the stream of your argument to run as strongly as it can upon our Kirk and religion, that the face and form of it might be so washen away that it be not known to be a true Kirk. Your reason then is this. The true Kirk of Christ hes neuerfailed universally for the space of one day, because our Savior hes promised to be with it to the end of the world. But our Kirk was never before Martin Luther's days, 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 deny your proposition for I hope I have proved sufficiently before that the Kirk both may err and hes erred in all ages. But if you take failling to be utterly abolished and rooted out of the face of the earth, then I grant your proposition, that God hes ever 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 never before Martin Luther's days, I deny it. Let us see howe ye prove it. There was none (say ye) before his days neither visible nor invisible that professed his religion. But howe do ye prove that, for that is still denied to you? For if our religion hes the old and New Testament to bear witness to it, and Jesus Christ to be the author of it in every point, as shall be made manifest by the grace of God, then I say whosoever they were from the beginning of the world to this day visible or invisible that professed the true Jesus, the true Savior, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherein 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) have disproved the heads of our religion not to have their warrand from the tables of Christ's Testament, or ye had concluded that we had none of our profession and Religion before Martin Luther. And this is the point you should have begun at, for it is not the Kirk that makes the religion, but the religion that makes the Kirk. Have we a warrant out of the word of God for our religion, then are we the true Kirk, and the successors of all them whoever from the beginning of the world hes professed the same. Have we not this warrant then I grant you we have no true Kirk. So there is the point of our controversy, whether our doctrine be from God, out of his word or not. But howe prove ye that Martin Luther had none of his professiō before him? First you gathered upon the former things that all the true Kirks said against him, and that he departed from them, unto the whilk I answered before that these was not the true Kirk, but only so many of every natiō who was deceived by your doctrine, & whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his ministry, & by the ministry of others whom the Lord did stir up since, so that neither did the true Kirk who saw the truth, speak against nor yet did he depart from their society. Next as the lord had a true kirk in Israel in the time of Elias, even these 7000. whilk did not bow their knee to Baal, who was neither known to Elias the Prophet nor yet to the persecutors: so did the Lord in the midst of your darkness and Idolatry reserve to himself a true Kirk, even these hundredth forty and four thousand whilk John saw standing with the Lamb on mount Zion, who did not defile themselves with your Idolatry and did not worship the beast and receive his mark: whilk suppose neither ye nor we had known, yet the Lord did reserve them as he promised.

Thirdly, I say Martin Luther had sundry who professed his religion immediately before him, who was even known to the world, as I shall prove afterward.

Your next proof is taken from an testimony of one of our own writers where ye allege that it is written of Martin Luther and Zwingli, that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel. I say ye are not faithful in citing of this testimony, for it says not that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel, but these are the words that it was an easy thing to them (meaning of your Kirk) to devise against us (meaning the English Protestants as ye call them) these cursed speeches, when Martin Luther and Zwingli first came to the Gospel. The Latin words are, cum Martinus Luther et Zwingli primum accessissent ad Euangelium. So it says not that they were the first that came to the Gospel, but that it was easy to you to spew out cursed speeches when they came first to the Gospel. So that this word primum that is, first, is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospel before, but in comparison with that time in the whilk they themselves knew not the Gospel. It is an aduerb of time, and you take it for an adjective noun. But there is a veil over your eyes Master Gilbert that ye can neither see what we or yourselves writes: So then to conclude, seeing the religion whilk Martin Luther taught, hes the warrant from Christ's Testament; and seeing all that ever professed the true religion, that hes Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture, visible or invisible, are his predecessors: Therefore the religion whilk Martin Luther taught was the true religion. And seeing your religion hes not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament, but is that apostasy & defection, that Antichristian kingdom 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 kingdom. And this for the first part of your objection. Now we come to the second.

Master Gilbert Brown.

As for the other part of the objection whilk he alleges to be ours: that is, that our religion was never said against, we say not so: for why all heretics and others infected with false doctrine hes ever said against the same, almost at all times. For how soon that Christ our Savior planted the truth: the Devil immediately sewe Popple in the same, according to the parable set down in S. Matthew.

Master John Welsche, his Reply.

I come now to that part whilk ye say is untruly alleged of you, whilk moved you to say that either I knew not your proofs, or if I knew them that I altered the same, that I might the better oppugn my own invention. Of my knowledge of your proofs I will speak nothing. But let us see whether this be my invention or not, or rather your own proof. You, for the confirmation of the truth of your Kirk and religion brought in this as a proof, that I, nor no Minister in Scotland was able to assign the true Kirk that spake against it. Either then ye prove nothing, or else this must be one of your proofs, because it was never spoken against by a true Kirk. Now compare these words with mine, and see whether I speak ignorantly or untruly of your proofs. I said, that ye affirmed your religion to be true, because it was never spoken against. Here our words are one, except this that ye ad (be a true Kirk) I understand the same, and therefore I gave the instances, first of Christ and his Apostles next of the primitive Kirk, thirdly of these that lived in Popery whilk spake against your religion; all whilk I appeal your conscience whether think ye that I judge them a true Kirk or not. Now in that ye expound it otherwise of heretics, this is neither my words nor meaning, but your own invention. So that by this it may appear that either ye have not understood my words alleging your objection, or else ye have altered the meaning of the same, that ye might the more easily answer to your own inventions, & gain say my words.

Master John Welsche his answer to the objection.

Your religion of the Roman Kirk was never instituted nor preached neither by Christ nor by his Apostles, as I offer me to prove by their writings: whilk is the only touchstone whereby all religion should be and must be tried.

Master Gilbert Brown.

I think in this Master John takes upon him an impossibility, for it is said that it is impossible to prove a negative propositiō, except it be set down in the word of God, whilk is of authority: and that I am sure he cannot find, because Papistry by him is not so old as the word of God is. But in the mean time Master John proves nothing He off rs very fair, and when ever he proves anything contrary to us, w th God's grace he shall get an answer. And note here that Master John can say nothing to our argument, for to it he gives no answer.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

In your answer to this section, first ye think it impossible because of the form of it. Next, ye say it is but an offer & I prove nothing. Thirdly that I answer nothing to your argument, nor can answer nothing. Now, of all these in order. And first to the form: ye think it impossible to prove because it is a negative proposition. Is not this a negative proposition that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist; you cannot deny it. Again, I ask is this sentence to be found in the whole Scripture; I trow ye will never be able to find it. Then I say if it be true that ye say, then ye yourself in your book and this your answer, and Bellarmine and Sanderus and all the rest of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichrist, takes in hand in your judgment an impossibility (and so do ye indeed, not because it is a negative proposition, but because he is the Antichrist in very truth.) What would the Pope your head think of you, if he heard you say so? Certainly I think he would not inroll your name among the defenders of his catholic faith whereof this is the foundation. Secondly, is there not many formal syllogisms that hes the proposition or assumption negatives, and will you say they cannot be proved if the matter be true, because they are negatives? What is this but to raise the foundation of Logic and Reason? Logic is not Rhethorick, & Physic is not Logic: both these are negative propositions, & I trow neither of thē are so found in the Scripture, and will you say that it is impossible to prove them, because they are negatives? What you mean by this I understand not, unless you do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strive about words, prove & improve, forbidden by the Apostle. Thirdly, ye except these negative propositions, whilk are set down in the word of God, whilk hes authority as ye say, I assume. But your religion in substance is condemned in the word of God: Therefore by your own confession it may be proved, suppose it be negative: For Nazianzen says, that these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessary consequence are of the same truth and authority with these sentences that are expressly set down in the Scripture. And whereas ye say Papistry by me is not so old as the Scripture, I grant that. What then? Therefore it is not condemned in the Scripture; I deny that: for Antichrist and his kingdom are not so old as the Scripture, and yet the Scripture condemned it. For not only condemns it present heresies, but also the heresies that was to come. And seeing Papistry is that Antichristian religion, as shall be made manifest by God's grace: therefore it hes the express condemnation of it in the word of God. The form therefore of it, no ways will make it impossible to be proved. As for the next thing, that I prove nothing, but offers very fair. I answer it was not my purpose then, but I hope ye shall have a proof now of that whilk I offered then. As to the third then, that I can say nothing to your argument whilk ye would have the reader to mark: when I red this, I marked this, that ye would earnestly have the reader persuaded of the inuinciblenes of your argument and my inability to answer. But what bring ye with you to persuade him of the same? Your reason is, because I have not answered it. Will this follow, I have not (suppose it were so as ye say) therefore I cannot? It will not follow (M. Gilbert ) I have not answered, I cannot answer to it. But as ye have a new Theology, so have ye a new Logic. But said I nothing to your argument? What is not answered sufficiently in the same? Your argument was the antiquity of your religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted, &c. And the novelty of ours. My answer was: yours was not institute by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours was, and yours was gainesaide in the chief points by the testimonies of the fathers the first 600. years, and the principal points of our religion confirmed by sundry of their testimonies. Thirdly yours was that Antichristian apostasy that the Scripture fore-told should come, and in the height of your tyranny and Idolatry was gainsaid by many before Martin Luther, and ours was professed by sundry before him whose names I set down, all whilk I offered to prove, and now shall do by God's grace. Now you say this is no answer. But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your religion if it be verified, & hoghs your argument, that it do never stand up to under-propp your religion again? For that religion whilk is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture, whose main foundations is gainsaide by the testimonies of sundry of the fathers of the first 600. year whilk is Antichristian, and whilk was gainsaid by the Saints that they persecuted and slew, hes not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted nor spoken against by a true Kirk till Martin Luther's days. This I am sure ye will not deny. But your religion is such as I offered then to prove, and now hes in some points, and shall in other some points by God's grace. The whilk if it be verified, then I hope ye will not deny, but that your religion hes neither antiquity, continuance nor succession from Christ til Martin Luther's days. And that religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luther's days, whilk hes the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture &c. This you cannot deny. But our religion is such, as then I offered to prove and now hes done in some points and shall do in other some points by God's grace. Therefore our religion cannot be newly forged and invented &c. but is the only true religion. So that this answer if it be proved, doth sufficiently vindicate our religion frō novelty. Now if this be no answer to your argument, thē I say no more, but ye will answer it the sooner. And because ye formed your own argument yourself in your answer to me, & I have answered to it else; therefore I will now insist no further upon it. And as for your lineal succession of Bishops it will come in question afterward, therefore I omit it now.

Master Gilbert Brown.

As for the written word, it is true that it is a most faithful witness (& it be not corrupted) to Christ & his Kirk, as our Savior testifies him self: of the whilk opinion there is sundry Protestants, chiefly young Merchiston in his discourse upon the Revelation in the 21 Proposition, and other places. But that it ought to be judge to decide all controversies in religion, Master John hes no Scripture for the same. It is the holy Ghost that must be judge, and the holy writ must bear witness thereto. For this cause the holy Ghost was given to the Kirk by the Father and the Son, that he might teach it all truth This holy Ghost gives judgment by the Pastors of the true Kirk, as he did by the Apostles and Priests at the council of Jerusalem. It hes pleased the holy Ghost and us (says the Apostles) and so he hes ever done since the beginning of the Kirk, when it was troubled with heresies and false doctrine As the council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You first here decline the Scripture as judge, to decide all controversies in religion. And you are not the first that hes done this, but all your Roman clergy with you. And suppose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your religion that it is not found in the book of God: yet this is a great presumption that ye give out of it yourselves. For what may all men think of the same, but that if ye were persuaded in your conscience to justify your religion to be from Jesus Christ in his writ̄ word, ye would never decline the iudicatorie of it, and the declining of the same is an evident demonstration that ye are privy with yourselves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his writ̄ word. But wherefor say I that ye are privy with yourselves of this? Ye have made it known to the world by your confessiō in your own books, that many of the chief points of your religion controverted between you and us, whilk ye maintain, hes not their original beginning, nor author in the Scriptures, but in your unwritten traditions. So Petrus a Soto a papist of great name confessed. He calls all these observations Apostolic traditions whose beginning principium, origo, & auhor cannot be found in the whole scriptures 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 invocation or prayers to Saints, the prayer for the dead, the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, the consecration of the water in baptism, the whole sacraments of orders, matrimony, penance, confirmation and extreme unction, the merits of works, the necessity of satisfaction, the nombering over of the sins to the Priest. Canisius a great Papist says, that the worshiping of images, the set fasts and the sortie days of lent, and all that are done in the sacrifice of the mass, prayers and oblations for the dead, & alia and others, he says all these are traditions because they are such that they cannot be defended by the scripture. And Lindanus another great defender of your Romish faith and religion, he reckons out for Traditions, that there are seven Sacraments, the consecration of the water and oil in Baptism, the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament, Communion under one kind, that the Lord's Supper is a Sacrifice, that it should be kept and adored, private Masses, Confession of sins to the Priest, Satisfactions, Pardons, Purgatory, & that Peter was in Rome. Martinus Peresius another Papist numbers the single life of Priests amongst the vn-written Traditions. The truth is strong, that hes so far glanced in the consciences of some of you, and hes opened your mouths to confess and to set it down in write to the world, that the principal heads of your Religion, yea the very foundation and ground of it, (as the supremacy of your Popes, and the Sacrifice of your Mass and the rest) are vn-written Traditions whilk hes not the beginning, nor original, nor authority in the Lord's written word: and whilk cannot be defended by the same, as some of yourselves have confessed. So it is no wonder, Master Gilbert, suppose ye refuse to have the controversies of Religion decyded by the same. Let the reader now judge what he may think of your Religion, that hes not God in his Scripture in the principal & main foundations thereof, as some of yourselves have confessed, to be the author and beginner thereof. So what needs any further proof against their Religion? out of their own mouths the falset of their Religion is convicted. This therefore was the true cause (Master Gilbert ) wherefore ye refused to have the controversies of religion decyded by the Scripture. And for this cause also hes your Kirk heaped up so many falls calumnies, accusations, and blasphemies against the same, calling it obscure, darksome, doubtsome, not necessary but only profitable, imperfect, a dead ink, a dumb and dead thing, dum Judges, a black Gospel, an inkine divinity, a nose of wax that may be drawn every way, containing in them diverse erroneous & damnable opinions, whilk were of no greater authority nor the fables of Aesope without the approbation of the Kirk, and by the Pope himself a fable of Christ. And for this cause also, did they hyde it up in an vn-known 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 have perceived the falset of their religion, & so it should have lost the credit at their hands. So ye have been wise in your generation, Sed Veritas tandem vincet: but the truth shall overcome at the last. You grant it to be a witness, but yet you deal subtillie, while as ye put in an exception, if it be not corrupted. For if you be of that mind with your Kirk, and especially with Cano, Lindanus, & the College of Reims, you think the Hebrew and Greek fountains of the Scripture to be corrupted. And therefore it is decreed in the Council of Trent, the old Latin vulgare translation to be authentic, 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 only put the Lord in his Scripture out of the benche, that he should not judge & give out the sentence of doom against your doctrine, but by this exception also ye remove him from the bar, that his testimony in the Hebrew and Greek fountains against you, should have no credit. Let all men judge now what prejudice ye give out against your own religion, when as ye will not admit the Lord in his word in the Hebrew and Greek fountains neither judge nor witness. But you say, I have no Scripture for me, that the Scripture ought to be judge. What will ye say then to Jesus Christ in the 12 chap. 48. verse of the Gospel of Saint John, speaking to such as ye are, He that refuseth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken it shall judge him in the last day. Unless now ye be a man of perdition, ye must confess that the word of Jesus Christ, (whereof so much is written as may make a man believe, and by believing to get eternal life) is judge and judges presently, and shall judge also in the latter day.) Therefore the Apostle says, that God shall judge the secrets of men's hearts by Jesus Christ, according to his Gospel. So the Gospel shall be the rule of that great judgment in that great day and so is it the rule of his worship while we are in the way to that judgment. Suppose you now decline the iudicatorie of the same here, because in your conscience ye know, and your own mouths have confessed it, that ye are not able to justify your religion thereby, yet nil ye will ye, ye shall be judged by the same word in the last day. But whom will ye have to be your judge? Ye say, the holy Ghost. Bellarmine says, that we and your Kirk aggrees in that, that the holy Ghost should be supreme judge of all controversies. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts own infallible voice and breath? So then when the Scripture is judge, the holy Ghost is judge, because the Scripture is the immediate voice of the holy Ghost, & the holy Ghost hes given out, and gives out his judgment in all controversies of religion in and by the Scripture: and the holy Ghost illuminates the eyes of these that are fore-ordained to life, to se the truth in the Scripture: and works in their heart faith to apprehend it and believe it: and forms a spiritual judgment in their hearts to try and judge, for the spiritual man judgeth all things. And all this he works by the means of the Scripture: for it is the only mean and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts. Thus I reason therefore: He only can be judge in controversies of religiō whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same whose judgment is infallible true, who will not be partial nor favor parties: and who is able to convict and persuade the conscience of the truth, and make the party to rest in the same: But only the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture hes these properties, and no other: Therefore the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture is only judge.

And whereas you say, that the holy write must bear witness to it, what will you say then to all the chief points of your religion almost, whilk the learned and great defenders of your faith hes confessed, are unwritten traditions whilk hes not their beginning nor authority from the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same? Upon the whilk I reason thus: That doctrine is not the holy Ghosts, whilk the Scripture bears not witness to: this ye say yourself, for ye say, the Scripture must bear witness to it: But all the chief points almost of your religion, as the supremacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass, invocation of Saints, the five bastard Sacraments, the worshipping of Images, Transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, Satisfactions, Pardons, Purgatory, merits of works &c. hes not their authority from the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same, as your own Catholics (as ye call them) testifies: Therefore your doctrine and religion is not the holy Ghosts, and that by your own testimony. Now truly (Master Gilbert ) I fear ye tyne your style, if you defend your religion no better nor this.

And whereas you say, that the holy Ghost gives out his judgment by the Pastors of the true Kirk: I grant indeed that the Pastors gives out public sentence in controversies of Religion, because they are the Lord's witnesses, messengers, and mouths to testify, proclaim, interpret and discern his truth from falset. But first, the rule of this their judgment should be the word of God, unto the whilk they are bound in all their testimonies and judgments, from the whilk if their judgments swerve but an inche-broad, they are not the judgments of the holy Ghost: so that all their decreetes and determinations in the worship of God, and man his salvation, should only be received accordingly as they aggree or dissent from the same. For the Apostle pronounces him accursed suppose he were an Angel that would preach another Gospel then that whilk he preached, and he preached nothing but out of the Scripture. But your Romaine Kirk by the contrary says, That their decreets and sentences should be taken without all trial & examination because whatsoever they decree (say they) in manners or doctrine, whether they be comprehended in the Scripture, or not, they cannot err.

Next if it be asked of you whom ye judge to be the Pastors of the true Kirk, you will answer (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 judge to end all controversies. And Bellarmine is plain in this: for he says the Pope is chief judge in all controversies in religion, either he himself alone or with his council, and that in his judgment and sentence all men should rest, & he should be obediently heard of all the faithful in all matters of controversy, whether he can err or not: and their canon law hes decreted that no man should rebuke him, suppose he should carry with him innumerable souls to hell. And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whether they be aggreable to the Scripture or not: but that they should be received, as the express word of God and the Gospel. But first judge thou (reader) in what suspicion they have their religion in their own harts, they have declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, and that not only as judge, but in the authentic Greek and Hebrew as witness. So their religion cannot stand, if the Lord be either as judge in his Scripture to give out sentence of it, or as witness in the authentic copies to hold his hand at the bar and depone against it. Now whom would they have as Judges? Their own Pastors and the Pope, and all their determinations to be received without a trial, as the Gospel and express word of God as though their religion could not be justified, unless the Fathers and forgers thereof, the Popes & Bishops of Rome were set on the bench to be Judges thereof. Now what a unrighteous thing is this, both to be party and Judge? For the chief controversy is of themselves, whether he be the Antichrist or not? and his Ministers and Kirk Antichristian or not? But what show of reason can you have for this? The prince of life, the son of God, who is the righteous Judge of the whole world, in that great controversy wherein it is called in question whether he was the Messias or not, desired not to be the Judge, for he said if I testify of myself (much more if I judge of myself) my testimony is not sufficient but referred this controversy to the Scripture saying search the Scriptures &c. And yet you that are but flesh and blood, dust and ashes, yea monsters and incarnate devils, as your own writers and Councils hes testified of some of your Popes (Concilium Constantiense) who may err and hes been heretics, as some of your Popes hes been, and that by your own testimony, you will not only bear witness of yourselves, but also be Judges in the controversies of yourselves, rejecting the judgment of the holy Ghost in the Scripture. Al men, says the Apostle, are liars, how then shall I certainly know but they may lie: how shall my conscience rest in their judgment: shall I have no better warrant for my salvation nor the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes who are but men and so may lie, who are party and so never will condemn them selves, and who of all men hes moste foullie erred? What is this but to make the voice of your Bishops and Popes of greater authority nor the voice of God in his Scripture? for seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controversy, and the sense of the Scripture, is the Scripture itself: and your doctrine is that I must embrace such and such interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controversy, and my conscience must rest in the same, without further trial, because he hes so decreed it: What is this, but not only to make him equal to the lord? (For God only hes that privilege to be believed, because he so speaks; man's testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warrāted by the scripture:) but also to prefer his authority to the voice of God in his scripture, seeing he is judge of the same, and not that only, but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimony? And seeing ye will have them judges, what is the cause that their Canons, laws, and determinations, are not as authentic as the Scripture, and insert in the Canon of the scripture? But let us see your reasons. First you say, That the holy Ghost was given to the Kirk by the Father and the Son, that he might teach it all truth. I grant this, that the holy Ghost is given to everyone of the elect, as well Pastor as people, to lead thē in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation. And yet ye will not make everyone of thē judges: next eueryone of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise, suppose not totally & finally and therefore cannot be Judges of religion. Secondly, you allege the example of the council of the Apostles and Elders. It is true in that controversy that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Kirk after reasoning defined the same, & writes the same to be observed by the Disciples every-where: but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by God's Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing: but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err. Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Kirk, and all with one accord defines. You in your council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgment and your Popes, neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you. Thirdly, they define according to the Scripture (saying (a) as it is written &c. ) This controversy to make us to understand and we will not be more nor blind, that this rule should be followed in all councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture. Upon the whilk I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of God's spirit whilk never man had since, so that in writing and teaching they could not err, if they, I say, did determine the controversies of religion according to the Scripture, how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a council, bound to follow the same rule? And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you style them, not as the holy Ghost hes styled them there, so their they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, Elders, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, sacrificing Priests as ye suppone. Your third reason is, the practice and custom of the kirk in deciding the controversies of religion in councils: we grant that this is a very cōmodious mean to search & find out the truth by the Scripture: for first the more they are that seeks the truth, it is the more easily found. Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repres heretics nor if it were aggreed upon 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 received as is aggreable to the same. And this we grant hes been done in the council of the primitive Kirk. And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the fathers of the council of Nice says sunt libri Prophetici et Apostolici qui aperte quid credendum sit, docent &c. That is, there are the books of the Prophets and Apostles, who teacheth plainly what we should believe. All contention therefore laid aside, let us take the sovereign decision of these things whilk are called in controversy, out of the scriptures whilk are inspired by God. And this we grant, and this we crave. But that councils ought to determine anything of their own authority in matters of religion whilk binds the conscience, without the warrant of the word, that we deny.

Master Gilbert Brown.

It is an wonder that Master John will refer anything to the written word, seeing that he and his hes no warrant that the same is the word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papists Kirk. For understand there was no Kirk worthy of credit, immediately before Luther, but that Kirk.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You wonder that I refer anything 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, whilk the Prophets hes done, whilk our Savior and his Apostles hes done, and whilk the fathers hes done (for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures,) yea whilk yourself also hes done, for ye make it a witness. But what hes moved you to think this a wonder in me, whilk so many and yourself 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 authority of the Roman or Papist Rirk. I grant in deed (Master Gilbert ) that you and your Kirk are plunged in this blindness and misery that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures them selves, that they are inspired of God, but also of all your doctrine and religion is the testimony of your Roman Kirk, that is, of your Pope and Clergy (for so ye interpret the Kirk) so Bellarmine grants that all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Kirk (meaning the Pope and his Clergy) and Stapleton says that it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Kirk. Pigius says, that it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John write in their Gospels to be true, because that they might fail in memory & lie as all men may do. Ecclesiast. hierarch. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermanus says that the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Aesope were not the testimony of the Kirk. And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certainty of all religion, and of man his salvation upon so small a thread as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy. What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your religion, whilk teaches that the certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture, and the Scripture it self, that they are of God, but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy? What is it to expone the certainty of the Lord's scripture and of all 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 authority of your Popes and Clergy to the voice of God him self? For what is the testimony of your Kirk, but the testimony of men? And is not the scripture the testimony and voice of God him self? Do ye not therefore lift up the authority of your Kirk, that is, your Popes and Clergy above the authority of God in his word whilk as you say, that there is no other warrant of the Divinity of the scripture, but only the testimony of your Kirk? But God be thanked in Christ Jesus who hes delivered us from this blindness: for we have other warrants (Master Gilbert ) whereupon the certainty of our salvation and the Divinity of the scripture depends, nor by the testimony of the true Kirk much les the testimony of your Kirk whilk is Antichristian, and given over of God to believe lies, and so worthy of no credit. But how prove ye it? Ye say there was no other Kirk immediately before Luther, but that of yours; whilk was worthy of credit. Wherevnto I answer: first that is false: for there was a true Kirk immediately before him whilk ye persecuted, as I have proved else where. Next I say, your argumnt will not follow: there was no other Kirk immediately before him &c. Ergo, we have no other warrant that the scripture is the written word of God. For we have also the testimony of the Kirk of the Jews concerning the old Testament, and of the primitive Kirk in all ages, concerning both the old and New Testament, whilk are not only other warrants nor the testimonies of your Roman Kirk, but also worthy of more credit. Next, I say we have many more principal and more effectual 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 up in all consciences of the godly, not only the truth of the doctrine contained in them, but also the divinity of the scripture, whilk Stapleton denies not, and therefore the scripture says that the spirit (that is the holy Ghost) bears witness that the spirit (that it is the doctrine) is truth.

Secondly, the testimony of the Scripture itself warranding and testifying of it self, the whole Scripture is inspired of God. The old Testament warranted both by the testimony of the self, the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses, and also by the testimony of the New Testament both in general, and also in particular as the books of Moses and the historical books, as the history of the Queen of Saba, and of the widow of Sarepta, and of the Psalms, in sundry places, and of sundry of the books of the old Testament, and Ruth also. And out of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, many testimonies are cited, and out of the books of the small prophets. And such like the New Testament hes the confirmation of it out of the old Testament: for whatsumeuer thing were prophesied in the old Testament concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the New Testament, so if the Old Testament hes authority, the new Testament also hes authority. And such like Peter by his testimony confirms the Epistles of Paul to be the written word of God. Thirdly, the majesty of the doctrine whilk shines in it, the simplicity, purity, and heauenlynes of the speech therein, whilk is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever, the ancientnes and antiquity of them, as the books of Moses far ancienter then any other writing. The accomplishment of the prophecies and oracles in them as they were fore-told, their miracles and wonders whereof they testify. The testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defense of the truth of them, thei • wonderful preservation notwithstanding of the rage and cruelty of sundry tyrants who sought them out most diligently to have destroyed them, all testifying of the divinity of the holy Scripture. So then to conclude this, seeing we have the testimony of God's Spirit, sealing up the truth of them in our hearts, and the testimony of the scripture itself, testifying of the self so many manner of ways: and sundry other arguments out of the scripture it self: and the testimony of the Kirk in all ages, all warranting to us the divinity of the holy scripture, I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgment of God, in blinding you so far, that ye have set it down in writ, that we have no other warrand of the holy scripture but the authority of your Kirk.

Master Gilbert Brown.

And albeit heir it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the word of God, because Master John hes promised to improve the same by the word, whilk he is no way able to perform: yet to satisfy the Christian Reader, and that he may know that the word of God is only on our side and with us, so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same: I will set down (godwilling) some heads for examples cause, that that same doctrine whilk we teach and practice, is the same that our Savior and his Apostles preached before, and is written in the same that he calls the touchstone.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Howsoever ye say this (Master Gilbert ) that that doctrine whilk ye teach and practice in your Kirk, is that same whilk our Savior and his Apostles teached before, and is written in the Scripture, yet in very truth there is nothing less in your conscience. For if you and your Romaine Kirk were so persuaded, wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tried by the same? and wherefore hes some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman religion who knows the certainty of the same, wherefore (I say) would they have proclaimed it by write unto the world, that the most part and the principal heads of their religion, are unwritten traditions, whilk hes neither their original, beginning, nor authority in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same? And wherefore would your Roman kirk have heaped up so many falls accusations and blasphemies against the same? and wherefore last of all would ye have set up your Pope & his bishops to be supreme and sovereign judge over the same, as you do? But this you do, because you know that if ye rejected the Scripture as far in word, as ye do in deed, the consciences of the poor people would at the last withdraw themselves from under your tyranny, and would go out of your fellowship for the safety of their souls: so under the cloak and pretence of the Scripture, ye keep them in your communion. And surly, were not for this cause only, you would regard no more of the testimony of the Scripture, nor of the testimony of the fables of Aesope. For, the chief authority and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you, as Bellarmine and Stapleton confesses, is (not the testimony of the Scripture) but the authority of your own Kirk. So I assure thee, reader, it is but for a show that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their religion. Let the matter therefore be tried betwixt us by these examples whilk ye set down here.

Master Gilbert Brown.

1. We say with Saint Augustine that the Sacrament of Baptism is so necessary to infants, that they cannot come to heaven without the same, whilk is contrary to their negative faith, where they call it the Popes cruel judgment 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, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God. We say this is spoken properly of the Sacrament of Baptism, because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God, but in Baptism. The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also. When they expected the patience of God (says S. Peter) in the days of Noah when the Ark was building, in the whilk, few that is eight souls, were saved by water, whereunto Baptism being of the like form now saves you also. And Saint Paul says. For as many of you as are baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. And Ananias said to Saint Paul And now what tarriest thou, rise up and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, inuocating his name. And Saint Paul himself in another place, Christ hes saved us by the lawer of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost. I think there is no Christian reader that sees these places, but he must say that Baptism is most necessary to infants, except he will believe rather the exposition of the Ministers, nor of the word of God.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

First, ye begin at the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, whereof ye affirm that it is so necessary, that infants cannot come to heaven without the same. As for Baptism we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Jesus, and of the remission of our sins 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 covenant it self, and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant) is damnable. But that it is so absolutely necessary to infants, that without it they cannot come to heaven: to wit, these whom he hes predestinate, it being neither neglected nor contemned, but death preuēting the receiving of it: that we allutterly deny as impious, ungodly, and cruel. For first I say there is none that is in the covenant of grace, & who hes God to be their god, and are holy, that can perish. This you cannot deny. But the children of the faithful who are of his secret election are such before they be baptized. And this I prove. The Lord promised to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. And this Peter also testifies, The promise (saith he) is made to you & to your children. And the Apostle says, that the children of the faithful are holy: Therefore the children of the faithful who are of God's secret election, suppose they die without Baptism, doth not perish. Secondly, if Baptism were absolutely necessary to salvation, then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament. This cannot be denied. But your Master of sentences says, that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments, and it is impious so to think, that God's free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument. Thirdly, if Circumcision was not absolutely necessary to salvation in the Old Testament, then Baptism is not absolute necessary now, because Circumcision was as straitly enjoined to them, as Baptism is enjoined to us, and Baptism is succeeded in the room of the same, but Circumcision is not absolute necessary. For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris because he so thought. And David doubts not to say of his child who died the seventh day, and so before he was circumcised, I shall go to him, &c. and so he pronounced that he was saved: and all the time that they were in the wilderness, almost 40. years, Circumcision was neglected, whilk plainly shows, that it was not so absolute necessary, that salvation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptism is not so absolute necessary to salvation, as ye suppose: for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament, nor it was in the old. Fourtlie, we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptized, & seeing the holy Ghost where he is, regenerates to eternal life: Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutely to Baptism Fiftlie, what a cross and disturbance is this, that your doctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents, whose children hes been prevented by death, before they could be offered to be baptized? if they believe your doctrine, how often will this come in their mind, that their children are damned. And seeing the infants themselves are not in the cause that they are not baptized, but their death preventing by God's providence, or the Parents neglecting or contemning the same, or persecution, or one impediment or other hindering, wherefore are ye so cruel to judge them to be damned for that, whereof themselves are causeless? And last of all, if ye be acquainted in the histories of the Kirk of God in the first age, ye will find many that delayed to be baptized, until their latter age, whilk they would never have done and they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation as ye do. And Ambrosius doubts not to say that Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptism, suppose he wanted Baptism itself: the whilk he would never have said, if he had thoght it absolutely necessary to salvation. And Bernard says, I cannot altogether despair of the salvation of them who wants Baptism not through contempt, but only through impossibility to get it. And in that same place he says. So also if our Savior Christ for this cause. When he had said, he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved: did of purpose in repeating the sentence, omit to say: He that is not Baptized, but he that believeth not shall be damned, for he saw that faith only might suffice to salvation, and without faith nothing can suffice. Justly then might your Popes sentence and your own be said to be cruel, in our confession. But how prove ye this doctrine of yours to be Christ's? Ye cite the three chapters of John where our Savior says, Except a man be borne again &c. whilk say ye is properly meaned of the sacrament of baptism. Upon the whilk ye infer the necessity of the same. Whereunto I answer that interpretation of yours is false: for our Savior speaks not here of the sacrament of Baptism: and that for these reasons: first, our Savior speaks here generally of all men, and not of infants only, and therefore he says, 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 baptism and not infants only, are excluded from heaven. But that is false: for first the good thief was not baptized with water, and yet our Savior said to him, this might thou shalt be with me in paradise. And therefore our Savior speaks not here of the sacrament of baptism: for he speaks of that new birth by water and the spirit without the whilk none can be saved: but this thief and others were saved without the baptism of water: therefore he speaks not here of it. Next our Savior in that place speaks of that new birth by the spirit & water whilk is so absolutely necessary to the saluatiō of all men that it admits no exception. This cannot be denied. But Bellarmine makes two exceptions against the absolute necessity of baptism: one of martyrdom, the other of true conversion and penance, whereof (says he) either of them supplies the want of baptism. Therefore our Savior speaks not here of the sacrament of baptism. Thirdly if we will believe Christ Jesus expounding him-self, and Scripture expounding Scripture, I say, by water is not always meaned the sacrament of baptism: but the purifying grace of Christ whilk is called the water of life, so our Savior speaks in the 4. chapter of John verse 11. & 7. chapter verse 38, And in that same sense water is here added to the spirit to expound the more sensibly the efficacy of the spirit in washing and cleansing us, as fire is added to the spirit in the 3. of Matthew. 11. verse. He will baptize you with the spirit and with fire, whilk is not properly understood of any natural fire, but taken figuratively to expound more sensibly the force and eficacie of the spirit in burning up our corruption.

Fourthlye, what an absurd thing were this whilk should follow if your exposition were true, that for the want of the sprinkling of a little water, the infants should perish that are in the covenant, seeing they were not the cause of the want of it. Further, I say, that suppose baptism were here meaned: yet there is no such necessity as ye suppose, for if martyrdom and penance may supply the want of this water (as Bellarmine confesses) how much more may the holy Ghost supply the want of the same in infants: and if any thing may supply the want of it, then it is not so absolutely necessary that all these infants are damned that wants it.

2. Our Savior speaks as generally and absolutely, Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, whilk ye interpret of the other sacrament, so that if your interpretation were true, the Eucharist should be as absolutely necessary to the salvation of infants, as you say baptism is. But the first you will not grant. Therefore the other must also be false. 3. If here ye would infer a necessity of baptism, then I say at that same time it began to be necessary: for he says not, he that shall not be borne again &c. But he that is not borne &c. But Bellarmine says it was not necessary while Christ's death, yet not while the Pentecost fifty days after his death, therefore it is not like that any necessity of baptism is here understanded: for it had been good reason that Christ's baptism whilk was ministered while he lived in the flesh should have been as necessary as the Apostles baptism whilk was ministered afterward. But the first was not absolutely necessary, as Bellarmine testifies, therefore neither is the second. And last of all, least ye should say all this is our exposition, the Master of the sentences expounding this place, who suppose he be of this judgment with you concerning infants departed, yet he says that this place is to be understanded of them who might have been baptized, but contemned the same: therefore this place imputes no absolute necessity of it. As for the rest of the places of Scripture whilk ye quote, they serve nothing to prove such an absolute necessity of baptism, as ye suppose, but only sets down the effects of the same whilk are sealed up in the harts of the believers by the holy Ghost, as the inward worker, and baptism as the outward instrument, as our salvation through the death of Christ, our union with Christ, and with his death, & remission of sins, regeneration, mortification of the old man. And therefore circumcision in whose room baptism is succeeded it is called the seal of righteousness whilk is by faith. Take away therefore your exposition from these places, and there will no such absolute necessity of baptism follow here as ye suppose. And therefore Bellarmine the learnedst of your writers, because he knew that these places whilk ye quote here could not prove such an absolute necessity of baptism, nor have no appearance to prove the same, doth not cite one of them for the proof of the necessity, except only the third of John leaving all the rest. And as for that of Augustine, we grant he was of that mind that baptism was necessary to infants, but he was also of that judgment that the Eucharist was necessary unto them, and yet your Roman Kirk, nor you neither, I hope, will subscriue to this error of his. Seeing therefore you dissent from him in the necessity of the one, and that upon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we also dissent from him in the other having so many grounds and reasons out of the word of God to the contrary, as hes been said? And this for the first point. Now let the Christian reader judge upon whose side the word of God is.

Master Gilbert Brown.

2 Our doctrine is, that ane man by the grace of God may keep the commands of God, and obey him, whilk is contrary to their confession of faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Christ says, If you will enter into life, keep the commands. And again, If ye love me keep my commands: And in another place, He that loves me not, keeps not my words, &c. Also, Take up my yoke upon you, &c. For my yoke is sweet, and my burden • ight. Now I believe that no man can deny, but this yoke and burden of Christ is his commands and Laws. This same doctrine the Apostles teached. Saint Paul says, I can do all things in him that comforts me: and before, For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will: and Saint John says, This is the charity of God that we keep his commands, and his commands are not heavy Now farther nor these, we read that Noah, Abraham, Job, were just men, and obeyed God: and Saint Luke says, that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife, were both just before God, and walked in all the commands, and justification of our Lord without blame. I here are many other places in the old Testament of the same matter, of the whilks I have noted some on the margent. Now hold away from these places the Ministers commentaries, and I believe that all men will confess, that our doctrine in this, and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

It appeareth that Master Gilbert is loath that the secrete of the doctrine of his Kirk should be known to the people, because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same: their own harts and consciences witnessing to the contrary. Therefore he hes hid up the poison of it, and covered it as secretly as he could. But that wherein you are dark, the rest of your Roman clergy are plain. For first, whereas ye say, that a man by the grace of God, may keep the commands, Bellarmine expones more clearly & says, By the help of the grace of God. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585. says, that man by the new strength of grace infused in goodwill, may keep the command. So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to God's commandments in the faithful, and so I think everyone almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Kirk will take it, and so it may be ye teach them. The rest of your brethren are more plain, in halfing it betwixt Free-will, and the grace of God helping Free-will, as though the strenth of nature were the more principal cause, & the grace of God but a helper to it. And secondly, whereas ye say, that a man by the grace of God may keep the commandments of God, & obey them, Bellarmine says more plainly that the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them, and they may absolutely fulfill the Law, and keep the whole Law, and that the works of the righteous are absolutely and simpliciter righteous, and proceeding of a perfect holiness, without all blemish of sin, and that they please God, not for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, covering their imperfections, and forgiving them, but for the excellency of the work it self. So this is their doctrine (Christian reader.) Now, as he hid his own, so hes he hid ours also. For our confession of Faith says, that our sanctification and obedience to God's Law is imperfect, whilk word he omitted: as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keeps the commandments of God. Our doctrine therefore is this: That of our own nature we are dead in sin, & of our selves we are neither able to understand, nor think, nor will, nor do those things that are pleasant to God, and therefore we must be borne anewe again, or we can do any thing that is acceptable in God's sight: and this sanctification of ours is not perfect, while we are in this life, but imperfect, ever some darkness, some rebellion, some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us, so that we know but in a parte, and our will is but renewed in part, and our heart sanctified in parte, from the whilk it cometh, that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do, and would do, as the Apostle says: next that all our righteousness, as the Prophet says, is but as a menstrous cloute, ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us: and so, that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and their imperfection to be pardoned. By the only strength therefore of God's Spirit who works both to will, and to do in us, we begin heir obedience to the whole Law of God, but yet are not able perfitelie so to keep it, as our works may bide to be tried before the Lord in the balance of his Law: and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ, who is made to us of God, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption: by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission of our sins: and so we conclude with David, Psal. 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him, and whose iniquities are covered. This now is the very simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head.

Now to answer you. Whereas ye say, that a man by grace may keep the commandments of God: if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law, is the renewing grace of God, and that this obedience is sincere and hearty, not to one, but to all the commandments: not only outward, but inward: suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires: then, I say, you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Kirk, and forsakes their error of Free-will concurring with grace, and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law, and so shakes hands with the truth of God whilk we profess in this point. And so becomes a bad defender of their Catholic faith, as ye style yourself. And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe, suppose ye lost that style forever. But if ye make Free-will the principal cause of this obedience (as Bellarmine calls it:) and if ye understand a perfect obedience (as your Kirk teaches) then first tell me why did ye not speak as plainly as you thought? Were you afraid that the hearts of men should have skunnered with this your doctrine, if ye had been as plain in your write, as ye are in your own judgment? Next I say, you have the Lord in his written word as contrary to this your doctrine, as light is to darkness. For, as to the first the Scripture testifies plainly that we are dead in sin, & that the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God: and therefore we have need to be borne again: that is, to receive a new life or ever we can be able to enter into the kingdom of God: and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do, and that of our selves we are not sufficient to think anything as of our selves, & that all the imaginations of man's heart is only evil continually: Where then is there ony place left to Free-will? And as to the second, the Scripture says, There is not a righteous man in the earth, who doth good and sinneth not, therefore no perfect keeping of the Law. And who may say, my heart is clean, and I am pure from sin: if no man may say so, then no man can keep perfitelie the whole Law. And by the works of the Law no flesh is justified in his sight, therefore no flesh is able perfitelie to keep the Law, for if he could keep the Law, he would be justified by the Law. But the Apostle says, that no flesh can be justified by the Law: Therefore none can keep the Law. And therefore the Scripture says, that the Law is impossible because of the waiknesse of the flesh. For the whilk cause the son of God took on him our nature to fulfill this impossibility of the Law. And James calls the Law a yoke whilk (says he) neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear. If they said that they could not bear it, that is, perfitelie obey it, who obtained a higher measure of grace, nor ever any since did, what shall we then say of all other men after them? and what arrogancy and presumption is this in these of the Roman Kirk, to say, and to bear others in hand, that they are able to bear that yoke whilk the Apostles was not able to bear? And Jesus Christ hes taught us to pray daily, Forgive us our sins, whilk needed not, if we were able to keep the whole Law. And beside the plain testimonies of the Scripture, every man's own doleful experience tells them of their manifold and continual sinning. What a damnable doctrine is this then, whilk blinds their eyes so far, that neither they see nor feel the inward corruptions of their own heart within them, rebelling against the Law of God, nor yet the perfection whilk the Law of God requires.

Now to the testimonies of Scripture whilk ye quote: and first, that in the 19. of Matthew, If you would enter into life, keep the commandments: I answer: the same is to be said to you, who seeks for life and righteousness by the works of the Law, Keep the Commands. But that are ye unable to do, or any man else, except the man the Lord Jesus, (as hes been proved:) and as vn-able as this young man was, to whom it was said at the last, It is as impossible to him to go into heaven as to a Camel or Cable rope to go through the eye of a needle. But ye will say, Wherefore then would our Savior Christ have commanded him to keep the commandments, if he would have life? I answer: not because he was able to do it, but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it, for by the Law as the Apostle says, comes the knowledge of sin. And to cast down that presumption that he had of himself, that he had observed and keeped the Law, that in conscience of sin, he might be brought to seek for life eternal in Christ Jesus only.

And least Master Gilbert, ye say that this is my exposition: therefore hear what the Apost. says. As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things whilk are written in the book of the law to do them: and that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God it is evident. Now this is spoken not only of the Jews but of the Gentiles that believed in Christ Jesus, and were under grace: upon the whilk I reason thus. If as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, and no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, then no man is able to get life eternal by keeping of the law, and so this young man to whom Christ gave his answer, neither had kept nor could keep the law: but the first is said by the Apostle, therefore the second is true. Next, the law requires a perfect obedience with all the heart, with all the understanding, & thought, and strength unto all the commandments, and that continually: so that James says, he that breaks one is guilty of all: and the law doth pronounce them accursed that continues not in the doing of all things &c. in this perfection. Now who is he that is come out of the loins of Adam (except only the Lord Jesus) who hes continued in the perfect obedience of all things without the breach of any in thought, word, or deed? Are you able (M. Gilbert ) or hes everyone of your Roman Kirks performed, or is able to perform this obedience that the law requires? Seeing therefore y ^t none is able, & this young man neither had performed, nor yet was able to perform this perfect obedience to the law: therefore of necessity it must follow that our Savior gave him this command Keep the commandments, &c. not because he was not able to keep them, but to bring him by the law to a conscience of the brek of them. As for the rest of the Scriptures whilk ye bring in, they are easily answered, John. 14.15, 24. 1. John. 5.3. If ye love me keep my commandments &c. and he that loves me not keeps not my word &c. I grant the Lord hes commanded obedience to his commandments. And I grant they that loves him keeps them, and all the children of God loves him, and begins also obedience to all his commandments. But yet as their love is not in that perfection whilk the law requires, with all their heart, with all their understanding, and with all their strength: so their obedience is not in that perfection. And never-theles the perfection of their obedience is forgiven, being covered with the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, and through him is acceptable in his presence, and of him also shall be crowned with a crown of glory, suppose freely. And to prove this: if any had obeyed the commandments perfectly, thē surely the Apostles Paul, James, John, Peter, should have done it: for they loved him in as great and greater measure of love, nor ever any since did. And our Savior testifies of them to his father that they had kept his word. But the Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he did not the thing he would, but the thing that he hated that he did, and to will was present with him, but to perform he found it not, and he saw a law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind, and leading him captive unto sin. And John says of himself & of all men, if we say we have not sin we make him a liar & the truth is not in us. And him self twice would have worshiped an Angel contrary to the law. And James says that in many things we offend all. And Peter to whom our Savior said thrice: if thou love me, keep my laws: went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel. Therefore none is able perfectly to keep them.

We se then there is a keeping of the commandments, & a keeping of them in perfection. The first common to all the faithful, suppose not in an equal measure. The second only possible to Adam or he fell, and to the Saints in that kingdom.

As for the 11. of Matthew, Take up my yoke &c. for my yoke is sweet and my burden light. And the 1. John 5.3. his commandments are not heavy. I answer. Our Savior and his Apostles calls his commandments light, sweet and not heavy, not because the perfection of the law is possible to any to perform in this life, but first because the Lord Jesus hes taken away the curse of it, and also requires not of us that perfection whilk the law requires under the pain of the ours of the law if it be not satisfied. And last of all because he by his spirit renews the harts of his own, and makes them able with joy to begin that obedience: so that what they do they do it not upon constraint, as being under the law: but willingly for the love of Christ, and they delight in the same according to the law of their mind, as the Apostle speaks of himself. But yet with in they find a law in their members rebelling against the law of their mind, leading them captive unto sin. So in these respects are his commandments called light and sweet. But in the 15. of the Acts, the Apostles calls it a unsupportable yoke, whilk neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. And in the 8. to the Romans it is called impossible. As for the 4. of the Philippians 13. where the Apostle says. He is able to do all things by him that comforts him. The Apostle speaks not here of his ability to perform the law in that perfection whilk the law requires: for he hes testified the contrary both of him self and of all others, as hes been said. But only this, that through him he is able to sustain all sorts of condition, both to abound and to be in scarcity, to be full and to be hungry. This is not my exposition, but the Apostle so expounds him self in the former verse: so that I wonder upon what show ye could quote this testimony.

As for the 2. of the Philippians, it is true the Lord worketh in his own both to will and to accomplish: but yet it follows not that they are able perfectly to obey the law. For, if that measure of grace had been wrought in any, it had been wrought in the Apostles, but not in them as hes been shewn, & that by their own testimony: therefore in none else.

Next what can be more clear for the overthrow of your Free-will, nor is this place of Scripture. If the Lord works in us both to will and to perform, then we are not able to will of our selves that whilk is acceptable to God. As for the examples whilk ye cite of Noah, Abraham, Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, David, Ezechia, Iosia, Judah, and Asa, and these whom the Lord reserved to himself pure from the Idolatry of your Antichristiā kingdom forspoken there. They walked indeed in integrity and sincerity in the commandments and ways of the Lord, and therefore hes received a good testimony and report of God's spirit in the Scripture, all whilk we grant unto you. But that they answered the law in that perfection, that it requires; the Scripture whilk hes registered their walkings, and their own testimonies will gainsay it. Noah fell in drunkenness, Abraham was not justified by the works of the law, but by faith, whilk is a most sure argument that he fulfilled not the law. Job says, if I would affirm myself to be righteous, my own mouth would condemn me. Zacharias believed not the word of the Lord spoken to him by the Angel, therefore was stricken dumb. David fell in adultery, murder, and provoked the Lord's anger by numbering the people and he says of himself, my iniquities are more in number then the hairs of my head. And in another place If thou mark iniquity, O Lord who can stand? And enter not in judgment with thy servant, for no man living should be righteous before thee. Hezekiah heart was lifted up. Josiah hearkened not unto the words of Necho according to the word of the Lord. Asa put his trust not in the Lord his God, but in the King of Syria. The like is to be said of these whom the Lord did reserve to himself in the midst of the kingdom of darkness, that they did keep the commandments of God, but not in that perfection whilk the law required. For they were not more righteous then the Prophet Isaiah & the Apostles were. But the Prophet says, that we are all unclean, & all our righteousness is as a menstruous clout. And the Apostle says, in many things we sin all. And Augustine says, all the commandments of God are accounted to be done when that whilk is not done is forgiven. And in another place: for the want of love it is that there is not a righteous man in the earth, that doth good & sinneth not. And Ambrose says, the commandments of God are so great that they are impossible to be kept. And Jerome says, because no man can fulfill the law, and do all things that is commanded. And Bernard says, the commandments of God cannot nor could not be fulfilled of any man. And Chrysostom says, No man hes fulfilled the Law. And Thomas, one of the chief pillars of your own Kirk writes, That it is impossible to fulfill the whole Law: and Vega a Papist says, That venial sins are properly against the Law. Upon the whilk I reason, he that daily transgresses the law, fulfilles not, nor is not able to fulfill the law, (for to fulfil the law and trasngresse the law are contrary:) but your own doctrine is, that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins, and Vega (as hes been said) says that venial sins are against the law: Therefore if yourselves speak true, no man is able to fulfill the law. I conclude therefore that this doctrine of yours is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, set down in the Scripture, and also contrary to the doctrine of the fathers, and contrary to the doctrine of the moste learned, and chief doctors of your Romaine Kirk. And this for the second pointe of your doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

3 Our doctrine is, that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God, whilk is contrary to their doctrine, ratified by act of Parliament in the year 1560. And also against their Psalm book of Geneva. Yet our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ. For Christ said to them of Jerusalem, How oft would I have gathered together thy children, but you would not? and Saint Stephen Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears, ye always resist the holy Ghost, as your fathers, yourselves also. The same was the faith & belief of the Apost S. Peter says, Our Lord is not willing that any perish, but that all return to penance and S. Paul hes, Our Savior God willes all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This was the doctrine of the Prophets before. Now then if God willes that all men should return, & yet all men does not the same, whereof proceeds it but of their Free will, whilk will not work with the will of God. Therefore our Savior says in sundry places, If thou wilt enter into life keep my commands: If thou will be perfect go and sell all that thou hes: He that will follow me, let him deny himself.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for this third point of doctrine, I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it. For have you sold yourself so far to vn-truth and lying, that for to bring the truth of God whilk we profess, in hatred: you will father on us that doctrine whilk never 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 never come to light? or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of lying at the last, so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumny? But frost and falset (as they say) will never have a fair hinderend. If you mean then by resisting the will of God, a voluntary disobedience and repyning against the Spirit of God, and his revealed will in his word, as the testimonies whilk ye quote here, imports: Then, I say, there was never man of our religion that professed, taught, or write the contrary: & ye will not find a syllable neither in the confession of our faith confirmed by the act of Parliament, neither in our Psalm book to the contrary. For our doctrine is flat contrary to this: to wit, that man of his free-will resists that that is good, and chooses the contrary. So ye fight heir with your own shadow. And if ye mean any other thing, set it down in plain terms, and I hope, by his grace, it shall be answered. So I cannot wonder enough what ye meant to write, and subscriue so manifest an vn-truth. Now surly, (Master Gilbert ) I think it had been greater wisdom to you to have saved your own credit, and not for a little hatred to our religion, to have blotted yourself with lying and vn-truth forever. I would pray thee, Christian reader, if thou wilt not credit me, read our confession thyself: and, I hope, thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscriuing so manifest a calumny. This for the 3. point.

Master Gilbert Brown.

4 Our doctrine is, that our Savior gave his true flesh and very body & blood under the forms of bread and wine, to be eaten of his disciples at his last Supper, and that to be received by their very mouth: and this I say by the written word, is the doctrine of Christ & his Apostles. Christ says, And the bread whilk I will give you, is my flesh for the life of the world: and at the latter Supper, Take ye and eat ye, This is my body And Drink ye all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament, whilk shall be shed for many unto remission of sins: And in Saint Mark, This is my body, and this is my blood of the New Testament, whilk shall be shed for many And Saint Luke says, This is my body whilk is given for you: and this is the chalice of the New Testament in my blood whilk shall be shed for you. This same is the doctrine of the Apostles. For Saint Paul says, This is my body whilk shall be delivered for you: and this Chalice is the New Testament in my blood: and whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the Chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord: and after, For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not decerning the body of our Lord: and in the chapter before, The Chalice of benediction whilk we do bliss is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread whilk we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lord

Master John Welsche his Reply.

I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine, your Transubstantiation and real presence. The first ye quote, is the 6. of John, And the bread whilk I will give, is my flesh, &c. This makes nothing for your real presence. For first, our Savior speaks not here of that Sacramental eating and drinking, of his flesh & blood, in this sermon, whilk was not instituted a year after that: for he speaks here of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, without the whilk there is no life. So our Savior testifies in the 53. verse, Except ye eat (says he) the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. But yourselves grants that men may be saved without that sacramental eating: therefore it is not of that whilk he speaks heir. Secondly, he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, whilk whosoever so doth, hath eternal life to themselves: so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse. But your own doctrine is, that the reprobate eats and drinks Christ's body & blood in the sacrament, and yet hes no life in them: therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating. Thirdly, if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say, then your Kirk not only hes erred foullie, but also hes been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years, because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior says not only, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, but also, except ye drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And this reason was so effectual, that it hes moved sundry of your own Doctors to expone this place, not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body & blood of Christ, but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith. For they did se that it behooved them either to forsake this place, as not making for them, and grant that it speaks not of the sacrament: or else to confess that their Kirk hes erred, and through this error, hes been the cause of the damnation of many, in ministering the sacrament but under one kind. And because you say, if our expositions were removed from the Scripture, they would serve for you: whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place? If our Savior, hear then howe he expones this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse. I am the bread of life, he that cometh unto me shall not hunger, and he that believes in me shall never thirst. So when we believe in Christ, we eat him: and when we come unto him, (whilk is only by faith) we drink him. So Augustine also expones this place. Believe, says he, and thou hes eaten. Clemens Alexandrinus and Hieronimus & Bernard all expones the flesh & blood of Christ figuratiuelie. And if ye will credit none of these, then I hope, ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors, who affirms, that this place is not meaned of the Sacrament, but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith. As Biel, Cusanus, Caietanus, Hesselius, and Iansemus. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers hes exponed this place of the sacrament, then Jansen and Tapperus two Papists will answer you: That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers, to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament. So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation, for it speaks not of the sacrament, but of his suffering upon the Crose for the away taking of our sins, and the purchasing to us of eternal life.

The next place ye quote, is the words of the institution, as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Apost. rehearses them. Your argument is this: Christ calls the bread his flesh, (and so Paul ) and the wine his blood: therefore the bread is changed in his body, and the wine in his blood, the outward forms of bread and wine only remaining. This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation. Whereunto I answer: First, there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is trans-changed in the body and blood of Christ, unless ye will expone this word, is my body, for, it is changed in my body, whilk is a monstrous exposition: for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est; that signifies to be already: (for to be already, and to be in a change are contrary) as also it hes not the like form of speech in the whole Scripture to warrand it: from the first of Genesis, to the last of the Revelation. (Bring one instance if ye can.) And Augustine says, the solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speech in the Scripture, the whilk you are not able to do: therefore your exposition is without warrand. Next I say: By what art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture? Christ says of the bread, This is my body, and of the wyne, This is my blood. Therefore the outward forms of the bread and wyne only remains, but the substance of them is gone. Never such a inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours. Thirdly, this interpretation and doctrine whilk results upon it, is falls, and that for these reasons. First, because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture. Secondly, because it destroys sundry articles of our faith, and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it. 3. It destroys the nature of the Sacrament. And last of all, is utterly repugnant to the words of y ^e institution. My argument then is this. That interpretation & doctrine whilk is gain-said, by the plain testimony of the Scripture, whilk destroys the articles of our faith, and the fundamental points of our salvation, whilk hes many absurdities following upon it, whilk overthrows the nature of the Sacrament, and last of all, whilk is contrary to the whole institution, must be false, blasphemous and erroneous. This cannot be denied but your interpretation of these words this is my body &c. and your transubstantiation whilk ye gather upon it, is such. Therefore it must be erroneous &c. My assumption I prove thus. First your interpretation is gainsaide by the plain testimony of the Scripture. Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the sacrament, but the substance of it is changed. But Matthew, Mark, Luke. and the Apostles all four testifies that Christ took bread, brake it, & gave it to his Disciples, & least ye should say y ^t it was true bread & wine before the consecration, but not after, y ^e scripture says plainly that it is bread whilk we brake, & bread whilk is eaten, and the fruit of the Vine whilk is drunken in the sacrament. The Apostles says, the bread whilk we brake &c. And as oft as ye eat this bread &c. Whosoever shall eat this bread &c. And let a man examine him self, and so let him eat of this bread &c. And our Savior says, that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it, from hence forth shall I not drink of the fruits of the wine with you &c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the sacrament, contrary expressly to your interpretation. 2. That your interpretation destroys the articles of our faith, I prove it thus. If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, as ye expound the words: first it will follow that either Christ ascended not into heaven, because he remaineth in the earth in the sacrament: and so one of the articles of our belief is falsified. Or else, if ye say he ascended once, but yet discends continually to be present in the sacrament, then another article of our belief is falsified whilk saith, that he sitteth at the right hand of God his father. And as Peter says, abides in heaven whom the heavens must contain while the time of the restoring of all things come. Secondly it will follow that Christ's body is made of the bread: for if the substance of the bread be changed in the body of Christ, then it must follow that the bread is becomme the body of Christ, and Christ his body is made of that bread, as the wine was made of the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilie. And so Bellarmine and Pope John, & the master of sentences grants that Christ is made of bread, and the substance of bread and wine is made Christ's flesh and body, and so here another article of our faith falsified, whilk says, that Christ his body was made of the seed of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to us in all things except sin. Thirdly, it will follow that Christ had two bodies together, one under the form of a man, and another under the form of bread: one speaking and another dumb: one giving to his Disciples to eat, and another the self same thing whilk was given to be eaten: yea, it shall follow, if your exposition be true, in saying that Christ's body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, not only that there are two Christ's, one in heaven at the right hand of his father visible, glorious and in one place: and another Christ in the earth invisible, circumscriued by no place: but also that there are as many Christ's as there are sacraments in the earth, yea, as many Christ's as there are bitts of bread in every sacrament, and so the foundation of our salvation is overturned. Fourthly it will follow that the body and blood of Christ are 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 soul, and so a dead body, because the bread and wine are not changed in his soul, but only in his body. Sextly it will follow that the bread in the first supper being changed in the body of Christ, that the substance of the bread hes suffered for us, died for us, and risen again for us: and hes a part of our redemption, whilk is blasphemous to think. Seventhly, it will follow that Christ eated his own body and drank his own blood whilk is absurd: for Chrysostom and your canon Law testifies that he eat the same thing whilk he gave to his Disciples. And also he says him self, from hence forth will I not drink with you anymore of the fruit of this vine &c. So he drank of that whilk they drank of. And last of all it will follow that the Mass Priest is the creator of his creator: and so their Breuiaries and Lombardus, and Bellarmine grants. In their Breuiaries the Priest says. Qui creauit me sine me, creature media • te me: that is, He that created me without me is created by my moyen. Lombardus says, the Priests are said to make the body and blood of Christ, because by their ministry the substance of the bread is made his flesh. And Bellarmine says, that the Priests makes Christ his body of bread. Now if their be no blasphemous absurdities, I know not what is blasphemy. Now choose ye whether ye will subscriue to all these absurdities, whilk you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy is not able to eschew if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forsake this interpretation of yours, as false, erroneous, and contrary both to the plain Scriptures of God, and the articles of our faith, and the grounds of our salvation. As to the third. Your interpretatiō destroys the nature of all sacraments, & makes the supper of the Lord no sacrament, for every sacrament consists of an outward and visible sign, & of a spiritual thing signified by that sign: the whilk sign hes a resemblance with the thing signified. The sign is ever earthly, and the thing signified is heavenly, as shall appear by all the rest of the sacraments, both of the old and sign Testament. In Paradise there was a very tree for the sign and Christ the thing signified by it. In circumcision there was a cutting of the skin, and the cutting off of sin. In the Passover there was a Lamb & Christ. And in the Sabaoth there was a day of rest, & eternal rest. In the Samctuarie there was an holy place, & heaven. In the wilderness there was an Rock yielding water, and Christ yielding his blood. In the apparition there was a dove, and the holy Ghost. In the manna there was bread, & Christ. In Baptism there was very water whilk washeth us, and Christ's blood washing our sins. Therefore in the sacrament of the supper must be bread and wine feding this natural life, and resembling our communion one with another, and Christ's flesh and blood feeding our spiritual life: other ways this sacrament is against the nature of all other sacraments, whilk is absurd to think and should be no sacrament at all as Augustine says, if the sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are sacraments: they should not be sacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine destroys both the signs, & the resemblance whilk they should have with the things signified in the supper, for there is no outward sign there whilk is an earthly substance, but only accedents of collor, & quantity, if your doctrine be true, & there is nothing there to resemble either our spiritual nuriture by the flesh and blood of Christ, or yet our spiritual fellowship one with another: unless 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 clergy who is so bold and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantiation of yours against the truth of God, were fed with no better substance, nor accidents: then, I say, you would have fainted long since in the defense of it. Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament, & makes it vn-like all other Sacraments, therefore it must be falls and erroneous. As to the fourth, that it is against the whole institution, and use thereof, I prove it thus. First, I will ask you what was it whilk Christ took in his hand? if you say his flesh, then the text will say the contrary, And Jesus took bread, in all the three Evangelists, and the Apostle Paul. So it was bread whilk he took, after he did take it, he blessed it: what did he bliss? but the bread whilk he had taken: so it is yet bread: after he blessed it, he brake it: what did he break? If you say it was his flesh or body, then the Scripture will say the contrary: there was not a bone of him broken. And the Apostle says, It is bread whilk we break. So it is bread whilk is broken. Then yet it is bread. After he brake it, he gave it: What gave he but the thing whilk he brake? and what brake he but bread? so it is bread whilk he gave. After he had given it they received it, and did eat it. But what did they eat? But that whilk he gave: and therefore the Apostle says four times, It is bread whilk is eaten, and whereof we are partakers, and that after the consecration: for it is broken, given and received, and eaten, after the consecration. And when they did eat it, he said, This is my body, what did he call his body but that whilk they did eat, and that was bread. So when then, Master Gilbert, should this change be? seeing it is bread all the time while he took it, blessed it, and gave it, and they did eat. For, I trow, ye will not say it is changed after it is broken, and given, and in eating. Secondly, I will ask you, what are the words whereby this monstrous change is made, as ye suppose, of the substance of the bread, in Christ's body? If this change be made by any word spoken in the institution of this Sacrament: then, I say it must either be by this word: And he blessed it: or by these words, This is my body, &c. But not by the first: for after he blessed it, he called it bread. And the Apostle says it is bread whilk we brake, therefore it remains bread after the blissing. Not by the other words: for if they be not spoken to the bread and wine, they cannot change their nature: But Mark says plainly they were spoken to the Disciples, And he said unto them, This is my blood: therefore they changed not their nature. And Durand a Papist says, that this change is made by the blessing, therefore not by these words whilk were pronounced after the blessing. And these words cannot work a change: for they are not words importing an operation as these are, Let light be: let the earth bring forth fruit, come out Lazarus, and such-like: but only signifying the things themselves, as these are, Thou art my well-beloved Son. So if these words should have wrought any change, they would not have been This is my body &c. but Let this be my body: therefore there is no such change at all heir as ye imagine. Thirdly, it should follow that the Cup should also be changed in his blood, and in the New Testament, because Christ calls the Cup his blood and new Testament, as he calls the bread his body. But this you will not say: wherefore then are you so absurd as to say the other. Fourthly, I will ask you whether do ye receive in the Sacrament that body whilk is mortal, or that body whilk is glorified: for one of them you must receive: either Christ's body as it was mortal, or his body as it is now glorified. If ye say a mortal body, then I say Christ hes not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament, for it is glorified: therefore ye cannot receive it: if ye say an immortal and glorified body, then I say, ye must seek another warrand nor this text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For at that time his body was not glorified. For the Sacrament was instituted before his death, and he was not glorified until after his resurrection: and if ye receive that same body whilk the Apostles then received: then, ye receive not a glorified body. What a body is this then whilk ye receive, neither mortal nor glorified? Fifthlie, the text says, they who receives unworthily, receives their own damnation: But if Christ's flesh and blood were there present, as ye say: then all who received it should receive their salvation, because our Savior says, He that eats my flesh and drink, my blood hath life everlasting. Now I conclude, seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture, and your doctrine of Transubstantiation whilk ye gather thereupon, first is plainly gain-said by the express testimonies of the Scripture, next overthrows all the main foundations of our salvation, and articles of our faith: thirdlie destroys the nature of a Sacrament and maketh it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament either of the old or New Testament, and last of all is contrary to the whole institution thereof, as, I hope, I have sufficiently proved: therefore of necessity it must be false & erroneous.

As for the 10. of the Corinth. 16. The Cup of blissing whilk we bliss, is it not the communication, and the bread whilk we break, is it not &c. I answer: this Sacrament of bread and wine, because it not only represents and seals up to us 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 selves: therefore it is called the communication of his body and blood. But this most clearly proves, that there is no such change heir as ye suppose: for the Apost. says plainly, the bread whilk we break, and this breaking you say is after the consecration: therefore after the consecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and so there is no Transubstantiation in the same. But because you say the substance of the bread & wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone? whether are they turned to nothing, or are they changed in Christ's body. If you say they are turned to nothing: first, I say this were a strange kind of reasoning: This is my body, therefore the substance of the bread is turned to nothing: next the Apostle should not speak truly, to call it bread 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 room of it. And fourthly Thomas of Aquine, your great defender of this doctrine is against this. But if you say, they are turned in Christ's body, whilk the word Transubstantiation imports: then, I say, as oft as the Sacrament hes been ministrated, as oft hes there been some quantity of substance ciked to his body: and it shall still grow in greatness and quantity, as long as it shall be ministered: but this is monstrous to think. And to end this, if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament, then let me ask you whose are the whiteness, and readnesse, and roundness that we see: What means this taist in our mouths of bread and wine, if there be no substance of them there. May we not say to you as Christ said to Thomas, who doubted of his resurrection, Put thy finger heir, behold my hands, put thy hand in my side, and be not incredulous but believe. So, may not we say to you, who doubteth whether the substance of bread & wine be heir remaining yet, touch them, taist them, look on them, and feel them, and be not incredulous, but believe. For behold, there would not be such a coullour, such a taist and smell, and there were not substance of bread and wine heir. And I pray you tell me what is this that rottes then & grows in Mauks in the bread, and sowers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their substance remaineth not, will you say Christ's flesh and blood rots and consumes & sowers, what is this but to mak him mortal, yea to crucify him again. And if you will not say that, then either must you confess that their substance remains and is not changed, or else Christ's flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances whilk rots & sours, or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances: & so ye shall not have 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 Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them, accidents and Christ's body could neither poison them nor be capable of poisoun: therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament. So we see the texts ye brought with you, is against you as y ^e sword that Goliath brought to slay David, cutted off his own head. But yet you will say, If the bread be not his body, why then did he call it his body: this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine, and answer this, and the plea is won. Unto this then I answer, that in that same sense he said This is my body, 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 body should be broken with the sorrows of death: for his body was not broken before he suffered: and the Apostle says, 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 body: & as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken: so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so called it. For the resemblance & likeness therefore between the bread and his body the bread it is called his body: &c. and this phrase is very frequent in the scripture to give the name of the things signified to the sign, as shall be seen afterward.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Now let not the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figures, signs, similitudes, symbols and spiritual eating of an natural body, with many the like: whilks are the inuenti • ns of their own brains, not contained in the written word. And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and not theirs.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Ye prevent our answers here, and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ, that he cannot be in two places at once. Whereunto I answer: that we shall bring no reason, neither natural nor supernatural, against the omnipotency of Christ for we acknowledge it, & adores it. But we say to you pretend not his omnipotency 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 body to be in two places, both at once, in heaven, and in the Sacrament: therefore he makes it to be so. For you must first prove he will do so: for yourself, Master Gilbert, can do many things whilk you do not, because you will not, so from can to will, it follows not. And if you say that Christ hes willed so, because he said, This is my body: I have answered to it before, refute you it, and all your Roman Clergy if you can. For you might as well say, Christ willed the Cup wherein the wine was, to be changed in his blood and new Testament, and himself to be changed in a wine Tree, and a Dore and a Rock to be changed in him: because so hes he and his Apostles spoken, and these speeches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change heir. Next, I say, your own schoolmen and great defenders of Transubstantiation, Thomas of Aquine and others, says that it is against the omnipotency of God, to affirm that he may do anything whilk implies a contradiction in the self, for that is rather to be called a weakness nor a power. And the Scripture affirms, that God cannot lie, nor deny himself, nor be tempted, and that yea and nay is not in Christ: but to Christ's body both to be a true body like to us in all things (to wit essential) except sin, as the Scripture says, and to be in moe places at once, whilk makes him to have not a true body like ours. For Augustine says, (speaking of Christ's glorified body,) If it be a true body, it is then in a certain place: and take away from bodies their quantities, they are no more true bodies ) implies a contradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Christ's body both to be visible and invisible at one time: to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and breadth, & not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament, is a manifest contradiction, is yea and nay in Christ: therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine, the omnipotency of Christ: cannot be alleged or pretended for this your doctrine, whilk is yea and nay, and implies a manifest contradiction. So this in very truth, M. Gilbert is the invention of your own brain, whilk is alleged for your Transubstantiation, and wants the warrand, yea is gainsaide both by the written word, and your own school-men. Next, ye would have us to hold away our figures symbols, and similitudes: I answer: our own figures we shall hold away: but these figures, symbols, and signs, wherein our Savior hes delivered his truth to us, we must and will acknowledge So then, obeying rather God who hes set them down in his Scripture, nor you who forbids us to acknowledge them: & what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinite places of Scripture, if you would admit no figures in them, but all to be understood plainly and literallie as they were spoken. The Scripture ascriues to God eyes, ears, seit, hands, & a face: and the Scripture calls Christ a door, a vine. Now if you will admit no figures heir, but will have all these places exponed literallie, as you will have us to do in the Sacrament: then you would be reckoned in the number of the old heretics called Anthropomorphitae, who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God, they taking it literally and exponing it without figures, as you would have us to expone the Sacrament, they thought that God was bodily: yea, you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door, and vine tree, for so he calls himself. And to come to the Sacraments themselves, how many Transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the old & New Testament, if you will remove figures and signs from them, and expone them literally, as you would have us to do in this Sacrament, Circumcision is called the covenant, and yet it was but the sign of the covenant: the Lamb in the Passover, is called the Passover of the Lord, & yet it was but the sign of the Passover: the rock in the wilderness is called Christ, and yet it was but a sign of Christ: the Ark is called the Lord, and yet it was but a sign of the Lord: the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord, and yet it was but a sign of that rest: and Baptism is called the lawer of regeneratiō, and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration. Do you think that the forms of speeches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speech in this Sacrament only to be literallie understood? what reason can there be of this diversity? But it may be you think that the form of speeches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively: but the phrase of speech in this Sacrament is to be taken literallie. But first, what then will you say to this speech This is my body whilk is broken for you, and this, the Cup is the new Testament in my blood, and the Cup is my blood, and the bread whilke we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ, and the Cup whilk we bliss, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? all figurative speeches, and to be understood figuratiuelie: otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament, whilk is both contrary to the Scripture, and also absurd. For then he should have suffered twice, once in the sacrament, & once upon the Cross: and not only should there be one Transubstantiation in the Sacrament, but many: as of the cup in the blood of Christ: and of the bread and cup in the participatiō of the body and blood of Christ: and so you should not only have one Transubstantiation, but many. And howe I pray you can Sacraments whilk are but figures, signs & symbols, be understood but figuratiulie? And how can duo diuersa indiuidua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione, and be spoken of another, without a figure, as it is here. This bread is my body, &c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy, understand such propositions otherways then figuratiuelie? What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figures in this sacrament, whilk is but a figure and sign, seeing they are so frequently used in the scriptures of God, and especially in sacraments, as also in this sacrament? So nil ye, will ye signs & symbols, tropes, and figures ye must admit in the exposition of this sacrament. Last of all ye think, a natural body cannot be spiritually eaten. Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christ's body naturally eaten? For then his body must be naturally chawed, digested, turned over in our substance, & casten out in the draught, and so be mortal and suffer again. Let me ask you whether is Christ's body the food of the soul, or the food of the body? If you say it is the food of the body to fill the belly, then I say it must be naturally eaten, but you are blasphemous in so thinking. But if you say it is the food of the soul, as it is indeed, and as our Savior says, then it cannot be eaten naturally: for as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually, so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally, but spiritually by faith. And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith, all your contention would take an end. But this is the stone whilk ye stumble at, and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christ's natural body, as though it could be eaten otherwise nor spiritually by faith. Will you neither understand the Scriptures nor the ancient fathers, nor your own Kirk, who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith? What gross darkness is this, wherewith the Lord hes blinded you above all, that ye cannot understand it? As Christ dwells in us and we in him, so do we eat him & drink him. But the Apostle says, he dwells in us by faith therefore we eat him and drink 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 eternal life, as our Savior says: what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ? And why are ye like the gross and carnal Caperna • ts who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him? And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Kirk whilk acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the word and by the sacrament also. I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I have you to the Lord. Let the (Christian reader) now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of man's brain, and whilk of them hes their warrant out of the written word of God.

Master Gilbert Brown.

And further, I say, of these words, This is my body whilk shall be delivered for you, whilk is an true proposition, and therefore this must follow. But there was nobody delivered for us, but the natural body of Christ: therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten. Then if it were his natural body, it was not natural bread. As Saint Ambrose expounds the same, let us prove says he this not to be that that nature formed, but that thing whilk the blessing hes consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing not in nature: for nature it self is changed by blessing. He hes the same more amplie in the fourth book the fourth chapter de Sacramentis

Master John Welsche his reply.

First I answer, the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here whilk shall be delivered, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whilk is broken and in the present time, and so in Luke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whilk is given, so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture, both contrary to the Greek and Syriac copies. Upon the whilk I reason thus, this proposition is true, this is my body whilk is broken for you. So the Apostle says, but Christ's body was not broken then really, for not a bone of him was broken at all, as the Scripture testifies: and the Scripture says 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 Christ's body was not brokē then really, that is, suffered: but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread, so his body was not given really and corporallie to be eaten, but only signified. Secondly, I say, it is true, that Christ's natural body was delivered to the death for us: but yet it will not follow upon this, that it was his natural body whilk he gave to them to be eaten corporallie: for his natural body was really delivered to death for us: and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten. You must coin a new Logic M. Gilbert or you can make these two stick together: and the one necessarily to follow upon the other. For by that same reason you may as well conclude, that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporallie in the word, for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament, and also he gives that same body to them in the word, whilk was delivered to death: for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament. So from his bodily death, to a corporal eating of him, it will not follow. And further by that same reason you may as well say that the fathers before Christ under the law, did eat Christ's body corporallie, for they eat that same spiritual food, & drank that same spiritual drink, in their Sacraments, whilk we do now in ours. So the Apostle testifies, even that self same Christ his body and blood whiilk was delivered to the death, & yet it will not follow, that they did eat his natural body &c. As for Ambrose, it is true he so speaks: but he expounds himself in that same chapter, while as he says, Before the blessing another form or thing is named, but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified: If the bread then signify the body of Christ, it is not changed in his body. And because of this holy use to signify the body of Christ, Ambrose says that the nature is changed by blessing: and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it, where he says. Shall not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the Elements. In that same sense Ambrose says, the nature of the elements is changed, in the whilk he says, the form of them is changed, for he affirmeth both there. But you will not say I trow, unless you will over-throw your transubstantiation that Ambrose means, that the form of the Elements is changed in substance, but only in use & signification, for you say the forms remains, therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature, the change of the substance of them, but only the change in the use of them, from a common use to a holy use. And because it may be you will delay to subscriue to the truth of our doctrine, until you hear the sentence and judgment of the fathers. Therefore, I will set them down here. Tertullian says, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. Chrysostom says, What is that whilk the bread signifies, the body of Christ. Theodoret says, The bread & wyne is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ. And he says, Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or simbole the name of his body: and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs. Unto the whilk he answers, are they not signs of the body & blood of Christ. Hieronymus says That Christ by taking of the bread, whilk comforts the heart of man, representeth the truth of hi • body. Cyrillus says, Our Sacraments auoweth not the eating of a man. Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 figures or signs of the body of Christ. Cyprian says, The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes, his blood. Augustine says, Our Lord doubted not to say: this is my body while as be gave but the sign of his body. And he calls it the figure of his body and blood. And their canon law says, The heavenly bread whilk is the flesh of Christ, is called after a manner the body of Christ, while as it is but the Sacrament of his body. And the gloss there says, The heavenly bread, that is the heavenly Sacrament whilk represents truly the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ but improperlie. I omit the rest whilk is exceeding many, and because if you be a right defender of the catholic faith, you will say with the rest of your Clergy, that the Pope cannot err. Therefore a Pope, Gelasius by name says, Neither the substance of the bread, nor nature of the wine, ceasses to be any more nor they were before: but remains in their own substance. And he calls them there, an image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ. Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we, will you avowe your Transubstantiation whilk they so flatlie deny. And as our Savior says, a kingdom divided against it self cannot stand. So the manifold divisions amongst yourselves, concerning this transubstantiation, is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine. Some of you expounds this word hoc. this of the bread Some of Christ's body and some calls it an Indiuiduum vagum some says it signifieth nothing, and some says it signifieth a thing whilk is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem.

Secondly in the exposition of the word est, is. Some for it is: some for it is changed: 3. some says the substance of y ^e bread and wine returns to nothing: some says it passes in the body of Christ. 4. some says the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing: some says it is changed in the blood with the wyne: some says it is turned in Christ's vital humors: some says it is turned in the wyne, and after in the blood: some says they dare not define it. 5. some says, the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantity: other some says they are bred of the substance. 6. some says Christ consecrated by the word, he blessed: some by the words, This is my body, and the blissing together: some will have the consecration to be made in heaven: and some franklie confesses that they neither know the words nor the number of them wh • reby this consecration is made: and to omit six hundredth the like, I will only touch these few some says the body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth, some says that it feeds, some says as sone as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven. But other some says, it passeth from the teeth to the heart, and then the bodily presence ceases, and other some will have him to go to the stomach &c. but not to the mind. And yet he says he doubts whether he goes to the belly or not, for the variety of opinions: and in so great variety he says, what to hold is hard to judge. And suppose he holds it that that the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught, because, says he, the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it, and infidels & heretics would jest at it, and laugh us to scorn. Yet sundry others holds that not only it goes into the belly, but also Christ's body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught, and that brute beasts may eat Christ's body and it may go into the belly of dogs and swine. O filthy mouths & unclean spirits, what heretic, what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal: yea, so barbarous & brutish, as ye are. So not only are ye more gross nor the Capernaits who thought that saying hard: but also like the barbarous Canibales who eat the flesh of man. O blind leaders of the blind, shall myse, dogs, and swine, eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ? shall they then have eternal life? I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine, and their harts will tremble at it. These absurdities, together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same, hes made some of your great pillars to say as Fischer, that no man can prove by the words of the Gospel, that any Priest in these days, doth consecrate the very body and blood of Christ: and others, that Transubstantiation is but a tradition whilk hes not the author of it in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the same: and others, as Tonstall, that it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture, as they were before the council of Lateran then to bring in such a question. I have been longsome in this, but yet it so behooved me: because it is the ground-stone of their sacrifice of the Mass, and their other Idolatries & abominations. So then to conclude this, seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is aggree-able neither to the doctrine of Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the ancient Fathers, nor your own canon Law and Pope, as they have been cited: and seeing ye are at such variances amongst yourselves concerning the same: therefore it is to be rejected as heretical, damnable, and blasphemous by all Christians. And this for the 4. point of your doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

5. Our doctrine is, that the lawful Ministers and Priests of the Kirk of Christ, hes power given them by Christ to forgive & to retain sins, because Christ says to his Apostles, Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained. And in another place, That ye may know (says Christ) that the son of man hes power in earth to forgive sins, &c with sundry other places, conform to the same. And this is denied by the Protestants.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for the fifth point of your doctrine, that the lawful Ministers of Christ, hes power given them by Christ to forgive sins, and to retain them. If you mean that they have this power as God's witnesses, Ministers, and Ambassadors, yea and Judges too: (for the Apostle says, We judge them that are within ) to testify and to declare, to judge and give out judgment according to God's word, not only by the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments joined therewith: but also by the censures, and discipline, in excommunicating the obstinate impenitent, and absolving the penitent. If, I say, your doctrine be this, then you injury us in saying, we deny it: and you needed not to have quoted these places to confirm the thing whilk we both teach, and also practice. But what is the cause ye would not quote the place where we deny this doctrine? But if you mean that the lawful Ministers of Christ hes an absolute power, & full authority, not as Ministers and Witnesses only, but as judges & Lord's over our faith, to forgive or retain by their own authority, and that the very pronouncing of the words of absolution, is the cause of remission of sins, and that it so scattereth the sins, and makes them to euanishe, as the blast of wind extinguishes the fire, and scatters the cloud, as Bellarmine says. If you mean so, this we utterly deny unto you, and all men: because it is only proper unto God. The whilk the Jews suppose they were blinded did acknowledge: and so not so blind as ye are. For it is only God that forgives in Jesus Christ. It is only his death that hes merited it, & only faith that apprehends it, and only his spirit that seals it up, and the word and Ministry that declares it, testifies, and confirms it. For the Apostle says, He hes committed to us the word and ministry of reconciliation, and we are in his stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God: so we are but Ministers of this. Augustine is plain in this: It is the Spirit (says he) that forgives, and not you, meaning of the ministers, and the Spirit is God: it is God therefore who forgives, and not we. There is one argument: God only forgives sins, therefore not man. And again, What is man but a sick man to be healed himself? Would thou be a phycisian to me, with me seike the phycisian thyself. Heir another argument, He cannot be a Physician to others, who needs a Physician himself. Further, he says, He that can forgive by man, can also forgive without man: for he may as well forgive by him, as by another. But to what purpose do ye quote the 9. of Matthew, That the son of man hes power to forgive sins, for will you say, that the Ministers of the Kirk hes that absolute authority that he had? the whilk if ye do, then are ye blasphemous. As for the word Priest, wherewith ye style the Ministers of the Kirk, I know that you and your Kirk takes more pleasure in this soil, nor in all the stiles whilk the holy Ghost hes given to the Ministers of the Kirk in the New Testament: for amongst the manifold styles whilk are given to his Ministers, yet hes he never given this style of a sacrificing Priest, as proper to them, throughout the whole new Testament. But as your office of Priest-hoode is not written in Christ his latter Testament, so neither is your style of sacrificing Priests contained in the same. But new offices must have new stiles.

Master Gilbert Brown.

6. Our doctrine is, to make the Priests of the Kirk to anoint the seike with oil, in the name of our Lord, and to pray over him, because it is the doctrine of the Apostles, as we have in Saint James in these words, Is any seek amongst you, let him bring in the Priests of the Kirk, and let them pray ever him, annointing him with oil in the name of our Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the seek, and our Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him. And because we find heir an external form, whilk is the annointing with oil, of an internal grace, whilk is remission of sins: therefore we say it is a Sacrament. Now take from these places the vain subterfugies of our new men, that will have him a Mediciner for the body in this, and not for the soul, the matter will be plain of itself.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As to your doctrine of annointing of the seek with oil, & that not by every man, but by a Priest: not in all seiknesses, but in the extremity of death: not with every oil, but with oil consecrated by the Bishop: (whilk Bellarmine makes essential to this Sacrament) and that not all the parts & members of the body, but the five organs of the senses, and the reins, and feet: and that by this form of words, Let God forgive thee whatsoever thou hes sinned, by the sight, hearing, smelling, &c. by this holy unction, and his most godly mercy. The whilk you will have to have two effects. The one, the health of the body, if it be expedient for the soul: the other remission of the relicts of sins that remains: and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments, And for this purpose ye only bring one testimony of Scripture. So that all the show of warrand you can pick out of the Scripture, is this only place of James For I trow with Bellarmine, & sundry others, you have seen that that place of Marc. 6.13. whilk is also alleged by the council of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine, would carry no show to make anything for you, and therefore it may be you have omitted it. But this place serves nothing for your purpose. For, first I say, this was a ceremony annexed to the miraculous gift of healing, as is plain both by the text using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Lord will lift him up whilk is properly spoken of the health of the body: and also by that place of Mark, where it is written, that the Apostles anointed many s • ik with oil, and they healed them. The whilk gift was not only given to the Apostles, but also to the very Churches, as is plain of the 1. Corinth. 12. Unto another is given the gift of healing, &c. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Kirk of God, wherefore will you superstitiouslie use the ceremony? So either avowe (Master Gilbert ) that your Priests hes this miraculous gift of healing, whilk I trow ye will not, or else leave off the ceremony?

Secondly, by this argument ye may as well make all the rest of the ceremonies, (whilk our Savior and his Apostles, Peter and Paul, and the believers in the primitive Kirk, used towards the seek, blind, lame, and dead) sacraments. As the laying on of hands, whilk had both a command & a promise joined with it, annointing of the eyes of the blind with clay, washing in the pool of Shiloam, &c. For why should not their examples be as well followed, as the example of the Elders of the primitive Kirk? & seeing you use not these ceremonies, because ye want the miraculous gift, whilk was joined with them, why do ye use this ceremony superstitiouslie, seeing ye want this gift also?

Thirdly, I say, this place can make nothing for your doctrine: for this place says, Call the Elders of the Kirk, and let thē, &c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest. This text says in the plural number, Call for the Elders: your doctrine says, one Priest is sufficient. This place speaks of oil, not mentioning a sillabe of consecration, blissing of it by the Bishop, and that nine-fold salutation that ye give unto it, Hail, ô holy oil, with the bowing of the knee, and other ceremonies. There is not a sillabe in this, nor in any other Scripture that speaks of these things, and yet your doctrine will have all these ceremonies. This place says, And the prayer of saith shall save the seek: and you attribute it to the ointment. This place puts no differences of seiknesse: but your doctrine is, that none be anointed, but he who is lying in the bed, & at the pointe of death. This place only specifieth the annointing of the seek, some of you reckons, as the council of Florentine seven parts: some, the five senses, as necessary. And therefore this moved Thomas of Aquine to say, That the form of this Sacrament is not exstant in the Scripture. Now if it be not exstant in the Scripture, what to do have we with it? seeing the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation, and to make the man of God perfect in every good work?

Fourthly, Beda, Oecumenius, and Theophylactus in their commentaries upon these places and Thomas Waldensis & Alphonsus de castro, two arch-papists affirms, that in the 6. of Mark, & 5. of James, the self same unction and annointing is meaned. But Bellarmine & lansenius two other papists affirms and proves by firm reasons, that that annointing in Mark is no Sacrament: therefore neither is this annointing in James a Sacrament, seeing (as said is) in both the places the selfsame unction is meaned.

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

Sextlie, all the Sacraments of the new Testament should be ministered by them who have the preaching of the Gospel concredited unto them, and not by private Christians. But Innocentius the first, a Pope says, Private men may minister this, in their own and others necessities: as also Thomas Waldensis a Papist. And yet the council of Trent accurses them that so says: Therefore it is not a Sacrament.

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

Eightlie, all the Sacraments of Christ hes their warrand from the written word: But Petrus a Soto calls this a tradition whilk hes not the warrand in the written word: therefore it is not a lawful Sacrament of Christ.

And as to your argument: That it hes an external form of annointing with oil, of an internal grace whilk is remission of sins: I answer: this form or ceremony was extraordinary, as I proved before, annexed to a miraculous gift of healing. The whilk seeing it is now ceased, the ceremony also should cease. And this promise is not made to the annointing (if ye will believe the Apostle) but to the prayer of faith. The prayer of the faith, says the Apostle, shall save the scik. And whereas ye say that we make him a Mediciner only for the body in this, and not for the soul: we answer: That this ceremony as sundry others, was only annexed to the extraordinary gift of healing of the body, and was not seals of grace. And yet with the health of the body, the healing of the soul was oftentimes joined, as our Savior says to the Paralytick man: Thy sins are forgiven thee, take up thy bed & walk. Now whether these be our vain subterfuges, or cleir grounds out of the Scripture, let the reader judge. And where as ye call us new men: let them be new and moste recent, whose doctrine is most new. But, as hes and shall be proved by God's grace, our doctrine is not new, but Jesus Christ's in his old and New Testament, and yours devised since. Therefore this title of novelty most justly belongs unto you. This for the 6. point of your doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

7 Our doctrine is, that when our Priests (whilk are the only lawful Ministers nowadays) are called to that function, receives the imposition of hands, with the grace of gift of the holy Ghost, because it is the doctrine of Saint Paul in these words: Neglect not the gift or grace that is within thee whilk is given the by prophecy, with the imposition of priest-hoode. And therefore must b • e a Sacrament, because it hes an external form, whilk is the imposition of hands, of an external grace, whilk is the gift given by the same. And for this cause John Calvin his self admits it to be an Sacrament: albeit in their confession they call it an bastard Sacrament of the Popes, and detests the same, although Melancthon hes the contrary.

Master John 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 word of God, and was practiced in the primitive Kirk, as in the ordination of Timothy here, and others: and is profitable both to put the Pastors in mind of his calling, that he is separated of God for the discharge of the same, and also the people that they embrace him as one sent of God to them, therefore we both acknowledge it and practice it. But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inseparably joined with it, or that it is a sacrament of the new Testament properly (as you affirm) that we deny. As to the first, the gift of the holy Ghost is not inseparablie joined with it, first, because that is injurious to the Lord's free grace, whilk is not bound to any instrument, let be to a ceremony. And also he speaks against experience: for how many, I pray you, do receive imposition of hands, who receives not a new grace and gift of the holy Ghost amongst you? Miserable experience these many ages both doth testify it, and also one hes testified the same, saying, our Priests doth lay the word of blessing upon many, but in few followeth the effect of that blessing. And certainly if any gift of the holy Ghost is joined with this ceremony, it should be an ability to preach the word: for that is the principal part of the office of the Minister of the Gospel. But how many thousands are they among you in your Kirk wholes received this imposition of hands, and yet as unable to preach the Gospel as Asses are? and last of all, what needed that trial and examination, so straightlie commanded in the Scripture, whilk ought to be had of them that are to be ordained, if the holy Ghost were ever inseparablie given with the ceremony. For wherefore is this trial and examination? And wherefore is Timothy so straightlie charged to lay his hands suddenlie on no man, but because it is only the holy Ghost who enables. The whilk also should be well known unto his Kirk ere they presume to testify the calling of God to them. For if it were true that ye say that the gift of the holy Ghost were joined with the imposition of hands inseparablie, then the Apostle should rather have commanded Timothy to lay his hands upon many in respect of the need that the Kirk stood in of all men, rather then to have discharged him. And as for the place of Paul whilk ye cite here, Despise not the gift &c. This serves nothing for your doctrine: for if first the gift given to Timothy whilk the Apostles speak of, was extraordinary, and so ordinarily doth not ever follow the ceremony. 2. It is not ascriued here to the ceremony of imposition of hands, but unto Prophecy, whilk is given thee by Prophecy, whereby it was revealed to the Kirk of the ability of this man. And so if there be any prophecies that goes of you in your Clergy that the holy Ghost is given to you, then ye may claim unto the same: but I think ye will not say that such like prophecies goeth of you: therefore ye cannot claim to this testimony. 3. Timothy is exhorted to keep that worthy thing concredited unto him through the holy Ghost. It was the holy Ghost therefore who was the giver and preserver of it. And as for the ceremony it was a sign of the presence of gods spirit in them who was lawfully ordained. Now as to the second that ye will have it a sacrament, because it hes a external form, and also a promise of grace. That will not follow: for then you should have innumerable Sacraments: for prayer, almous-deeds, and the ordination of Magistrates, and many other hes external forms, and hes promises of grace joined with them: and yet you will not say, that they are properly Sacraments. For in all the Sacraments of the New Testament whilk properly are Sacraments, there must be first not only an external action but an earthly and visible Element, as water in Baptism, and bread and wyne in the Supper. And therefore, Augustine says let the word be joined with the element, and then it is a sacrament. Secondly, they must have their express warrant and institution from Jesus Christ in the Scripture, as baptism hes Math. 28. and the Lord's supper hes Math. 26. Thirdly, they must not only have a promise of grace, but a promise of remission of sins and sanctification: for they must be seals of that covenant whilke is common to all Christians, as baptism and the Lord's supper is. But this ceremony of imposition of hands wants all these three: for neither is there any earthly element, neither seals it up the covenant whilk is common to all, but proper to the ministry only: neither hes it the express institution of Christ in all the four Evangelists. and whereas in the 20. of John he there ordains his Apostles, we read, he breathed on them, and said, receive the holy Ghost. but not a word that he laid his hands on them, or commanded them to use it to others. The whilk without all question he would have done, if he had ordained it to be a sacrament: and Petrus a Soto a Papist says, that the making of the imposition of hands to be a sacrament, is a tradition. Therefore it is not a sacrament properly of the new Testament. Secondly, if the ordination of any by imposition of hands were a sacrament, the ordination of a bishop by the same especially, should be a sacrament: for the place whilk ye quote here is of Timothy who was a Bishop as your Kirk affirms. And Bellarmine says, if this be not a sacrament, then it cannot be proved by the Scripture that ordination by imposition of hands is a sacrament: and he says, if this be not granted they will lose all the testimonies of the ancients to prove impositiō of hands to be a sacrament, for they speak of the ordination of Bishops. But the ancient Scholars and Doctors of your own Kirk, and Dominicus a Soto a learned Papist affirms, that this is not a sacrament properly, and so neither the ordination of the rest of the ministry can be a sacrament, seeing a Bishop is above the rest in your order. Last of all, the counsel of Trent, is not against it and sundry of the rest of your Clergy makes all the seven orders of your Kirk, as Priests whilk • ou distinguish in two sorts: to wit, in Bishops and inferior Priests, Deacons, sub-deacons, Exorcists, Lectores, door-kepers, and your Acoluthytes everyone of them by themselves sacraments. And your Master of sentences calls all the orders in the plural number sacraments. So if ye durst let the people know the secret of this your doctrine, ye make not only seven sacraments, but fourteen in very deed. But this were dangerous to you to sow abroad: for you fear it would cast your doctrine in some suspicion with them, and be an occasion to them, to examine it by the Scripture, the whilk if they would once begin to do, ye know your hope were lost. As for Calvin & Melanchthon, they cal it a sacrament taking the word in an ample sense, for these ceremonies that hes the foundation in the word: whilk hes a promise of a blessing joined with them: and not in that sense that baptism and the Lord's supper are called sacraments, as Calvin in that first place whilk ye quote plainly acknowledges: for these are his words, Let the Christian Kirk (says he) be content of these, (meaning of baptism and the supper) and let them not admit nor acknowledge, desire, or look for, any other third sacrament til the end of the world. And as for imposition of hands whilk the Kirk uses in their ordinations, he says, I will not be against it that it be called a sacrament, so being I reckon it not among the ordinary sacraments. And Melanchthon in that same place reckons up prayer, alms, marriage, the Magistrate in the number of these unto the whilks he gives this name of a sacrament, whereby he makes it plain that he takes this word sacrament, amply and larglie as hes been said before, and not in that sense that baptism and the supper is called sacraments. So you play yourself (Master Gilbert ) in the ambiguity of this word sacrament, and deceives the reader with the same. And whereas ye call your Priests the only lawful Ministers now a days: I will answer to this more fully afterward, only this now: First, seeing the fountain and ground upon the whilk all the lawful callings in your Kirk depends and is derived, as yourselves confesses, is the supremacy of your Pope, whom I have proved to be the Antichrist in my other treatise, and seeing the office of your priesthood in sacrificing the son of God, as ye suppose, is most abhominable, idolatrous and Antichristian, as I have proved also there: therefore you are not only not lawful Ministers of Christ, but the Ministers of Antichrist. And as for the style of Priest, I answered it before; it is not so much as once ascriued to the Minsters of the Gospel to signify their proper calling in the whole New Testament.

Master Gilbert Brown.

8. Our doctrine is, that matrimony is an bond vndissoluble, because our Savior says, that which God hath joined together, let no man separate. And such like he says: that whosoever dimits his wife and marries another, commits adultrie upon her. And in Saint Luke we have the same And Saint Matthew is of the same opinion (albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornication) this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. For it is written in Saint Paul, that an woman that is under a husband, her husband living is bound to the law, but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband Therefore her husband living she shall be called an adulteres if she be with another man, and so forth. And in another place he says, to them that be joined in matrimony, I give not command but our Lord: that the wife depart not from her husband and if she departs to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. Now this is our religion of matrimony, and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland that will license a man to put away his wife and marie another. And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced in their negative faith.

Master John 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 would scarselie have understood this point of your doctrine, and your council of Trent and others of your Clergy who writes of it, had not been more plain then ye. And I think, that there are few that knows not this point of your doctrine otherwise, who can take it up by this your writing. I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine. But wherefor should I wonder, for darkness may not bide to se the light. Your doctrine then is this. First you make many causes of separation & divorcement, beside adultrie (express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, he that shall dimit his wife except for fornication &c.) he makes her to commit adultery. As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery or Nunnerie: 2. for heresy: 3. and for peril of offending of God. Next, your doctrine is, That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife, from bed and board (as we speak) yet the bond of Marriage contracted and perfected, betwixt the faithful, can no ways be broken, as long as they both live together, no not for adultery. So that the party innocent divorced, may not lawfully marry another, during the life of the guilty party: And if they marry, they cal it adultery, and they will have the ground of this to be, because it is a Sacrament. So one error follows and leans upon another. For if Marriage be not a Sacrament, then the bond may be lowsed by their own doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as shall be proved hereafter: Therefore the bond is soluble. Our doctrine is, that the bond of marriage contracted and perfected between two Christians, is broken by the adultery of either of the parties: so that the innocent divorced, may lawfully marry another. As for our doctrine. It is plain in the Scripture, in the 19. and 5. of Matthew: where there the Lord in plain terms excepts the cause of fornication, saying: Whosoever dimits his wife except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. So then by the contrary: he that dimits his wife for fornicatiō (whilk is adultery there) & marries another, commits not adultery. And seeing the Apostle commands, That every man have his own wife, and every wife her own husband, and that for the avoiding of fornication: and it is better to marry nor to burn. Therefore, the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly, according to gods word; It is leasome to the party innocent at least, to use the remedy of marriage for the avoiding of fornication. Other-wise, if he might not use it, divorcement were not a benefit, but rather a punishment, and the innocent should be punished without a fault.

Now, as to the Scriptures whilk ye quote, Matth. 19.6. and 5.31. they have that exception of fornication expressly mentioned. And as for the places of Mark. 10.11.12. and Luke 16.18. and Romans 7.2.3. and 1. Corinth, 7.39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication, that our Savior expressly sets down in the former two places, otherways Scripture should be contrary to Scripture, whilk is blasphemy to think, and our Savior is the best exponer of himself. And as for the 1. Corinth. 7.10.11. the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery, but of a separation for a season, for other causes or variances, in the whilk ease the parties separated, are to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled together. And because ye will not credit us nor the son of God so expressly speaking in his Scripture, yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors, councils, canons and Popes, whom if ye be a right Catholic, ye think that they cannot err. Caietanus a Cardinal, Ambrosius Catharinus Papists, holds this doctrine with us against the religion of your Kirk, that Adultery breaks the bond of marriage, and that the innocent divorced may marry another. Pope Zacharias, and the council Triburiense, & another canon says, That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage, so that the party innocent, may marry another. And Pope Gregory the 3. suppose in a canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage, so that the pairty innocent may marry another, contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior, yet he permits a man to marry another, if his former wife being taken with some disease, be not able to rander dew benevolence unto her husband. So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause whilk our Savior sets down, of adultery: yet he sets down causes himself, whilk wants the warrand of the word. And Pope Celestine the 3. set forth a decree, that when of married persons one falleth into heresy, the partye Catholic is free to marry again: cap. Laudabilem de convers. infidelium, confessed by Alphonsus a Papist, lib. 1. cap. 4. aduersus heresies. So then either your Doctors, Canons, Councils, & three Popes errs, or else the bond of marriage may be broken, and the innocent party divorced may marry another. Your religion of Matrimony therefore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christ's, but also to your own canons Councils, Doctors, & Popes. Let them therefore condemn your cruel judgment against the innocent divorced. And therefore Bellarmine confesses, that in this point they have many against them, not only us whom he calls heretics: but also Latins, Greeks, and Catholics.

Master Gilbert Brown.

9 With Saint Paul, we make it a Sacrament, as sundry of the learned Protestants do, as Zwingli, Melancthon, and chiefly young Marchinstoun, in his 22 Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation, whose words are these. Thirdly, bodily marriage is by Saint Paul, called a symbol and a Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Kirk. And yet our new confession detests the same, and will have it but a bastard. Sik concord is betwixt Christ, his Apostles, and our new preachers of the Gospel: and also amongst themselves.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

The 9. point of your doctrine is: you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the new Testament, and that properly, and that according to the institution of God, unto the whilk the promise of the grace of justification is annexed: so Bellarmine and the council of Trent says. But mark (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 faithful cannot be broken. And they make the cause of this difference to be this, because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament. So they reason. Marriage amongst Christians is a Sacrament: therefore say they, it cannot be broken. But what is their principal ground now, whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament? because (say they) the marriage of Christians is a bond indissoluble; therefore it is a Sacrament whilk hes the grace of Justification joined with it. So mutually, one error upholds another. Upon the whilk I reason: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament: (this your Kirk grants, because they make that the ground of this) but the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery, as hath been proved before, both by the Scriptures, & also by your own canons, councils, Doctors, and Popes: therefore marriage is not a Sacrament.

Secondly, in the sacraments of the New Testament, there are earthly elements: as the water in Baptism: the bread and wine in the supper: and an express form of words prescriued in the new Testament: as in Baptism, I bapitze thee, &c. and in the Supper, This is my body &c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same, and hes the promises of remission of sins and justification annexed to them. But none of these things are to be had in marriage. First, no earthly element: next, no form prescriued in the word of God: thirdlie, no express institution of it as of a sacrament: fourthlie, no promise of the remission of sins and salvation annexed unto it. Therefore it cannot be a sacrament of the New Testament properly.

Thirdly, if marriage were a sacrament, and such a sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justification with it, that is, remission of sins: then wherefore should your Kirk forbid all your Clergy from the same? and wherefore should ye abstain from that sacrament, whilk is instituted of God, to give remission of sins to you, and to make you acceptable to God, as your doctrine says. Why should ye deprive yourself of that thing whilk may place you in God's favor, and purchase to you remission of sins, (as ye say marriage may do) it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine, or else prefers whoredom and adultery, whilk is condemned of God, to marriage whilk is God's ordinance and honorable amongst all men.

Fourthly, I say, if the marriage of Adam and Eve in Paradise, and the marriage of all the Patriarckes, & Prophets, and Priests, and people in the old Testament, was not a sacrament, neither is the marriage of Christians in the new testament a sacrament. For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ, as well as the marriage of Christians in the new testament does: the whilk you will not deny. And Pope Leo says, That marriage was instituted from the beginning, that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ, and his Kirk: but the first you grant yourselves was not a Sacrament? therefore neither is the second a sacrament.

Fifthlie, that whilk is filthiness and pollution cannot be a sacrament to give forgiveness of sins: but Pope Syricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness: therefore it cannot be a sacrament if he speak true.

Sextly, if marriage be such a sacrament as ye say, to give remission of sins, then it should be more excellent then virginity, because virginity hes not this promise: but this ye will not grant, therefore it is not a sacrament.

Last of all, Durand a great Doctor of your Kirk says, that marriage is not properly a sacrament.

As for that place in the 5. of the Ephesians whilk ye quote, where the Apostle says, This is a great mystery, speaking of the mutual duties of man and wife. I answer: first, he calls not Marriage this great mystery, but that band of our conjunction with Christ, as he expones himself: This is (says he) a great mystery, and then he subjoins, I speak of Christ and his Kirk. Secondly, suppose the old interpreter doeth translate this word mystery a sacrament, yet you know (if you know the Greek language) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is called a secret. Thirdly, will you have all these to be sacraments properly, whilk are called mysteries in the new Testament, & whilk the old interpreter and your Rhemists translates sacraments? then fall you not only make marriage a Sacrament, but also the chief articles of our saith, and the Gospel, and the 7. stars in the Revelation, and the whore of Babel, and the iniquity of the Antichrist, all sacraments. For they are all called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, and some of them are translated sacraments by the old interpreter, and your Rhemists, as marriage is. I wonder that ye quote Melanchthon, as though he were of your opinion, seeing Bellarmine acknowledges plainly ( that he denies it to be a Sacrament properly as Baptism and the Lord's Supperis: ) but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respects. But you regard not what ye write, so being it may carry any show against us. The same we answer to you of Zwingli and Marchistoun. They call it a Sacrament but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are called sacraments, taking the word improperlie and more amplie, ac Bellarmine confesses of Melancthon. So here is no discord, Master Gilbert, neither betwixt us and Christ, neither amongst our selves. But in very deed, you are they who are at discord both with Christ, & amongst yourselves. For besid this that Bellarmine and Innocentius calls the marriage of the Gentiles Sacraments, because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperlie as Melancthon, Zwingli, and Marchistoun calls marriage a sacrament improperlie. So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a sacrament, so is Bellarmine & Pope Innocent at variance with your Kirk, for calling the marriage of infidels a sacrament. For as we deny marriage to be a sacrament at all properly, so does your Kirk deny the marriage of infidels to be a sacrament properly. But to let this pass I say because I will not deceive the reader as ye do with apperances of contradictions through the ambiguity of the words Alphonsus de Castro Petrus a Soto two of your doctors and sundry others says that marriage is not a proper sacrament of the new Testament: and yet the council of Florence and Trent and sundry others of your Kirk says the contrary. 2. Durand a great doctor of your Kirk says that mareage is not a sacrament properly. 3. Some of our Kirk holds that carnal copulation in marriage is a part of the sacrament, some the contrary that it is neither a sacrament nor a part of the sacrament, so Bellarmine testifies. 4. Durand and your canonistes houldes that the sacrament of marriage doth not confer grace unto them that receives it, and yet our common doctrine is contrary this as Bellarmine grauntes. Last of all Cano a learned Papist affirms that every marriage lawfully contracted among Christians is not a sacrament: but only that whilk is made by the Minister in a certain form of words, the whilk Bellarmine and sundry others denies. And you are of great diversity concerning the matter of that sacrament amongst yourselves. These are not now shows of disorders & contradictions, but they are so true and manifest that Bellarmine your chief campion hes confessed them. Judge thou now (Christian reader) whither is it we or they that is at variance amongst our selves. And this for the 9. point of your doctrine.

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

Master Gilbert Brown.

Our doctrine is that a man in the estate of grace doing good works merits of deserve a reward: whilk is the doctrine of the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles: as may be perceived in these places, and many the like Fear not Abraham (says God) I am thy protector and thy reward great turnly. In another place. Therefore be ye of comfort, and let not your hands be dissolved, there shall be a reward for your work. And in the book Ecclesiasticus. All mercy shall make place to everyone, according to the merit of his works. with many more in the old Testament, nor I am able to set down here But some of them I have noted on the margent. And our Savior says, Rejoice and be glade for your reward is great in heaven. And again, They that have done good things shall come forth to the resurrection of life: but they that hes done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. And whosoever shall give drink to one of these little ones, one cup of cold water only, in the name of ane Disciple, truly I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward And Saint Paul says, Everyone shall receive his own reward, according to his labor: & S. John says, Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things whilk ye have wrought, but that ye may receive ane full reward And in his Revelation, Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to rander to every man according to his works, with many more the like in the word of God What can our new men say against this doctrine of Christ, his Apostles & Prophets, seeing that there is no reward without merit, 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 reward all our good deeds, yet this promise is not without a cause: that is, to them that will labor and work, and to do according to his will. For he hes promised no reward to them that will not work, but to such as deserves the same by their doings, as I have noted before in the book called Ecclesiasticus, the 16. chapter.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for your doctrine of merits of works wherein you say that a man in the estate of grace doth merit eternal life and glory, & that as well in respect of the work it self, as of the covenant and promise made unto it. So Bellarmine. Yea that the works are in virtue equal and of as great valor, as the reward of eternal life is, so that there is an equal proportion between the works and eternal life. And there are some of your Kirk and those of the learned amongst you who hes gone further, and affirms that the good works of the righteous merits life eternal in respect of the worthiness and excellency of the work it self, suppose the Lord had never made a promise or covenant, as Caietanus a cardinal and Dominicus a Soto, as Bellarmine reports of them. And Master Reinold says that good works and evil are laid in different balance, that good works are the cause of heaven, as evil works are the cause of hell. And Andreas Vega says that the reward of glory shall not be greater nor our good works hes deserved. What blasphemy is this your doctrine? And surely if in any one point of your doctrine, you show yourselves to be men, who not only knows not the holiness of God, the vnspeakablenes of that other life, the perfection and infinite virtue of Christ's merits, the perfection of his law, and man's infirmity and weakness; especially you manifest it in this point, for if ye knew any of these things, ye would never profess such damnable doctrine: for that our works may merit eternal life (as ye say) and that not only in respect of the covenant, but in respect of the work it self there are five things required. 1. That the work be perfect according to that measure of perfection whilk the law of God requires, and the whole law must be fulfilled, and that perfitlie and continually. 2. The works must not be debt, that is, such works as we are bound before to do; for the paying of that duty whilk we owe already cannot merit properly a reward: for will you say that for the paying of that whilk you owe already you deserve a reward? 3. There must be a proportion and equality between the work wrought and the reward it self, for if the work be less and the reward greater, then that whilk is more then the work is not of merit but of liberality. 4. The persons to whom the work is done must be oblished and bound by right to rander and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work, so that he is not just and he do it not. And last of all the work must be our own and not an others, and the power our own whereby it is done and not an others, or we can be said properly to merit by the same. But all these conditions will fail in our works: therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life. For as to the first the prophets says that all our righteousness is as a menstrous clout. And James says we all offend in many things: and none there is that hes contained in doing all things written in the law in that perfection, whilk it craves of us, as hes been proved before: therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life. And as to the second all that we can do, or is able to do, we are bound to do it all readdie, by the virtue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings all ready bestowed, yea they oblish us to more nor we are ever able to pay, according to that saying of our Savior: even so ye when ye have done all that is commanded you say that we are unprofitable servants, because we have done that whilk was our duty to do. Since therefore it is duty it cannot be meritorious of eternal life. And as to the third there is no proportion between eternal life and our works, the reward by infinite degrees surpassing the work, and therefore the Apostle says the afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory whilk shall be revealed: everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the son of God. Bernard says what are all our merits to so great a glory: & Athanasius says not suppose we would renounce the whole world yet are we not able to do anything worthy of these heavenly habitations. As to the fourth the Lord is dettor to no creature: for as the Apostle says who hes given him first, and he shall be recompensed: the Lord is all sufficient in himself and so needs non of your labors, and so our works cannot oblish him. And therefore Augustine says God is made a detter unto us, not by receiving anything from our hands, but because it pleased him to promise. And to the last the Apostle says, What hes thou that thou hes not received? and if thou have received it, why rejoicest thou, as though thou had not received it? Seeing therefore all our works are imperfite, and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law: and seeing all that we can do, is but our duty: and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life & our works, and that the Lord is debtor to no man, and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only: therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life. Hear further what the Fathers says in this point. Augustine says, All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit, my refuge, salvation, life, and resurrection: my merit is the compassion of the Lord. I shall not be void of a merit so long as the Lord of mercies shall not want. Origen who lived 200. years before him says, I scarcely believe that there can be any work whilk may of due demand the reward of God forsomuch as even the same that we can do, think, or speak, we do it by his gift or bounty. Then how can he owe us any thing, whose grace did preueene us. And he says afterward, that the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only. Ambrose says, Euerlasting life is forgiveness of sins, so then it is not merit. Jerome says, That before God no man is just, therefore no man can merit. And again he says, The only perfection of man is, if they know themselves to be imperfite: and our justice consisteth not of our own merit, but of God's mercy. I omit the rest for shortness.

Now to your testimonies, and reason to prove your merit of works, whilks you shamefullie abuse, bringing forth Scripture to cloak your damnable doctrine: unto the whilks I answer shortly. That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of everyone, be they good be they evil, and according to their works shall they be tried, and every man shall be judged and recompensed accordingly, as the Scripture plainly testifieth. But that this reward of eternal life promised, is of debt, and not of grace, and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same, that the Scripture never affirms. For the Lord freely and of his mere grace crowneth his own works in us: and that, not for the excellency of the work itself, but of mercy freely for his Christ's sake, as both I have proved, and the Fathers hes testified. So these Scriptures serves you to no purpose. For the controversy betwixt us is not whether there is a reward promised, and whether it shall be randered accordingly to the same, for that we grant: but whether this reward is of merit or of grace. The Apostle says plainly in the 6. of the Romans, The wages of sin is death: but everlasting life is the free gift of God. And in the 8. of the Romans, it is called an inheritance. Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ, and they airs of it through him, then it is not their merit. As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus it is Apocrypha, and the text hes not that word merit, as the old interpreter whom ye follow, translates it, but according to his work. As for the 118. Psalm, and the 16. of Matthew, ye are over-seen in the quoting of them, for they have no such thing. As for your reason, that a reward hes ever a relation to a merit, that is false. For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans speaks of a reward that is vnputed freely, not to him who worketh, but to him that believeth in him, who justifieth the ungodly, verse 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised & fulfilled in his Saints, is taken in the Scriptures And whereas you say, that there is no reward promised but to doing & working: that is false also, for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer, 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 reward, but only that they are effects to testify of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ, in whom only the promises are made to us and our works, and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints. For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works, first because all men by nature are hypocrites, and boasts of a vain pretence of faith, unto whom James says, Shew me thy Faith by thy works? to take away therefore this veil of hypocrisy from hypocrites, the promises are made to works. 2. The promise is made to works to stir us up to the doing of them: for we would be faint in doing good, and we knew not that the Lord would reward them. It is true he hes promised no reward to them who works not, because they in whom Christ dwells they are not only justified, but also sanctified, and brings forth the fruit of their sanctification. And this for the 9. point of your doctrine, whilk is so damnable, that both it derogates from the merit of Christ, and makes men to take away their confidence from God's only mercy and free grace: and swelles them up with a vain confidence of themselves, and binds as it were their harts and mouths, that they cannot with all their heart rander the whole praise of their salvation to God's only free grace.

Master Gilbert Brown.

12 We have other works that are called works of Supererogation, whilk are works of greater perfection, and are not set down to us as the commands of God (without the whilk we cannot be saved) but as divine counsels adjoined thereto, they augment our glory and reward in heaven: whilk is also the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Christ said to the young man, If thou will be perfect, go self the things thou hast, and give unto the poor and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come fo • low me so we find that willful poverty, is a w •• k of supererogation. Sik like Saint Paul says, and the woman unmarried and the Virgin thinks on the things that pertains to our Lord that she maybe holy both in body and spirit: and afterward Therefore both he that joins his Virgin in matrimony does well, and he that joins not, does better. Therefore Virginitie is a work of supererogation: for albeit Matrimony be good yet the other is better, & this was a counsel that Saint Paul gave and no command. Sik like Paul wrought an work of supererogation when he preached the Evangel gratis, where he might have taken justly for his labors. Christ our savior speaks of the same works in the parable of the Samaritan, where he promised to the oistlar to recompense him what ever he did supererogat upon the wounded man, more nor the two pennies. And David the Prophet did supererogate, when he did rise in the night to give God loving, & seven times in the day, and so forth.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As though your former doctrine had not injured the merits of the son of God, and his free grace enough, with the whilk (if the Apostle be true) your merits of works cannot stand. For the Apostle says, (speiking of our salvation) If it be of grace, then is it no more by works, otherwise grace were no more grace: and if it were of works, then were it no more of grace, otherwise works were no more works; you yet eik this damnable and blasphemous doctrine to all the rest. And certainly suppose ye will not let it fall to the ground, that your doctrine is the doctrine of the Dragon, and that your Kirk is that mystical Babylon, that mother of whoredoms, full of names of blasphemy: yet this your blasphemous doctrine sufficiently declares what you are. For I appeal your conscience, Master Gilbert, if ye have any vn-blotted out yet with the smoke of the bottomless pit, and the conscience of all men whoever felt the power of sin 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 Law, and do all the duty whilk God hes commanded you, and thereby merit eternal life: but also you may do more nor God hes commanded, whilk ye cal works of greater perfectiō, nor the Law of God requires of us, by the doing of the whilk, you say, you merit a greater degree of glory in the kingdom of heaven, and as Bellarmine says, That your religious Monks lives a straiter, and more high kind of life, then either the Law of God or man hes prescryued. And that a man may love God with a greater and more perfect love, nor is commanded him in the Law: yea, that a man may love God with a greater love, nor he is bound to love him: and that these works are not only meritorious of eternal life, and of a singular glory in heaven, but also are profitable to satisfy for our sins: and that men may communicate of the abundance of these their merits unto others. And therefore, they have in their service books this form of prayer often, That by the merits of the Saints they may obtain grace and by the blood of Thomas (Archbishop of Canterbury) they may ascend to heaven. All whilk whether they be not words of blasphemy, and the doctrine of the Dragon, I appeal your conscience before God in the great day, and the consciences of all men, as though it were not blasphemy enough to say, that men may merit eternal life, and a greater degree of glory in that life to themselves by their works: but also to communicate unto others of the abundance of their works and so not only to be saviors of themselves, but of others also. And here (reader) I am compelled to speak this to thee suppose thou believe not that they have written and will maintain so horrible blasphemies I wonder not: for I speak the truth to thee in my conscience I lie not, I could not have been induced myself to have believed that ever they durst have professed such damnable and devilish doctrine and I had not red it myself in their own books, yea I durst not have been so confident as to have set it down here upon the report of any, except I had red it myself. But if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the pit together. The Lord deliver his own from such damnable doctrine whilk of necessity must bring damnation upon the believers and professors of it. To answer you then, first if we be not able to perform all the duties whilk God requires of us in his law, then we are not able to do works of supererogation whilk is more then our duty, commanded in the law, as ye say. But the first I have proved before: therefore the second is true. Secondly, if the Law of God be perfect, and prescriues more then we are able to do, then there is no works of supererogation: this you will not deny. But David says, The Law of God is perfect, and our inability to perform it, I have proved before: therefore there is no works of supererogation. Thirdly, what an absurd and blasphemous thing is this to say, that God hes not commanded to us the works of greatest perfection, (for Master Gilbert calls these, works of greater perfection) and so such works wherein he is moste glorified: but hes left them in our own choice to do, or not to do, as though the Lord had not commanded us to glorify him in the greatest perfection, nor yet we were bound to do the same? Fourthly, if there be any such works of supererogation whilk are of greater perfection nor the Law commands: then it should follow, that the vow of continency, willful poverty, and monastical obedience to their superiors, should be works of greater perfection, and so please God more, then the love of God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the strength, with all the mind, with all the thought: (for the former are your works of supererogation, and the last is commanded in the Law) but this is absurd: therefore there is no such works. Fifthlie, this was only proper to the son of God to fulfill the Law of God perfitelie, and to do more then the Law required: to wit, to die for us who were his enemies: this doctrine therefore of yours spoils him of this his glory. Last of all, if none can merit eternal life through their works at all: then none can augment their glory and reward in heaven by their works of supererogation. But the first I have proved before: therefore the other must follow. And mark this (reader) how far God hes blinded their minds: for they deride, & they mock at that imputation of the righteousness & merits of Christ, and they pronounce them accursed that so thinks: but yet they teach that the works of supererogation whilk men does may be communicate to others. As for the first place whilk ye quote Matth. 19. If thou wilt be perfect, &c. I answered to it before, in my answer to the second point of your doctrine: to the whilk I refer the reader. And so your willful poverty hes no ground heir. For if this man did not perfitely fulfill the Law, then was he not able to do more then the law required of him: but the first is true as I proved before in the second point of your doctrine, and as the circumstances of the text testifies it, for he went away sad, and he put his trust in his riches: and so it was not only difficile, but impossible for him to enter in the kingdom of God, as our Savior saith, whilk had not been true of him, if he had fulfilled the Law. And this was a special command to this man, to discover his hypocrisy. And all Christians is bound also out of the love of their heart to Christ, to be content to forsake all that they have before we renounce him, or his word, when he so requireth of us. And if willful poverty be such a work of perfection as ye think, wherefore then would the Prophet have prayed, Give me neither poverty nor riches, but feed me with food convenient. And if this be the work of greatest perfection, what is the cause that your Abbots, Popes, Bishops, & Cardinals (for who should be perfect if not these?) will not sell all their revenues whilk they have, wherein they surmoūt the princes of the world, and so augment their glory in heaven, and be perfect? But shall others believe and obey this doctrine of yours, when the greatest Patrons of it, believes and obeys it not? O hypocrites who will believe you!

As for the next work of supererogation, Virginitie: it is true that the Virgin and vn-married, who hes the gift of continency, thinks upon the things that appertains to God: and it is true, that if any have the gift of continency, it is better to be vn-married, then to marry, especially in the times of persecution. But yet it follows not that it is a work of supererogation: for to them who lies the gift, it is a commandment: for he that hes the gift is commanded to use it, and in losing it, he sins. And every man is bound to glorify God to the uttermost of his power, and God is most glorified by the single life of these, especially in the time of persecution, who hes the gift: and so it is not a counsel simply but also a command, but to them only who hes the gift, & that so long only as they have the gift. And the Apostle says in that same place whilk ye quote heir, that he thinks he hes the spirit of God also, and so this judgment of his was the judgment of the spirit of God, whilk binds and oblishes all them who hes the gift. But unto these who hes not the gift, the Scripture hes a plain command: For the avoiding of fornication let every man have his own wife, &c. And if they cannot abstain, let them marry, &c. And whereas ye say that Virginity is better then Matrimony: that is not true simply, but only to them who hes the gift. And since you say it is better, wherefore make ye Matrimony a Sacrament to give remission of sins? For shall not a Sacrament whilk gives remission of sins be better then an indifferent action, whilk men may do, or leave undone, such as ye say Virginitie is? As for the Apostles example 1. Corinth. 9. in preaching the Gospel freely without wages to them: I answer: suppose it was leesome to him, & all the Ministers of the Gospel, to have taken wages, as himself testifies and proves in that same chapter, from the 4. ver. to the 15. yet it was not expedient to him for the course of the Gospel amongst them. And men are not only commanded to abstain 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 have done. And therefore he says, It were better for me to die, then that any should take my glory from me, whilk cannot be said of these works whilk we are not bound to do. And he says, That I abuse not my authority in the Gospel: but this would have been an abuse of his liberty with his people: therefore he was bound to do it. And yet we read that he spoiled other Churches as he says himself, and took wages from them. And also the Kirk of Philippi did communicate unto him twice.

As for the 10. of Luke, it appears ye are scarce of proofs in quoting this place for your works of supererogation: for, will you say that the Samaritan was not bound by God's Law to ware more upon his neighbor in his extremity, then two penye worth? Hes not the law said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? And are we not bound to lay down our life one for another, much more to ware out for him such things as may serve for the comfort of this life in such an extremity. And the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to supererogate (as ye take it) but to ware our further expenses. So your blindness is gross in this. And as for that of David in praising God night and day, so often, he was so far from 〈◊〉 king of himself that he had done more then the Law required of him, that he never thought of himself that he had fully obeyed the Law. And therefore how often prays he in that Psalm, that the Lord would open his eyes to understand the Law, and give him grace to perform the same. And in other Psalms he says, My sins are m • e then the hairs of my head. And if thou mark iniquity who can stand? and therefore this was no work of supererogation. And if you knew Master Gilbert, (but the Lord hes blinded you) either the perfection of the Law of God, or our inability to perform it, or the unsearchable love and kindness of God whilk hes oblished us to moe duties then ever we are able to do: (for when we have done all whilk is commanded us, yet we are but unprofitable servants:) you would be so far from defending these your works of supererogation, that ye would abhor and detest this doctrine.

Master Gilbert Brown.

13. Our doctrine is, that Christ our Savior (according to the soul) descended to th • Hels, as we have in our belief. And this was the doctrine of the • postles. For Saint Peter says, That God hes raised him up, lousing the sorrows of Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be held of it. And this he proves by the Psalms of David, Behold thou wilt not leave my soul 〈◊〉 hell (says David) nor give thy holy one to see corruption. This same is the doctrine of Saint Paul also: And that he ascended, what is it but because he descended also first into the inferior parts of the earth. He that descended, the same is he also whilk is ascended above all the heavens, that he might furthfill all things. Ye see in these and all the rest of our doctrine, wherein they diff • r from us, that the touchstone bears witness to us, and proves ours only to be the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, and not their denying thereof.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Bellarmine grants that we all aggree that Christ after a certain manner descended into hell: but the whole controversy is of the sense and meaning of it. We say, that he suffered the pains of hell in his soul upon the Cross, and lay under the bondage of death, and was held captive in the grave, whilk in the Hebrew is called SCH • OL (whilk signifieth sometime Hell in the Scripture, and sometime the grave) for the space of three days: and in this sense we grant he descended • nto hell, and in this sense it is taken in our belief. But your doctrine is, That he descended locallie unto Hell according to his soul, first to give to the souls of the Fathers essential blessedness: and to deliver them out of that prison, and bring them to heaven. And this we say is neither the meaning of that article of your belief, neither yet hes it so mekle as a sillabe in the whole Scripture to warrand it. And as for the article itself, Bellarmine confesses that this article was not in the Creed with all Kirks, as he proves there by the testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine, who all exponed the Creed. And Augustine exponed it five times, and yet never mentions this article. And Ruffinus an ancient writer testifies, that this article was neither in the Creed of the Roman Kirk, nor of the East Kirks. And also it is not in the Nicene Creed, whilk was more nor 300. year after Christ. And Perkins a learned man affirms, that three-score Creedes of the most ancient councils, and Fathers wants this clause. Whereby it is most clear that this article was not put in at that time, when the rest of the articles were gathered together, but hes crept in since, and that more nor 300. year after the days of the Apostles. For Augustine lived in the 400. year, & the Nicene Creed was more then 300. year after Christ. And yet because it hes continued of a long time, and hes been received by the consent of the Kirks of God, and does also carry with it a fit understanding and sense as hath been spoken. Therefore it is to be retained, but not in that sense as ye expone it. For first if this local discension of Christ according to his soul into hell were true, and that it were an article of our faith, as ye say, then the four Evangelists, whilk are the sworn pen-men of the history of his death and resurrection, and especially Luke, who (as he says himself) intended to make an exact narration of the same, who also did amplie set down the same, with all the circumstances thereof, they would not have omitted it being a special article of our faith, if your doctrine be true: seeing the end of their writing, as John says was that we might believe, and by believing have eternal life. But they never mention it, as yourselves cannot deny. Therefore it cannot be that he locallie descended into hell. Secondly, the Scripture makes it plain that Christ's soul was in Paradise at that time with the thief: for he says unto him, This night shall thou be with me in Paradise: for this cannot be meaned of his godhead, for it is every-where: neither of his body, for it was in the grave. Seeing therefore his soul was at that time in Paradise, it could not be in hell, except you will say that Paradise and hell are both one, whilk I trow ye will not say. Thirdly, if the souls of the Fathers was not in hell, then Christ descended not thither: for ye say, That he descended thither for that effect to deliver them: but they were not in hell, but in heaven, whilk our Savior calls Abraham's bosom, where Lazarus was betwixt the whilk and hell the Scripture testifies there is a great gulf: therefore he descended not locallie into hell. Fourthly, some of your own learned Doctors hes seen this error of yours, and hes gone from it, as Durand by name, who affirms that Christ's soul descended not to hell in substance, but in virtue, and proves it by reasons. And last of all, you are at such variance amongst yourselves concerning this point, that some of you affirms that Christ's soul suffered pain in hell when it was there, as Caietano, and Thomas of Aquine two great Papists: and yet Bonaventure and Bellarmine affirms the contrary, that his soul was in the place of pain, and yet suffered no pain. Next Thomas of Aquine affirms, that Christ descended only into that place of hell called Limbus Patrum, but Bellarmine says, It is more probable that he went to all the partes of Hell: and this is the consent whilk you Papists hes amongst yourselves, not only in this point, but almost in all the points of your doctrine. Now as to the places of Scripture whilk ye quote, they serve nothing to this purpose. For the 2. of the Acts, it speaks of that bondage of the grave whilk kept him under until he rose again: and therefore the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; whilk signifieth death, and not hell, as ye translate it heir: and Peter says, whom God raised up. The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ whilk had fallen and was raised up: but it was the body only and not the soul whilk fell down and was raised up: therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death whereby his body was kept in bondage, and not of any local descension of Christ's soul. As for the places of the Psalms whilk ye quote heir, Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension (as ye say) whereof he makes no mention: but to prove his resurrection as he says in the 31. verse most plainly: He knowing this before, speaking of David, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not remain in grave, neither his flesh should see corruption. So, if ye will believe the spirit of God in the Apostle interpreting these places, they speak of the resurrection of Christ, and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell, for he was in Paradise, as he says himself: and it is the body that was raised, and not the soul. And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH, whilk not only signifieth the soul, but also the life, as Gen 37.21. Let us smite his soul, that is, take away his life. And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life, as Levite. 21. ver. 1. and 11. And this word hell is SCHEOL in Hebrew, whilk most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave. So then the meaning is this, The Lord will not leave his Nephesch, that is, the body wherein his life was in Scheol, that is, in the grave: whilk speech is usual in the Scripture. Now as to the other Psalm 29.3. it is spoken properly of David, where he thanks God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies, whilk by a borrowed speech frequented in the Scripture, is called the delivery of his soul from the grave. As for the 4. of the Ephesians, These lower parts of the earth is not hell, as ye expone it, but the earth itself, whilk in respect of the world is the lowest part: and so it is taken in the 139. Psalm, ver. 15. where David says, 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 David was borne in hell whilk I trow ye will not say. So heirby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation. So now to conclude this: neither in these points, Master Gilbert, nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us, is your doctrine aggreable to Christ's doctrine and his Apostles, as hes been (I hope) proved sufficiently. You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armor, and stronger defences for the over-throw of our doctrine, and up-hold of yours, then ye have done: otherwise your shotts will be but as shotts of paper, & your Bulwarks but of intempered mortar, whilk suddenly will rushe down at the li • ht of the truth of God. The Lord open your eyes to see the truth, & suffer you not to continue any longer, to cause the blind go out of the way, as you have done. Amen.

Master Gilbert Brown.

14 I thought to have put in heir also of Justification, whilk is the greatest head of controversy betwixt them and us: for they will have only Faith to justify: into the whilk (only) they seclude all good works. But because I think to set this down afterward, I have not put it heir.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

This cometh in afterward: therefore I refer the answer of it to that place.

Master John Welsche.

And our Religion whilk we profess, and all the particular heads of it, was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, whilk I offer me also to prove either by word or write, against whatsomeuer that will plead the contrary. The whilk if I fail in, I will be content to lose my life therefore, by his grace.

Master Gilbert Brown.

There is much promised heir, but nothing done, and it is ane thing impossible to him to do. For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants d ffers from us is in denying, abhorring, or detesting, as may be seen in their confession of faith, whilk they compel all men to swear and subscriue. As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist, upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil Magistrate, &c. except such things were expressly contained in the word of God.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for my promise & performance, I answered to that be fore, & whether that be a thing impossible to me or not, let this my answer be a trial thereof. You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible: but what have ye for you? You say, because the difference chiefly that we differ frō you, is in denying and abhorring. What a reason is this? Can we not prove our religion out of the Scripture, because we deny yours whilk is contrary to the same? Is it impossible to prove the truth, because falset is denied and abhorred. What new Logic or Divinity is this, Master Gilbert? I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskillful reasoner, if yourself had not bewrayed the same. And certainly your Kirk is not beholding to you: for if your reason hold forth, it will follow that it is impossible to you, or any man else to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture: for in your confession of faith, and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux, anno 1585. there they deny and abhors the Protestants and their doctrine, and compels all men who desires the fellowship of the Roman Kirk, and their absolution, to main-swear, renounce, and subscriue the same. But I trow your Kirk will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours. And whereas you say that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying and abhoring &c. of your Religion. I ask you, doth not our Religion differ as far from yours, as yours does from us? This you cannot deny. For are not two contraries equally different one from another? Doth not light differ as far from darkness, white from black, Christ from Antichrist, as darkness from light, black from white, and Antichrist from Christ? And are not yours and our religions contrary one to another? But yourself will not deny, and Bellarmine confesses that you differ from us in the main and substantial points of religion: therefore of necessity we must also differ from you in the main & substantial points of our religion. And so the chief difference wherein we differ from you, is not in denying & abhorring, but in the main and fundamental grounds of our Religion. Otherwise it shall follow that the chief difference that ye differ from us, is in denying & abhorring of our Religion, whilk I think your Kirk will not digest. Whereas you say that this may be seen by our confession of faith: Our confession hes not only the detesting and denying of your abhominable errors in general & particular: but also the confession of our faith in general: referring the particular heads thereof to that confession whilk is ratified and established by act of Parliament. And so heir Master Gilberts untruth and calumny of our confession may be seen. As for this form of exacting of an oth and subscription to Religion, if you find fault with it, you not only gainsay the Scriptures of God, impaires Princes lawful authority, & the Kirk of their jurisdiction and lawful power: but also blots your own Kirk, who, as may be seen in that confession of faith and form of abjuration set out by the Monks of Bourdeaux, whereof we spake before, does the same. As for this exception whilk ye put in heir, I answered to it before.

Master Gilbert Brown.

For if this be a true ground of theirs, that nothing ought to be done or believed, but such things as are expressly contained in the word of God: but their general confession, or their negative faith is not expressly contained in the word of God: therefore it ought not to be done, nor believed.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for this ground whilk ye allege to be ours: it appears certainly, Master Gilbert, that as ye said of me, either ye know not our grounds, or else ye willfully invert them for your own advantage. For our ground is, that nothing ought to be done or believed in Religion, but that whilk may be warranted by the testimony of the scripture, either in words & sense together, or else by a necessary collection out of the same. The whilk with Nazianzen we say, are of the same truth and authority with the first. And according to this sense we say that all the heads of our Religion, as well negative as affirmative, are expressly contained in the scripture, and so ought both to be believed and practiced. These are but silly shifts, Master Gilbert, whilk ye bring to discredit the truth of our religion. You knew full well the blindness and simplenesse of the people in this country: and therefore you regarded not how silly and simple your reasons were.

Master Gilbert Brown.

That their Faith is contained in the word of God, so far as it differs from ours, he will never be able to prove, neither by word nor write. And if he will cause our kings Majesty to suspend his acts against us, that we may be as free to speak our mind as he: he (a) shall have a proof hereof. If not, let him prove the same by write, and he shall have an answer by God's grace. As for his life we desire not the same, but rather his conversion to the truth.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for our ability to prove the truth of our doctrine, I answered it before: judge thou Christian reader of the same, by this my answer. As for the suspending of his Majesty's acts against you, that is not in our hands: and for all the good ye could do, you have but too much liberty. And if you speak no better for your religion, nor ye have done else in this your answer, your Kirk will be but little beholden to you for it. And certainly if you will bind and oblishe yourself to face your own cause, and defend your religion by word, I hope that license of a safe passage & conduct would be granted to you by his Majesty, to let you speak for yourself, what ye have for you for the defense of it, for that space without any danger to your person, and that surer, and with greater safety nor John Hus had, who notwithstanding of his safe conduct, yet was brunt. And whereas you promise an answer, do what you can, Master Gilbert, for now it is time to plead for your Baal. And let your answer be more firm nor this, or else ye will lose more then ye will win by it. That you desire not my life, I am behold̄ to you (if ye speak truth) considering the bloody generation of your Roman Kirk, who these many years by past, hes spilled the blood of the Saints of God in such abundance, that it any can tell the stars of heaven, he may number them whom your Kirk hes slain for the testimony of the word of God. And as for that whilk ye call conversion, it is aversion from the truth, and the losing of salvation: the whilk I hope shall be dearer to me then a thousand lives, suppose they were all included in one.

Master John Welsche.

Secondly, I offer me to prove that there be verry few points of controversy betwixt the Roman Kirk and us, wherein we dissent, but I shall get testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundredth years against them, & proving the heads of Religion whilk we profess. Let any man therefore let me down any weighty point of controversy, one, or moe, and he shall have the proof of this.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Whome Master John calls Fathers heir, I know not, except Simon Magus, Novatus, Arius, Iouinianus, Pelagius, Vigilantius, and such. For indeed there is none of these, and many the like, but they were against us, and with them in some heads. But I am sure, S. Irenaeus, S Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom with the rest of the holy Fathers is no way with them, and against us, as Master John will not be able to prove for all his offer. As for example: It is a chief ground in their Religion, that only Faith justifieth: This, I say, can neither be proved by the Scriptures, nor ancient Fathers of the first 600. years. For why the contrary is expressly contained in the word of God. Do ye see, says Saint James, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, with many other places that aggrees with the same, as I have noted heir on the margent. And S. Augustine says himself, that this Justification by Faith only was an old heresy in the very time of the Apostles.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for this calumny of yours, the trial of it will come in afterward: therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say, that you know not whom I call Fathers, either your malice makes you to dissemble your know ledge in this, or else palpable must your ignorance be. And where ye say, that Irenaeus, Cyprian, &c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no wise with us, against you; and that I will not be able to prove it: I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our religion: but also that sundry of your own Popes, Cardinals, Doctors, Bishops, Councils, & Canon law hes been with us in sundry points of our religion whilk we profess, against that whilk ye profess. And as for that example of Justification by Faith only whilk ye cast in, whilk is one of the chief grounds of our religion: this I will prove both by the Scripture, and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first 600. years. Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this: That as our sins was not inherent in Christ, but imputed to him, whilk was the cause of his death: so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us, but imputed to us: & therefore the Scripture says, that he is made of God unto us righteousness. Next, the only instrument that apprehends, & as it were, takes hold of this righteousness of Christ, is a lively Faith, whilk works by love, & brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith a efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation (for only Christ's death and righteousness is that) but only an instrument to apprehend the same. Neither is every Faith this instrument: but only that living Faith whilk I have spoken of: so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works, no more then fire is without heat: and yet neither are our works, nor the work of Faith it self, the meritorious cause of our salvation: but only Christ's death & righteousness: neither are the fruits of this lively Faith, the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christ's righteousness, but only Faith it self. This then is our doctrine, whilk is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture, that he must be exceeding blind that sees it not. The places to confirm the same, are these. We conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law. If Abraham were justified by works then hes he wherein to rejoice, but not with God. By grace are ye saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God: not by works, that none should rejoice. And I have counted all things loss, that I might win Christ, and might be found in him, not having my own righteousness whilk is of the Law, but that whilk is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness whilk is of God through Faith. And again, Not by the works of righteousness, whilk we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Seeing the Scripture so expressly removes all works both of nature and of grace, both going before Faith, & following after it, (and therefore the Apostle says, We are not saved by the works of righteousness whilk we had done ) and of all men, even of those who were justified already and sanctified, as Abraham, Paul, and the Ephesians were, from our justification and salvation, as the causes thereof: therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ.

Secondly, the Scripture not only removes works (as we have said) from the cause of our Justification and salvation, but also ascriues it to Faith, as in these places, Whosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life. And Thy Faith hath saved thee, &c. And again, We are saved through Faith. And man is justified by Faith. And God shall justify Circumcision of Faith, and incircumcision through Faith. And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. And least ye should say, the Scripture hes not by Faith only, read the 8. of Luke, and 50. verse where our Savior says to Jairus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Only believe and she shall be saved. Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God. And least ye should say this was not a justifying Faith? I answer, this Faith whilk Jairus had, was that same Faith whilk the woman with the bloody issue had: but her Faith not only healed her body, but her soul also, whilk Bellarmine grants, and our Savior testifies saying, Thy Faith hath saved thee, &c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also. Secondly, seeing the Faith of miracles & justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Kirk, as Bellarmine and the Rhemists says: and if it be a greater work to work miracles, as they say, then to be justified: therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles, as Bellarmine grants, lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justify? for if it suffice for the greater work, much more for the less.

Thirdly, the Scripture ascriues our Justification to grace and not to works: & so oppones them, that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification. We are justified (says he) freely by grace, and not by works. And to him that worketh the reward is imputed, not according to grace, but to debt: but to him who worketh not, but believeth an him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness. And in another place, If it be of grace, it is no more of works, or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works, it is no more grace, or else work were no more work. Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace, and grace (if the Apostle be true) cannot stand with works: therefore our Justification is not by works, or else it were not of grace: and so not at all: and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned. I hope therefore this our doctrine of justification is plainly warrāted by the scripture. Now to the Fathers, because ye say it cannot be proved by them, they spake as plainly as we do. Origen hath these words: And the Apostle says, that the justification of Faith only sufficeth: (solius fidei) so that he that believeth allanerlie is justified, suppose no work be fulfilled of him. Hilarius says, For only Faith justifieth: fides enim sola iustificat. Basilius says, This is a perfect rejoicing in God, when a man vaunts not himself of his own righteousness, but knows himself to be misterfull of true righteousness, sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum, and to be justified only by faith in Christ. Ambrose says, They are justified by faith only through the gift of God. And in the 4. chapter he hes thrice, by faith only, sola fides. And in the 9. chapter also, Sola fides posita est ad salutem: that is, only faith is appointed for salvation. Chrysostom says, The thief believed only and was justified. And in another place, If thou gives credit to thy faith, wherefore brings thou in other things, as though faith only were not sufficient to justify. Augustine, it is a known saying of his, Works goes not before Justification, but follows him who is already justified. And in another place, Howe virtuous so ever ye report the ancient righteous to have been, yet their virtue saved thē not, but the faith of the Mediator. Cyrillus Alexandrinus says, Man by faith only sticks in Christ, inhaeret Christo. Theophylactus says, only faith hes in the self the virtue of justifying. Bernard says, Man being justified by faith only, shall have peace towards thee. What more plain now could the fathers speak of Justification by faith only, whilk you will not deny Master Gilbert? The reader may learn howe much credit 〈◊〉 to be given to you who so boldly affirmed that neither Scripture nor Fathers said with us against you. I hope they will try you before they trust you in time to come. For dare you say (Master Gilbert ) that I have feigned 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 Master Gilbert, in your untruths and lies again: for by this ye will both discredit yourself and your religion.

As for the 2. of James whilk ye quote here, that by works a man is justified and not by saith only. I answer. This word to be justified, is taken in the Scripture two manner of ways. First, to be accounted righteous before the tribunal of God: and in this sense, only a lively faith apprehending the death and righteousness of Christ justifies us: and of this is the controversy. Next, it is taken for a declaration of ones righteousness, as in the 3. of the Romans, ver. 4. That thou may be justified in thy words (that is, declared to be just) when thou judges. And in this sense it is taken in this place. So that this is the meaning of it. Ye see then, by works man is justified, that is, declared by his works to be just, and not by faith only, that is, by the profession of his faith in Christ. So then James speaks not of our Justification before God whilk is by faith only, but of the declaration of our righteousness before men, whilk he calls Justification: and that for these reasons. 1. Otherwise James should be contrary to Paul who says, That a man is justified by faith without works, whilk is blasphemous to think therefore James speaks of our Justification before men, whereby our Justification before God is declared and made manifest. 2. The scope of the whole chapter, and whole Epistle testifies the same. For his purpose is to cast down the arrogancy and presumption of such, who bragged of their Faith, as though the bare profession, that they believed in Christ, were sufficient to save them, suppose they did not bring forth the fruits thereof. Therefore the Apostle takes this in hand to prove that they are not justified by a dead faith, but only by that faith whilk brings forth the effects thereof. And therefore he says in the fourteenth verse, What availeth it my brethren when a man says he hes faith, when he hes no works? can that faith save him? And in the eighteenth verse, Show me thy faith out of thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. And because it may be ye say, this is my commentary, therefore hear howe one of your own great and chief pillars Thomas of Aquine expones the same, from whose judgment, I hope, ye will not appeal. Heir he speaks (says he) of works that follows faith, not according to that sense wherein Justification is said to be the infusion of righteousness, but according to that sense that Justification is called exercitatio iustitiae, the practice or declaration, and confirmation of righteousness. So if ye will believe him, Justification heir is taken not for our justification before God, but for the declaration of our righteousness. And so the ordinar Gloss exponing that place writes, Abraham was justified without works by faith only: but nevertheless the offering up of his son, was a testification of his faith and righteousness. What can be more clearly spoken by any? Would you have more then this? So thē this place of James speaks not of our Justification before God, & therefore serves not to prove this your doctrine. As to the 2. of the Romans, 13, It is true, it is not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of it whilk are justified, if there were any who had fulfilled it. But the Apostle concludes in the third chapter, all under sin, both Jew and Gentile: and therefore gathers that by the works of the Law no flesh is justified. And so we will leave this to you to do, 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 have quoted them, except for to make a show of Scriptures and testimonies. For they speak only of the necessity of good works, whilk as they cannot be separate from true faith, so no man can attain to salvation without them: because where ever Christ dwells by true Faith, not only he justifies them, but also sanctify them, and makes them fruitful in good works. The whilk we grant, and therefore does urge the same continually, knowing for a truth, that without holiness no man shall see God, and that the axe is laid to the root of the tree, and that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down, and cast in an unquenchable fire. They speak not therefore of the efficient or formal, or instrumental cause of our Justification, but of our sanctification with the fruits thereof, and therefore serves not to prove the controversy that is in hand. As for Augustine his testimony, as you corrupt the Scriptures, so do ye his testimony also: for this was the opinion whilk was risen up in the Apost. days, as he testifies there: for these are his words: that some thought that faith only was sufficient to obtain salvation without works, neglecting to live well, and to hold the way of God by good works, and being secure of salvation, whilk is in faith, had not a care to live well, as he says. And in the end of that chapter he concludes the whole matter saying, How far therefore are they deceived, who promises to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith. The whilk error we condemn also with you: for we acknowledge the necessity of good works, as the fruits of a living faith: but not as the efficient, formal, or instrumental cause of our justification.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Further, I say, since the difference chiefly in religion betwixt us & them is about the understanding of the word of God, albeit they deny a great part of the same to us: What is the cause that they will not abide the trial of the ancient Fathers of the first sex hundredth years, seeing that they were of his Religion, as he affirms, If he be as good as his word, the matter will be sone ended. And if our Religion be not found consonant to theirs in all things (wherein they differ from us) we shall reform the same.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You said a little before, Master Gilbert, that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying, abhorring or detesting, &c. Now you say, that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us, is about the understanding of the word of God. How well these two aggrees, let the reader judge. It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren (as I have proved in sundry points before) seeing ye dissent from yourself. It is true indeed, that many of our controversies are about the right sense and understanding of the scripture, but yet if Petrus a Soto, Lindanus, Peresius, Canisius, all great and learned Papists speak truth, the most part of the weightiest and chiefest points of your religion, whilk are in controversy between us, are but unwritten Traditions, whilk hes not their beginning nor author in the Scripture, and cannot be defended by the same. And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures, to be decyded by the writings of the Fathers of the first 600. years: we receive their monuments and writings gladly: but yet so, that we put a difference between them, and the writings of the holy Ghost in the scripture. For as I have proved sufficiently before, as I hope, that only the Scriptures of God hes this prerogative, to be y ^e supreme judge of all controversies in religion, & no other and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture, is by the Scripture itself: for seeing all the Scripture is inspired of God, therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same. For he who made the Law can best interpret the Law. And the Levites practiced this in the Old Testament, who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture: and the Apostles in the New Testament, who taught nothing but that whilk the Prophets said should come to pass. And if a Father, yea a Saint, yea if an Angel would preach beside that whilk the Apostles preached, let him be accursed. So then, nothing can be a warrand to us of the truth of the sense of the Scripture, but the Scripture itself. And as for the Fathers expositions, as they may not be judge (as hes been said) because they may err, and hes erred, as hes been proved, & yourselves 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 have us ascriue that unto them, whilk they themselves hes refused, & hes ascriued unto the Scriptures only?

Hear therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Kirk of Mileuitan a learned man who lived about the year of God 369. says, writing against the Donatists who claimed to themselves only the title of the Kirk of Christ as ye do. They called for a Judge, be brings the Testament of Christ for a Judge: and speaking to them of a point of religion that was controverted, whether one should be twice baptized or not? 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 he says, You, says he, affirms it is lawful, we affirm it is not lawful, between your say it is lawful, & our say it is not lawful, the people's souls do doubt & waver. Let none believe you nor us, we are all contentious men, Judges must be sought for, if Christians, they cannot be given on both sides; for truth is hindered by affection. A Judge without must be sought for. If a Pagan, he cannot know the Christiā mystery; if a Jew, he is an enemy to Christianity. No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth. A Judge from heaven must be sought for. But why knock we at heaven when here we have his Testament in the Gospel. And he randers a reason of this in that same book. Christ says he, hes dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children, who fearing least his children should fall out after his decease, doth set down his will in writing under witness: and if there arise debate among the Brethren, they go to the Testament. He whose word must end our controversy is Christ. Let his will be sought in his Testament, (saith he.) Augustine urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists. We are brethren, says he, to them why do we strive? Our father died not vntestate, he made a testament and so died. Men do strive about the goods of the dead whill their testament be brought forth. When that is brought forth they yield to have it opened & red. The Judge doth hearken: the Counsellers be silent: the Crier biddeth peace. All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be red and hard. He lieth void of life and feling, and his words prevail. Christ sitteth in heaven, and is his Testament gain-said? Open it let us read. We are Brethren why do we strive? Let our minds be pacified, our father hes not left us without a testament. He that made the testament is living forever, he doth hear our words. He doth know his own word, let us read, why do we strive. Irenaeus says that the lawful exposition of the Scripture whilk hes no peril with it, is according to the Scriptures themselves. What can be more plain (Master Gilbert? ) And I ask you further? Would you have us to ascriue more to the interpretation of the fathers, nor the learned of your Kirk does? As Cajetan a Cardinal and Doctor. Andradius the first says that God hes not tied the exposition of the Scripture unto the exposition or sense of the fathers, (if God hes not bound it as he says, why then should we bind it:) wherefor their he desires the reader, not to mislike it, if sometimes in the expounding of them, he fall into a sense agreeable to the text, though it go against the stream of the fathers. If he speak truth, then that sense that is agreeable to the text suppose it be against the stream of their expositions, is to be received & preferred before them. And Andradius that learned man says, that the fathers spake not Oracles when they exponed the Scriptures, but might therein be deceived. And he says more that the over-sights of the translation whilk they followed, must needs cause them sometimes to miss the meaning of the holy Ghost: and yet you would have the sense of the Scriptures to be decided by them, who sometimes hes missed the meaning of the holy Ghost. And he concludes in the end, That the holy Ghost is the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures. Thus the fairest flowers of your garden, and chiefest pillars of your faith hes written: so that if they speak true (whom I know not if ye will presume to contradict) the exposition of the Scripture is not tied unto the exposition of the Fathers: and it is leasome to go with the text, against the stream of their expositions.

And whereas you say, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will soon be ended: I am glade of it, if you think as you speak. My word was, Master Gilbert, as yourself hes written it, that there be very few pointes of controversy between us, wherein I will not get some testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first 600. years, proving with us against them (meaning your kirk.) And I desired any man to set me down any weighty point of controversy, one or moe, and he should have the proof of it. These were my words. Now ye say, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will soon be ended. Whether I have been as good as my word in this or not, let the reader judge. And I appeal your conscience Master Gilbert, before the Lord in the great day, whether it be true or not. For not only in that example of Justification, whilk ye cast in, but almost in all the heads whilk are debated amongst us, I have brought in sundry testimonies of sundry Fathers with us against you. Yea, I have been better then my word in that: for I have brought in testimonies of sundry that lived after the 600. year: and not of these only, but also testimonies of sundry of your own Doctors, Jesuits, Cardinals, Bishops, Canons, Councils, and Popes: proving with us in some points against yourselves. I look therefore (Master Gilbert ) that ye shall be as good as your word, and that the matter shall end heir between you and me. For both you have said that the matter would soon end, if I were as good as my word: and also ye have promised and subscriued with your hand, to reform your religion in all things wherein it is not conform to their testimonies. The whilk if you do, then must you renounce the supremacy of your Pope, the sacrifice of your Mass, your Transubstantiation, your Justification by works, your merits of works, your perfect fulfilling of the Law of God, your erroneous opinions that the kirk cannot err, that the Scripture should not be judge, with sundry others. For in all these I have brought the testimonies of sundry Fathers: and in some of them the testimonies of your own Doctors, Councils, Canons, and Popes with us against you. Either therefore take shame and falset forever-more upon you, or else keep your word and your write, whilk ye have subscriued heir, & reform these points of your religion. As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have takē away a great part from the scripture, I know you mean the Apocrypha, whilk bears not the mark and stamp of God's spirit, as being neither written by Prophets, nor yet the most parte of them in the prophetical language the hebrewe tongue, wherein all the old Testament was written, except some things of Daniel, and Ezra, whilk were written in the Chaldaick language, whilk was known then to the Jews: nor yet received as Canonical by the Kirk of the Jews, whilk your Kirk will not deny. Nor yet acknowledged Cannonicall by the testimonies of sundry Fathers, Councils, and of your selves, also Papists of great name: some rejecting all, some more, some fewer: containing also many things repugnant to the truth of God set down in the Canonical Scripture. Last of all, wanting that majesty of God's spirit whilk so evidently shynes in the Canonical Scripture. And therefore most justly say we, that ye vnderly the curse of God, pronounced in his Scripture, Apoc. 22. for the adding unto the holy truth of God. And look to it (Master Gilbert, what you will say to your Cardinal Caietane, who hath denied sundry books and parts of the Canonical Scripture in the New Testament.

Master John Welsche.

Now, if the first thing I offer me to prove, be found of verity: that is, that our Religiō is that self same, & no other, then that that Jesus Christ preached, and his Apostles, and theirs is not so: but deuysed by the man of sin, & that Antichrist, that whore of Babylon, then the plea is won But if I prove the second also, then I hope they will never open their mouth to speak evil of the truth of God, as though it were but a new Religion.

Master Gilbert Brown.

When Master John proves the thing that he is not able to prove, we shall do the thing that we are not able to perform. but it is an wonder of him to put in so many (ifs) and does nothing to the matter. For it is and true saying in Philosophy, that a conditional Proposition proves nothing. It appears he hes been in haste, that he might not have leisure to prove any head for example of his promise. For we understand that M. John is a man who may err, as many man hes done before by his judgment. And therefore he must have no credence of us, except he bring his warrand, and ye shall be sure that he is never able to perform his sayings.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

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

Master John Welsche.

Thirdly, I answer The Spirit of God foretells that when the Antichrist shall come, the defection shall be universal, and all nations shall be drunken with the wine of her fornication.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Where this is written, Master John tells not. For I am sure, as it is set down heir, there is no such things in our Bibles, no not in their own corrupted Bibles, except they have augmented them of new. That there shall be an universal defection, it is altogether repugnant to the word of God, as I have shown before; in proving the Kirk always to continue. For the same place where I believe he alleges too, hes these words, And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him upon every Tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation, ann all that inhabit the earth adored it, whose names be not written in the book of life of the Lamb Heir any man may see that the Saints of God that shall be persecute by the Antichrist, and such that is written in the book of life, shall not make defection: then it shall not be an universal defection. And also Master John afterward in finding some of his Religion that said against the Antichrist the Pope, the time bygane, is contrary to himself heir, that the defection shall not be universal. And where he says that all nations shall be drunken with the wine of her fornication, the text is otherwise: Becaus all nations have drunken of the wyne of the wrath of her fornication: that is, that the people of all nations that hes obeyed her, shall be punished with the wrath of God and not that all the world should make defection.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You fight heir against your own shaddow, Master Gilbert ) and whereas ye can find nothing justly to quarrel in my words being rightly taken, and taken as the Scripture takes them: you devise a meaning of your own brain, and would father it upon me, that ye may the more easily have somewhat to speak against. For I neither spake it, nor meaned it that the elect should make defection in the time of the Antichrist: I am so far from it, that suppose I believe assuredly that this prophecy is fulfilled in your own Kirk; yet I know assuredly that the Lord reserved his own elect to himself, who was keeped free from your Idolatry, as he promised, and histories records of some, whereof I did set down some of their names. But this is the doctrine of one of your own Kirk, Dominicus a Soto, who believed it assuredly, that the faith of Jesus Christ and Religion should be utterly exstinguished through the persecution of the Antichrist, if Bellarmine speak true of him. And so turn the point of your sword, Master Gilbert, upon your own brother, who so taught, & not upon me, who is far from it. And if ye will say, wherefore then called I it universal? I answer: because the scripture calls it a defection, without any addition or restraint, & your Rhemists grants, that this defection shall be a revolting of Kings, people, and provinces, and the public intercourse of the faithful with the Kirk of Rome shall cease: and that the daily sacrifice shall be abolished moste universally throughout all nations and Kirks of the world by Antichrist himself. Annot. upon 2. Thessal. 2. And Bellarmine says, that he shall be Monarch of the whole world. Therefore this kingdom by your own confession shall be universal: & seeing his kingdom is an apostasy or defection, for as many as shall obey him, shall make defection from the faith: therefore by the doctrine of your own Kirk, it must be an universal defection. And the Scripture says expressly, that he shall make all both small and great, &c. to receive a mark 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. Now, whether I might call that universal whilk the Scripture calls all, and your Rhemistes and Bellarmine makes so general and universal, that it shall possess all the kingdoms of the earth, let the Christian reader judge. And let me ask you (Master Gilbert ) Do you not believe that the Kirk is Catholic, or universal? and do you not think with one of your own number, that the Kirk is called universal, because the faith of the Kirk is scattered in all nations: and yet for all this, all particular nations, and all particular men receives not this faith? and yet notwithstanding it is universal, and is called universal still. And doth not the Scripture prophecy that in Abraham all the Nations shall be blessed, and yet for all this, there were, and is millions of the Gentiles that are not blessed in him? Why then, in like manner, may not the defection in the time of the Antichrist be called universal, although the elect be exemed from it? But wherefore insist I to refute this vain quarrelling of words whilk serves to no purpose? So then, this that I said is both in your translation and ours in substance, and is not contrary to that 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 Roman Emperors. As for that calumny of yours in calling our Bibles corrupted, and augmented: this is your sin (Master Gilbert ) whereof one day ye shall make an accompt to the Majesty of God, for the slandering and bearing false witness of the truth of God. And to speak the truth, this is true of you: for both you have added to the Scriptures of God, first the Apocrypha, next your Traditions, whilk your Kirk hes decreed to be received with equal reverence and godliness with the Scripture: thirdlie, the Decretal Epistles of your Popes, whilk some of you hes reckoned in the number of the Canonical scripture. And also you have corrupted the scriptures of God by your corrupt translation, especially that of the College of Reims. The whilk to be true, if time would serve, I might sone be able to prove, whilk hes been sufficiently proved by that learned and worthy man of God Doctor FULK: unto the whilk you, not all your clergy hes not answered as yet, for ought that I know: nor never is able to do.

And as for the last point wherein ye say, that the text is other ways then I set down: let the Christian reader judge whether my words be one in substance with this text or not for suppose this be set down in the preter-time, and I spake it in the future-time: yet it is a prophecy of a thing to come: and your Kirk grants it is not fulfilled yet, therefore they are both one in substance. And as for your exposition, where you expone this of the punishment of the people that hes obeyed her, and not of their sin in communicating with her Idolatry, that is manifestly against the text. For this is set down heir as the cause of her punishment, whilk is pronounced before in these words, Babylon hes salne, &c. Now the reason, because all nations hes drunken of the wyne of the wrath of her fornication, whereby in the Scripture is signified Idolatry: and it is called the wine of the wrath, &c. because her fornication provoked God to wrath. And Aretas exponeth this fornication, a defection from every good. And in the 18. chapter it is more evident, where after the denunciation of her fall, this reason is subjoined, 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 abundance of her pleasures. The whilk as they cannot be understood of the punishment, but of the defection: so this drinking cannot be understood of their punishment, but of their communication with her Idolatry: and yet how ever it be, this proves that universal defection, of the whilk I spake.

Master John Welsche.

And the K rk of God shall be latent, and flee to the wilderness, and there lurk, and be fed of God all that time secretly.

Master Gilbert Brown.

It is an wonder to hear the word of God abused, not only with false expositions repugnant to the words self, but also alleging the word falslye. For the text of Saint John hes but this, (for he notes no place, because he knows it may not abide ane trial) And the woman fled unto the wilderness, where she had ane place prepared of God, that there they might feed her, ane thousand, two hundredth, and threescore days. Heir there is no word that she shall be latent, nor lurk, nor be secret. And if Master John will mean that the fleeing to the wilderness, is nothing but to be invisible, and to lie secret: then it must follow that the whore of Babylon's self must be invisible and secret. For the same Saint John says. And the Angel took me away in spirit into the desert, and I saw ane woman sitting upon ane scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. This word (desert) signifies more properly to be secret or invisible, nor the word (wilderness) It is true appearandlie, that if this Woman si nifies the Kirk of Christ that in the time of the Antichrist, she shall be redacted to ane small number, as it were in ane wilderness, and shall not possess every nation, as she had wont to do: but that she may be made invisible, and not to be seen, there is no true Catholic that expones it so. And siklike, this time shall be but short, that is, for 1260 days, as the text says, whilk is but three years and ane half. And if Master John's Kirk had been but so long invisible, we should have dispensed with the same. But it hes been invisible thir thousand years, as it is now professed in Scotland, and much more as young Marchistoun hes in his book upon the Revel. cap. 12. ver. 14

Master John 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 up in such a choller that you have cried out with admiration that I have abused the Scripture: &c. Now tell me (Master Gilbert ) whether is it because these same words are not found in the Scripture, or because the doctrine it self 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 have set down in this your answer is not set down in so many terms in the Scripture, and yet ye will have it to be the doctrine of God's spirit, (suppose it be not so.) So it sufficeth that this whilk I said be warrāted by the Scripture, suppose the same terms be not found. If the other: then I say beside other places of Scripture, this same place whilk ye quote here confirms the same. For know ye not that the wilderness is a place of refuge and secrecy from the tyranny of their pursuers? And they that flies to the same, they fly to lurk there, and to be keeped close and secret from the rage of their persecutors for the safety of their lives. So while it is prophesied that this woman (whereby is signified the Kirk,) whilk suppose ye condtionally expone so, yet Sanderus one of your own number expones it to be the Kirk without all doubt shall fly in the wilderness from the face of the Dragon, and that for her safety, and there be fed &c. Is it not then manifest that she shall be secret and lurk then, and not be so open and visible as she was before? And if this be an abuse of the Scripture, then not only yourself hes abused it, but also sundry of your own Kirk, as the Rhemistes, Bellarmine, & Sanderus. For yourself says that in the time of the Antichrist, she shall be redacted in a small number, as it were in a wilderness, and shall not posses every nation as she had wont to do. For what is this else but to lurk and be latent, and to be fed secretly, in comparison of that estate wherein she was before? And therefore the only thing that I inferred on this in the end, was that no man should think that the Kirk of God was ever open and visible, in such a flourishing estate as it is now. And the Rhemists says that in the time of the Antichrist, this great defection or revolt shall be of kingdoms, people, and Provinces, from the open external obedience & communion with the Kirk of Rome. So that their communion with her shall be in heart, and the practice thereof in secret, and he shall abolish the public exercise of all religions true or false, save that 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 mind, that his cruel persecution shall stay all public exercise of religion, and he shall make open warfaire with the whole Kirk, and shall endeavor to destroy the universal estate of the whole Christian common weal, and shall shut up the door of sacraments, and shall suffer no man any more to enter in the Kirk of Christ, and shall be Monarch of the whole world. Now if this be true, whether shall the Kirk of Christ by your own doctrine be fed secretly, or not be latent and lurk, in the time of the Antichrist, let all men judge. But what a contradictorious spirit is this of yours, who to gainsay the thing that I write, cares not to involve yourself in a contradiction, not only to the truth, but also to your own Catholics. Either therefore wonder at your own Catholics, who hes spoken as much and more in this point nor I did, and at yourself also, who grants as much in substance as I meaned, that ye and they have abused the Scripture, or else leave of to wonder at me, and wonder at the veil whilk is hung over your own eyes, whilk hinders you not only to understand the truth, but also to understand what yourself and your own brethren teaches. Now as for your reason, it is not said that Babylō was in the desert, but that John was taken in the spirit, that is, ravished in the spirit (as in the 1. and 4. chapter) into the desert that is, into a solitare and heavenly contemplation of that vision whilk was afterward shown him. For as this carrying of him in the spirit signifies his spiritual ravishing, so this desert signifies the solitarenes of his contemplation. And as that lifting up of Ezekiel by the locks of the hair of his head between the heaven and the earth, & that carrying of him to the door of the innermost port towards the North, to see the abominations of Jerusalem, was only in vision, & not bodily. So I take this carrying of John in spirit to the wilderness to see the whore of Babylon to have been in vision only, and not bodily. And whereas ye say that this word desert signifies more properly to be hid and invisible nor the word wilderness, I pray you tell me (Master Gilbert ) what is between desert & wilderness? save that the first is driven from the Latin, & the second is English? Must you be set to the grammar school again? What fancy is this wherewith ye are possessed, that you put a difference between wilderness and desert? Is there any difference, if you understood the greek language, between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, between desert and desert, wilderness and wilderness? And if ye have ever red the New Testament in Greek, there is but the self same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in both these places, whilk signifieth desert or wilderness. But where have you been when ye did imagine this difference? Appearandly ye have been dreaming in some wilderness, or else wandering in the wilderness of your own blind imaginations. As for the exposition of your true Catholics, we count not much of them. Always these whom ye call your true Catholics, Bellarmine the Rhemists, and Sanderus hes been plain in this matter, and hes spoken more in this point then we do. And as for the time of this her secrecy and lurking 1260. days whilk you expound literallie to be but three years and a half. I answer, this expositiō of yours is against first the custom of prophesies, whilk are expounded figuratiuelie and not literally, as these 70. weeks in Daniel concerning Christ, where there a day is put for a year. Next, it is against the whole circumstances of ihe text: for will you expound this woman figuratively for the Kirk, as Sanderus does: and the wilderness unto the whilk she fled, figuratively for the small number whereunto she shall be redacted, as you do: & the sun wherewith she was cled, and the moon whilk was under her feet, and the twelve stars that was upon her head, and the red Dragon whilk persewed her with ten heads &c. all figuratiuelie, and yet will ye expound the time of her being in the wilderness literallie? What violence is this whilk ye will offer unto the holy truth of God, to expound all the rest figuratively, and only the time literallie? So then a day here is set for a year, as also it is taken in the same sense in the 2. chapter of the Revelation in the Epistle to Smyrna, where it is said they shall have tribulation for the space of ten days: that is, for the space of ten years. As for the invisibility of our Kirk, because that question cums afterward, therefore I omit it now. Only this, as your Hierarchy and abomination of your Kirk grew, so did the purity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ in his Kirk decay. And as your Popes came not to their height at an instant, and brought not in their abominations at an instant but piece and piece, and by longproces of time: So the purity of the truth of God decayed not at an instant, but piece and piece and by a long process of time. For the degrees of your exalting, was the degrees of the depressing of the truth of God in his Kirk. As for our dispensation suppose your Kirk useth not to give them without money laid down, yet we will neither buy them, nor have them for naught. So keep your dispensations at home (Master Gilbert ) whill we send for them.

Master John Welsche.

And the Ministers thereof shall preach in sackcloth, that is, under persecution, all th • 〈◊〉 , and at the last they shall be put to death for the testimony of Jesus, and for speaking against their false worship & Religion.

Master Gilbert Brown.

It appears to me that Master John hes found some new revelation, other then that of Saint John: for he notes no place to us: and these words of his are no way in S. John. and therefore as an invention of his own head, we will reject the same. Indeed we have in Saint John, That God shall give to his two witnesses, and they shall prophecy 1260 days clad with sackcloth But this can no ways aggree with this purpose of his For why there shall be but two of thir: and there is more then two hundredth Ministers in Scotland. And these two shall prophecy, but our Ministers are no Prophets (albeit they foretell things oft times that is not true) and all the prophecies, if they prophecy at any time, is of evil and not of good. These two shall prophecy but three years and ane half: but our Ministers hes prophesied these 38 years, if preaching be prophesying. And these two shall be cled in sackcloth, but our Ministers, chiefly of Burrow towns, is clad in fine blak cloth, or silk. And so forth of many more differences, as is contained in the 11 chapter of the Revelation.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

It appears to you that I have found some new revelation, other then that of Saint John. So did it appear to the Jews, that the Apostle Paul taught all men everywhere against the Law of Moses, and yet it was the truth, as he himself testifies, he spake nothing beside that whilk Moses and the Prophets fore told was to come. So every appearance is not truth. It is but the scailes that are upon your eyes, that makes this so to appear to you: For the Scripture of God, and this revelation of John is sufficient to us to make it manifest, that your head is the Antichrist, & your doctrine is that Apostasy that was prophesied to come: so that we need no new revelations, as ye do: for because the revelations already made by God to his 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, & feigned revelations to prove the same. As for example, because your Kirk hes not so much as a sillabe in the whole book of God, to prove that Peters seat was translated from Antiochia to Rome, whilk is the whole foundation of all Popery, therefore your Pope Marcellinus in his canon law, grounds the certainty of this upon a feigned revelation, that Peter by the commandment of God did translate it. But to leave you with your new revelations, what have ye for you, for this your appearance? You say first, because I note no place: & next, because these words of mine, are no ways in Saint John. Therefore ye conclude it to be an invention of my own. As to the first. Is this a good reason, I note not the place, therefore I have found out some new reuelatiō: You must be sent to the Logic schools again, to learn the right manner of reasoning. I noted no place, Ergo I could not, that will not follow. As to the second my words are no ways found in Saint John, Ergo I have found a new revelation? But what if the sense be found? What if the self same doctrine be found in Saint John, suppose not in the same words? Then it will not follow that I have found out a new revelation, or that this is the invention of my own brain. This place whilk ye quote heir, Revel. 11.3. sufficiētlie confirms all that I said. For yourself will not deny, & Bellarmine, the Rhemists, and Sanderus grants, 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 shall be persecuted, and put to death by him. What a blindness is this, Master Gilbert, that hes ouersyled your eyes, that for the writing of that same doctrine whilk the scripture warrands, your Divines grants, and yourself will not deny, you have said that it appeared to you, that I have found out some new revelation. But judge thou (Christian reader) what thou may presume upon Master Gilberts appearances. But you say, this aggrees not with my purpose: and that because of the differences between these two witnesses, & the Ministers of Scotland. First I do not mean by these two Witnesses the Ministers of Scotland only, but the Ministers of all the reformed Kirks in Europe, who hes departed out of your Babel, and hes shaken off the yoke of the tyrannous bondage of your head, the man of sin: and not only these who now lives, but these also who now rests from their labors, and sleeps in the Lord: of whom a great many was persecuted, and put to death by your tyranny, for speaking against your abominations. Now as to these differences whilk ye mark: the fountain from the whilk this springs, is your mistaking of the prophecies of God, and exponing them literally, whilk according to the use of prophecies and especially these whilk are set down in this Revelation, & all the circumstances of this text, ought to be exponed figuratiuelie. These same two Witnesses are called two Olives, two Candlesticks, and it is said of them, that fire comes out of their mouths and destroys their enemies. &c. If you will not be so absurd and ridiculous, as to expone these things literallie, but figuratiuelie: otherwise ye will make them Monsters, Trees, and Candlesticks: why then do ye expone this place concerning their number, work, time, apparel, &c. literallie, and not figuratiuelie as the rest of their works, and properties must be exponed: the whilk if you had done, then would ye have seen no difference between the Ministers of the Gospel that resisted your Pope, and these two Witnesses heir: but the one to be the prophecy of the other, and the other to be the accomplishing of the prophecy. As for their number then, they are said to be but two, that is, few: & yet such a sufficient number, as may prove & qualify anything by the law. For by the law: Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established. So the Ministers of the gospel in the time of your Antichrist & darkness, was but few at the beginning: and yet so many, as served for to establish the truth of God by their testimony, in the consciences of so many whom God had appointed to save. As for their work of prophesying, the Scripture calls preaching, prophesying, and the Rhemistes grants that these Witnesses shall preach against the Antichrist. And whereas you say, that we fore-tell oft times things that is not true: this is your calumny and lie, Master Gilbert, and so ought to have no credit. And the prophecies of the Ministers of this land against your Antichristian kingdom, ye have found by experience that they have been too true. And their prophecies are trewer then the prophecies of one of your Popes, Hildebrand, who openly in the pulpit on the second holy day in Easter week, in the presence of diverse Bishops, and Cardinals, and of the people and Senate of Rome, prophesied that the King whose name was Henry should die before the feast of Peter next ensuing: or at the least, that he should be so dejected from his Kingdom that he should not be able anymore to gather above the number of sex knights. And this he preached with this confirmation, never accept me for Pope anymore, if this prophecy be not fulfilled, but pluck me from the altar. But he was a false Prophet in the same, for neither was fulfilled. And whereas ye say, if they prophecy at any time, it is of evil and not of good: so said Ahab of the Prophet of the Lord, and therefore he hated him: so you speak with the same spirit against us, that Ahab spak with against the Lord's Prophet. And what good can be spoken of your Babel, since the Lord hes fore-told the ruin of it, & in part hes been accomplished? and some of your own number, as Hildegardis, Briget, Catherine de Senis hes for-told of the destruction of your Kirk, & the reformation of the Kirk of Christ. As for the time, it was spoken of before, and I trow ye have thought it too long, and yet be in pa • ience, Master Gilbert, for it must continue, and your Babel must down. As for the clothing of sackcloth, it was the apparel of such as was in dolour and in mourning, whereby is signified the sorrow and dolour that should arise to the true ministers of Christ, throw the persecution of the Antichrist and his members, and their idolatry and abominations. The whilk hes been so clearly fulfilled in the preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his days, and before also, even to this day, that he must be blinded of the Lord who sees it not. And whereas ye cast up the clothing of the Ministry in this land, ye have forgotten yourself, and your Clergy, and your head the Pope, with his triple crown, with all the rabble of his Prelates, Abbots, Bishops, Cardinals, &c. as full of riotous pride and pomp, as ever were the Persians Kings,

The pomp and glory of whose court doth surmount all the pomp and glory of all the Princes in Europe, as some that hes seen it reports. How then can ye justly quarrel our attire? Can you say that we pass the bounds of that modestye and comeliness whilk the Apostle requires in the overseers of the Kirk of Christ, seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Prelates, according as it was prophesied of you, Revel. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modesty? But you are like the Lamians, of whom it is reported that they had but one eye: and when they went forth they took it with them to look upon others: and when they came in their own houses, they laid it beside them: you look to your neighbors, but ye over-see yourself. So for all the differences whilk ye have yet assigned, it remains sure that by these two Witnesses heir are signified the Ministers of the Gospel.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But note heir, I pray you, how well these new Evangelists aggrees in the exposition of this Revelation of Saint John: (for all their grounds and proofs is upon prophecies & dark speakings) Young Marchistoun in his book upon the Revelation, the 11. chap. 3. verse, expones these Witnesses to be the old and new Testaments, as he proves in the 21. Proposition: and Master John will have them the Ministers. Marchistoun says, that to be cled in sackcloth, is to preach the word of God with the obscurity of men's traditions and coloured glosses. Master John says heir, that the sackcloth signifies persecution for the preaching of the word. The notes on their Geneva Bibles printed at London, expones the sackcloth to signify poor & simple apparel. And Bale upon the same place writes, that this sackcloth signifies sober conversation. God knows if this and the like be wholesome doctrine to preach to the poor people, someone way, and some another, according to the invention of their own brains, without any proofs.

Master John Welshe his Reply.

As for these diverse expositions whilk ye mark in us, that hes so stirred up your affections, that ye cry out, God knows whether this be wholesome doctrine to teach the poor people, or not: I answer: that these diverse expositions of ours, are all aggreeable to the Analogy of faith, as yourself will not deny: and therefore cannot be called vn-wholesome doctrine. Otherwise, not only the Fathers, but also your own Doctors and Bishops, and Popes hes delivered vn-wholesome doctrine by your reason, for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture diuerslie, whilk is so manifest that I need not prove it, and yourself also hes delivered unwholesome doctrine heir, for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving for two contrary things, and yet Bellarmine says, that some Catholics takes them both for one. And what shall I say of your diverse expositions, whilk were tolerable, so being they were according to the proportion of faith? Your contradictions one to another: and that not only in exponing the Scripture, but in the main points of your religion: some holding one thing and some another, as partly hes, and partly shall be marked, are manifold. And if diverse expositions of a place of scripture be vn-wholesome doctrine, as ye say, then surely this point of your Catholic doctrine, whilk teaches, that the Scripture hes a fiuefolde sense, and that it may be sieve diverse ways exponed, must be vn-wholesome doctrine, & then ye lose more then you can win by this. Bewarre, Master Gilbert, that by this dealing ye bring not yourself in suspicion that ye are forsaiking your Catholic faith: for this is a point of it, as Bellarmine reports. As for your calumnies first in calling us new Evangelists, I answered to that before: next in saying that all our proofs and grounds are upon prophecies and dark sayings: first, you injury the holy Ghost in calling his prophecies dark: for the cause of this is not in them, but in our blindness. Secondly, ye speak too plain an untruth: for it is more then manifest that not only prophecies, but also the plain and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture is the grounds and proofs of our Religion, as is manifest by the points of doctrine whilk we have handled heir.

Master Gilbert Brown.

And it follows in Master John. And at the last (says he) they shall be 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 invisible, how shall they be taken, and put to death? If the Antichrist and his members shall slay them, how can they do the same, except they know and may see them? To be invisible, is not to be known or seen: but they will see and know them, or else they cannot discern them from their own, whereby they may put them to death, and save their own. The second thing to be noted, that our Ministers in Scotland except they be put to death by the Pope, they bear not the testimony of Christ. For these are Master John's own words. And S. John says, That the beast shall slay the two Witnesses. Now by Master John, 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 days and an half, not in Scotland, but in Hierusalē, for there was the Lord of these two Witnesses slain. And after, they must revive and ascend up to heaven in a cloud in the sight of their enemies, & so forth. Whilk things I trust shall come to pass to none of them in our days, nor long after the Laird of Marchistons doomesday.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for the first thing whilk you infer heir, concerning the invisibility of the Kirk, because you have the same argument afterward, I refer the answer of it to that place. As for the second thing whilk ye infer, that except the Ministers of Scotland be put to death by the Pope, they bear not the testimony of Christ. I answer: As it is true that it is prophesied of the Antichrist, that he shall slay the two Witnesses of God, and that he shall make war with the saints and overcome them: so is it likewise prophesied that his cruelty shall not always continue, but at the last, the Lord shall take his Kingdom in his own hand, and the Gospel shall be preached to them that dwell upon the earth, and Babel that great cietie shall fall, so that the blood whilk your Kirk hes spilled of the saints of God already in all the parts of Europe, these 300. years bypast, and that in such abundance, that suppose the Lord may number them, yet no man is able to number them. And the patience and suffering of our brethren, is an sufficient evidence that both your Popes are the Antichrist, and they are the Ministers of Christ, suppose they slay no moe of them And although the Lord hes shortened your power, yet ye want no goodwill to spill the blood of the rest. That ransacking of Germany, that cruel persecution of Queen Mary, and bloody inquisition of Spain in the Iowe countries, and that most sauadge and cruel massacre of Paris, and that Spanish nauy, whilk the Lord discomfited, with his own mighty and outstreatched arm in the 1588. year of God, doeth sufficiently testify what hearts ye bear 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 upon you. As for the prophecy of the ignominious handling of the bodies of these Witnesses after their slaughter: it is also fulfilled by your Popes, and their authority upon the carcases of the Saints of God, whilk in all parts almost, where ever their blood was shed, was most ignominiously handled, as though they had been not the bodies of men, but the dead carions of dogs and swine. Let both histories, and some who yet lives bear witness of this. As for the time and place, and their reviving and ascending up to heaven, it is to be understood after the manner of prophecies, mysticallie and figuratiuelie, as I have proved before. The time of three days and an half, signifying all the time of your tyrannous cruelty. The place of their ignominy is the streets of that great Cietie, whilk heir is called Sodom & Egypt, and the place where our Lord was crucified, not literallie, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; spiritually, as the Text says. And also called Babylon, in the 14. and 17. and 18. of the Revelation, whilk is literallie that seven hilled cietie, whilk hes dominion over the Kings of the earth, whilk as Bellarmine confesses, is Rome properly. So as this great cietie is neither Sodom nor Egypt, nor Babylon (suppose it be called so) literallie, but only mysticallie and spiritually, as the Scripture says, and yourself will not deny, for the likeness between them: Sodom, for her filthiness and uncleanness: Egypt and Babylon for her tyranny and cruelty ever the Saints of God, wherein she resembls them. So is she not literallie the place where Christ was crucified, but only mysticallie and spiritually for the likeness between them: that as by the authority of the Emperor of Rome, his deputy Pilate our Lord was crucified, for the false challenge of treason against the Emperor, whilk was falsely and wickedly laid to his charge: and therefore is said 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 reigns & hes reigned these many years at Rome, Christ is crucified again in his members, because they will not receive his mark, and worship him. And as Jerusalem boasted herself to be a holy cietie, and the spouse of Christ, and yet was a harlote, a murderer, and a persecutor of the Saints: so Rome doth boast herself to be a holy ciety, and the spouse of Christ, and the head of all: and yet is now, and is long since become an harlot and a murderer, & a pesecuter of the Saints. And if ye will ask, When did the bodies of the Saints lie in the streets of Rome? I answer: As by the gates in the cietie in the fourt command, is not meant the gates of the cietie properly, but the authority and jurisdiction of the cietie: so by the streets of Rome is not only meant the gates within the walls of Rome, but all the places and parts whither his power and dominion hes spread the self. So that all the places where the Popes of Rome hes exercised their tyranny over the Saints, are called heir the streets of that great Cietie. All these therefore who hes been cruelly murdered by the Popes authority in England, Scotland, France the low countries, &c and whole bodies hes been cast out, & whose bodies hes been ignominiously handled, they have lain in the streets of that great cietie And as all the rest of this prophecy is to be understood spiritually, so is this, reviving and ascending of these Witnesses to heaven in the sight of their enemies, to be understood not literallie, but spiritually. So this is not the meaning of the holy Ghost that these Witnesses whom the Antichrist shall slay shall be raised up again in their own persons (whilk yet shall be at the last day in the general resurrection:) but that the Lord shall raise up other Witnesses, endued with that same spirit, whilk they were endued with: preaching the same truth, and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist, as that prophecy in the 3. of Malachi of the sending of Elias before the coming of Christ, was fulfilled, as our Savior testifies, not in the raising up of Elias in his own person again: but in the sending of John the Baptist, in the virtue and spirit of Elias. So this prophecy concerning the reviving of these two Witnesses, whereby was figured the faithful Ministers of Christ, who was murdered in the time of Popery, as John Wiclef, John Hus, Jerome of Prague, M. Geor • e Wishart, and many others, is fulfilled not by raising up of their persons again, but of others his faithful seruands, who in their virtue and spirit hes defended and maintained y ^e same doctrine & cause against the Antichrist, as M. Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Master Knoxe, and sundry others whom the Lord hes, and daily raises up in all countries, for the overthrow of your Babel. As for your trust what will come to pass, we pass not, for so much hes been fulfilled of these prophecies, whilk testifies your head to be the Antichrist, & the Ministers of the reformed Kirk to be the faithful seruands of Christ, and the rest concerning your daily consumption and final abolition, we know assuredly shall come to pass, because the Lord hes so thought it and said it. And as for any further proof of the clemency and meekness of your Popes, if so the Lord will, we desire it not. For as it is said of the wicked man, Your compassions are cruel, and your by past cruelty testifies of what spirit ye are. And suppose you say you trust that this, amongst the rest, shall not come to pass, yet I fear you long to see that day upon the Ministers of Scotland, whilk your brethren rejoiced to see fulfilled in that cruel persecution of Queen Marie in England, and in that bloody massacre of Paris, of the saints of God there: for we cannot think but that ye are of the same spirit & mind, whilk your brethren were of, otherwise ye are not a right catholic. As for the Laird of Marchistouns conjecture concerning the day of judgment, he hes his own probable reasons, and if you be as good as your word, as your favorers hes reported of you, we will see the refutation of his book by you. And suppose I know the time to be uncertain to man, or Angel, as our Savior says: yet his conjecture thereof is in greater modesty and sobriety, nor your determination thereof. Whereby if the doctrine of your Kirk be true concerning the Antichrist, whom ye imagine is yet to come, & the time of his reign, whilk ye say is to be but three years and an half: then not only the year, but the very day thereof may be known of them that lives in these days. For the Scripture says, He shall be abolished by the brightness of his coming: yea that whilk is greater arrogancy and presumption the learnedest of your Kirk, Bellarmine, hes taken upon him to determine the very day of the coming of Christ to judgment: to wit, 45. days after the perishing of the Antichrist. It is manifest (says he) that after the death of the Antichrist, there shall be but 45. days to the end of the world.

Master John Welsche.

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

Master Gilbert Brown.

But what if all these sayings of his be false, what shall follow then? but that Master John and the rest of the Ministers are deceived, and deceaues others, with such vain & untrue expositions upon the word of God. For take away from it Master John's own invention, & the word shall never have such ane meaning. And although Master John offer never so oft to prove the same, I say, he is never able to do it, nor all the Ministers in Scotland.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

If all these sayings of mine concerning the largeness of the dominion of Antichrist, the estate of the Kirk of God, & his true Pastors all that time, be false: then not only have I been deceived, but also Bellarmine, the Rhemists, and Sanderus the chief defenders of your Kirk, hes been deceived, and deceaues others: for they have spoken & written as much, & further in these points, then ever I did, as I have proved before by their own testimonies. And yet I trow your head and Clergy will judge them to be as far from error, as you are. So either you or they, must be deceived in this. And as for the fulfilling of these prophecies in your Popes of Rome, I hope it hes been proved sufficiently, whilk ye nor all the Clergy of Rome, is never able to improve. As for the rest of your answer, wherein ye prove that the Pope is not the Antichrist: I have answered to it in the other part of my tretise, concerning the Antichrist, therefore I omit it now.

Master Gilbert Brown.

What he means that the Pope is now disclosed, I know not: for I understand that he hes not been like their Kirk, that sometimes is visible, & sometimes not: for he hes always been known by the visible Kirk to be the visible head thereof in place of Christ.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

My meaning is this, that suppose in y ^e darkness of Papistry he was taken to have been the Vicare of Christ, yet now the Lord hes smitten him and consumed him by the sword of his mouth, that is, the word of God: and hes discovered him to the full to all these, whose eyes the Lord hes opened, that he is that Antichrist, whilk the Scripture hes foretold was to come. And where you say that he hes been always known by the visible Kirk to be the visible head thereof in place of Christ, I see you regard not what you say, for the maintenance of that head and kingdom of yours. For certainly either hes the Lord wonderfully blinded you, or else ye speak against the light of your own conscience. For are you eve • able to produce one sillabe in the whole Scripture to proou • this? Yea, hes not his Monarchy and supremacy been condemned: first by the son of God: next, by the Ap • stles themselves: thirdlie, by the Fathers of the primitiu • Kirk, in their synods and councils, both provincial and general, as by the Bishops of Afric, about the year 255. By the general councils of Nice, wherein was 318. Bishops, anno 327. Of Constantinople, wherein was 150. Bishops, anno 381. Of Ephesine, where was 200. Bishops, anno 436. Of Chalcedonense, anno 454. where there was 630. Bishops. Of Constantinople 6. anno 681. where there was 289. Bishops. Of Nicene 2. anno 781. where was present 350. Bishops. Of Constantinople 8. where was present 383 Bishops, anno 870. Of the council of Constance, where was 1000. Fathers almost, anno 1418. And of Basil, anno 1431, all general councils, condemning your Popes supremacy, as your Kirk now affirms of him, some more, some less. And also it is condemned by provincial councils, as of Antioch, and of Carthage, 2. and 3. confirmed in the general council of Trullan, and 6. and by the council of Mileuis: condemned also by the Universities of Paris, and Leuven, and Colein, and Vienna, and Cracouia. So then by the authority of Councils, general and provincial, and of Universities, the Monarchy and superiority of the Pope over all general councils is disallowed. And suppose the Kirks of France and Germany did honor them, and gave them some preeminence, both of honor and power, being blinded at that time with the smoke that came out of the bottomless pit: yet it may appear by their supplications that they did not allow that full Monarchy of his, but misliked it, & hated the same: yea France made laws against it. Now these are such whom yourselves do hold for Catholics, and yet they acknowledged not the Monarchy of your Pope. The Kirks of Greece, and of Asia in the East, and of Moscouia, in the North, and of Ethiopia in the South, and of Boheme, Province, Piemont, and the reformed Kirks that are this day in France, Flanders, England, Scotland, & so forth throughout Europe, all hes condemned your Popes supremacy. So that if his supremacy were to be put to trial by the judgment & will of men, so many thousands of Pastors, Doctors, Synods, Councils, Universities & Kirks through all ages, in all countries, of all sorts & estates, may suffice to put the Pope from his supremacy: so that I think you may blush, Master Gilbert, that hes so boldly written that he hes been always acknowledged by the visible Kirk to be the visible head of the Kirk, seeing his Monarchy was never fully acknowledged until the Lateran council, under Leo the 10. 1516. years after Christ. But seeing the word of God is the only just trial of it, and seeing it is not written in the book of life: therefore I conclude that his supremacy is not a citizen of that new Jerusalem, but a child of Babel: and therefore they are blessed that shall dashe it against the stones.

Master Gilbert Brown.

That the Kirk at any time may be invisible, it is repugnant to the word of God in many places, and to Master John also. For he gives examples afterward of sundry, as he says, that was of his religion, and opponed them selves to the Pope and his Clergy: and that, says he, when he was come to the hight. If the true Kirk opponed the self to the Antichristian Kirk, then it was visible and known, and if it was known when the Popes kingdom was at the highest, much more when it was low. & so it was always known by Master John's self.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Whether oppugn ye your own imagination (Master Gilbert ) heir, or that whilk I write. If the first, then you are foolish who fights against yourself, as ye do indeed: if the second, then I say, that whilk I said was this: that no man should think that the Kirk of God was ever open and visible in that flourishing estate as it is now. For this is our doctrine, Master Gilbert, concerning the invisibility of the kirk the whilk because you know not, therefore you stumble at it and oppugnes only your own invention, and not our doctrine: and therefore your reasons and Scriptures whilk ye bring heir, serves to no purpose, for they make nothing against us. We say that the Catholic Kirk whilk comprehends all the elect is always invisible, both because the principal part thereof is in heaven: and also because the senses of men cannot discern who are true members of the Catholic Kirk heir, their effectual calling, their faith, love, hope, and inward graces: their union with Christ their head, their spiritual armor, weapons, and warfare, and their head Christ Jesus, and their whole glory is inward and invisible, and they shall never be seen all gathered together until that great day: So that suppose they may be seen outwardly, as they are men, and sometimes in respect of their outward ministry: yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholic Kirk: that is, in so far as they are chosen, and sanctified, &c. as hes been said, they cannot be discerned by the senses of men and so are invisible. Next we say that the particular visible Kirks are not always in one outward estate: sometimes outwardly glorious, sometimes more obscure: sometimes openly known and seen by all: sometimes known and seen but by a few: sometimes frequent, and consisting in many, sometimes rare and consisting in few: sometimes adorned with outward ornaments of peace, largeness, outward glory & multitude: sometimes again wanting this outward glory vnderpersecution. But yet having that inward glory of these inward graces. So that when we say these particular Kirks are sometimes invisible, we do not mean as though they were known to none (for that is not our doctrine, Master Gilbert, as ye imagine:) but that they are not so openly known that they are patent to all to be the true Kirk: but known unto them with whom they have to do, and who professes the truth with them. Yea sometimes, some of them are known unto the very persecutors and enemies by their constancy and perseverance in their sufferings, suppose they allow not their profession. And in this state was the Kirk of Israel in the time of Elias, when he complained that he knew none left but himself of the true worshippers of God. And the Kirk of Judah in the days of Achaz and Manasseh Kings of Judah. And siklike in the time of Christ, both in the time of his living amongst them, as also in the time of his death & resurrection, the Kirk was brought to a small handful: the Princes, Priests, and Scribes, who only was in dignity and authority, being persecutors of Christ, condemned him, and crucified him. And siklike in the time of the persecution of Diocletian the Emperor, and in the time of the Arian heresy whilk over-spread, as it were, the whole world. The whilk also our Savior foretold should come to pass: When the son of man (says he) shall come, shall he find faith in the world? And by the Apostle also. And John in the Revelation, in the time of the Antichrist, confessed also by the learned of your own Kirk, as Bellarmine and the Rhemists, as they have been quoted before: and by yourself also who confessed that the Kirk of Christ should be redacted to a small number, as it were in a wilderness in the time of the Antichrist. This now is our doctrine concerning the inuisibilitie of the Kirk, whilk is neither repugnant to the word of God, nor yet to the examples whilk I brought in afterward against your Religion. For both these, Master Gilbert, are true, and neither of them repugning one another: that the particular Kirks in the time of the Antichrist, are not so openly known, and so outwardly glorious and flourishing, as they were before: but redacted to a small number, more obscure and more latent: partly through that universal defection, and partly through that extreme persecution of your Kirk and head: and that there was some that opponed themselves to the Pope and his Clergy, and that even whē he was come to the height. If you will make these repugnant 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 self.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Of this I may justly make ane argument against Master John, that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Woman that fled to the wilderness is the true Kirk, and to flee to the wilderness is to be invisible, as Master John says. Now young Marchistoun hes that this inuisibilitie endured from the year of God 316. til our days, the space of 1260. years, whilk was by him all the time of the Antichrist. But by Master John Welsche, there was many in that time that opponed themselves to the Pope, and said against him and his Religion and Clergy: and therefore was known. Of the whilkes the Popes gart slay many, as he says: Therefore it must follow, that either the Pope is not the Antichrist, because he did persecute but visible things, or else the Kirk was not invisible all the time foresaid.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Let us see the force of this argument that ye make for your Pope, that he is not the Antichrist. The woman, ye say, that fled to the wilderness, is the true Kirk: that I grant: & to fly into the wilderness is to be invisible by me. I answer: By me it is to be latent, and to lurk, to eschew the rage of her persecutors, and not to be openly conversant, as that all the world may know her: and yet not to be so latent, but that some of them are known both amongst themselves, as also to their enemies. And this is our meaning (as I have said before) when we affirm that the particular Kirks sometimes becomes invisible. But you take it as though our meaning were that y ^e kirk is so invisible, that it is known to none whilk is your invention, Master Gilbert, and not our doctrine: and therefore you fight without an adversary in this point. But to go forward to the rest of your argument: you say, that by me there was sundry that oppugned the Pope, and his Clergy, and was put to death by them, This is true: and therefore the blood of the Saints is found in your 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 invisible. I deny that either the one or the other will follow. And because you made an argument against your Pope (I should have said with him) that he is not the Antichrist, whilk is grounded upon your own invention, mistaking our doctrine, and therefore hes no feet: I will make another for him that he is the Antichrist, the whilk you nor all your Clergy will not be able to disprove. He is that undoubted Antichrist, whilk hes redacted the kirk of Christ, as it were in a wilderness, to a small handful: partly through the pest of his damnable doctrine, partly through his extreme persecution, so that they were compelled to lurk and hyde themselves from the cruelty of his power. This you cannot deny, because the Scripture affirms this of the Antichrist. But I assume, that the Popes of Rome hes done this these many hundredth years, as I have proved before, and in the other part of my answer: therefore of necessity it must follow, that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist that the Scripture foretold should come. Answer this if you can.

And as for the time of this inuisibilitie, it hes relation to the beginning, and growth, and hight of your Antichristian kingdom: for as it grew the Kirk was more and more obscured: and when it was at the hight, the Kirk was in her Eclipse: and as it hes decayed now since, she hes accordingly spread herself abroad. If the Apostle be true that mystery of iniquity began to work in his days: for first the manifold heresies whilk were sown in the primitive Kirk, whereof the Popes of Rome hes renewed a great many: as shall be proved heirafter, was the first step to that Antichristian kingdom. Next, the loving of preeminence in the Ministry, over their brethren, as the scripture testifies of Diotrephes, who loved preeminence, 3. of John, verse. 9. and specially the aspiring of the Bishops of Rome to a domination and lordship over their brethren forbidden by Christ, whilk was manifestly kythed in Pope Victor, who did take upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of Asia, for a light dissention of the celebration of Easter, Anno 198. And in others, as Cornelius, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine Popes, who did receive to their Communion those who were excommunicate in Africa, was the second step. Thirdly, if it be true that these impious and superstitious decreits whilk your Kirk ascriues to the Popes of Rome before Constantine, be theirs: as is not lykelie that such superstitions did creip into the Kirk of Christ it being under persecution: then, I say, the Popes of Rome even before Sylvester by their superstitious decreits, made a further entry to that Antichristian kingdom. And because the Roman Empire, was the let that hindered Antichrist to step up to his throne: and the cietie of Rome behooved to be his seat: therefore Constantine the great leaving the cietie of Rome to Sylvester the Bishop of Rome, made yet the way more easy: till at the last, they first got the primacy of honor, next of authority and jurisdiction over their brethren: and then last of all did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperors unto them. The whilk they did not attain unto at the first, but piece and piece: and that not without long and great resistance, both of the Kirk, (as I have proved before) condemning his Monarchy in all ages; and of the Emperors, as we shall see heirafter. And as they ever grew in their superiority, so did the purity of the Kirk of Christ decay: and as a pest infects not a kingdom all at once, but piece and piece: so did your Antichristian heresy: it infected not all at once, but piece and piece, till at the last it went over all. While as then Marchistoun makes the beginning of his reign to be in the 316. year of God, and the Kirk from thence to become invisible: his meaning is, that then that let whilk the Apostle speaks of, was begun to be removed, 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 Lord did scatter that darkness by the light of his Gospel whilk came to pass in our days.

Master Gilbert Brown.

The Kirk that is set down to us in the word of God, can no way be invisible: for when the holy write speaks of the Kirk of Christ, it speaks of an visible number of men and women: and no ways of Angels or spirits, as may be seen in these examples on the margent.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

I come now to your arguments. First you say that the kirk that is set down to us in the word of God can no ways be invisible, because say ye, when it speaks of the Kirk, it speaks of a visible number of men and women, and no ways of Angels or spirits: I answer, this is most false: for the Scripture sets down to us that Kirk whilk is the body of Christ, and whereof he is the head and Savior, and whilk is built on the rock, whilk is called the congregation of the first borne, whose names are written in heaven, and that Jerusalem whilk is the mother of us all. And this is the Catholic Kirk whilk comprehends all the elect, as well triumphant as militant, whilk is invisible for the respects before said, as I have proved. And suppose the elect that are heir militant may be seen as they are men, and oft times also in respect of their outward profession: yet it follows not but y ^t they are invisible in so far as they are a part of the Catholic Kirk. And also that sometimes through the extremity of persecution, they may be latent and lurk, so that they are not openly visible & known to all, as I have said 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 speak all of particular Kirks, whilk we grant unto you are visible, suppose not ay alike, as hes been proved. As for the 16. of Matthew, it speaks of the kirk of the chosen, for they only are built upon this rock, and against whom the gates of Hell prevails not: and they are invisible in respect before said, as hes been proved. As for the 18. of Matthew, it is quoted afterward: therefore I refer the answer of it unto that place.

Master Gilbert Brown.

The Scripture also in many places compares the Kirk to visible things that cannot be vn seen. As, He hes placed his Tabernacle in the Sun, A cietie cannot be hid set on a mountain. It is also compared to a light set on a Candle-stick to lighten the whole house, and not to be put under a bed, or a bushel; with many the like whilk I have omitted for brevities cause, saving some noted on the margent. Moreover our Savior commands us to complain to the Kirk if our brother offend us: and also, we ought to join our selves to the true Kirk, or else we cannot have remission of our sins. But how can a man complain to it, if it cannot be seen? or join himself to it, if it be invisible? The Kirk of Christ may never want the true preaching of the word and right administration of the Sacraments: but these things are always visible, because by the Ministers they are the signs and marks of the Kirk: therefore the true Kirk may be always known by them. To be short, not only the word of God affirms the Kirk to be always visible, as I have noted before: but also the ancient Fathers in all their works, as partly I have marked also.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for the 18. Psalm, it speaks not of the visibility of the Kirk there: but of the Lord's wonderful and glorious works & especially, in disponing such a glorious place or Tabernacle, or throne, to the Sun to shine in, the whilk demonstrates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustine's exposition, it results of the corrupted old translation, whilk was not taken from the Hebrew fountain, but from the version of the Septuagint's: therefore Pagninus, Vatablus, and Arias Montanus a Papist, and Tremellius expones it not so, but after the Hebrew. Secondly, he means not heir of the Catholic Kirk, but of particular Kirks, whilk were exceeding far enlarged in his days: but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist, as it was foretold, & your Kirk acknowledges. As for the 5. of Matthew, 15.16. there, not the Catholic Kirk, but the Pastors of particular Kirks are compared to this light, whilk is set up in the Candle-stick, and to the cietie set up upon the hill top, whilk cannot be hid, that is the eyes of all is on them: and therefore they should be so much the more walk-rife and careful, 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 prophecy of the greatness and clearness 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 stability and perpetuity of Christ's kingdom. But yet it follows not but both the Catholic Kirk is invisible, as I said before, and that the visible Kirks may be obscured and darkened, as it was foretold in the time of the Antichrist. As for the the 18. of Matthew, Go tell the Kirk, &c. The Kirk is heir taken for the Pastors and governors of particular Kirks, whilk we grant are visible: but yet it follows not, but that both they and the professors may be obscured & darkened, either through heresy, or through extreme persecution, or through both together, as it was foretold in the time of the Antichrist, and hes been fulfilled by your Kirk. As for the true Kirk unto whom we should join our selves. I answer. We can have no salvation unless we join our selves first to the Catholic Kirk, that is, unto Jesus and his members by a spiritual communion, out with the whilk there is no salvation. Next, unto some particular visible Kirk, by the outward communion of the word and Sacraments, &c. if we know it, and possibly can join our selves unto it: for if either we know it not, or may not, as these 7000. that bowed not their knee to Baal, then I say, salvation is not perilled. As for your last reason, the true Kirk may never want the true preaching of the word, and right administration of the sacraments, I answer, first, there is not the like necessity of the Sacraments as there is of the word: next, suppose they have it, & thereby are known amongst themselves, and some of them also to their adversaries: yet it follows not that they are so openlie visible, that they are patent and known to all. As for example: there is no questiō but these 7000. that did not bow their knee to Baal, and these 100. Prophets who was hid in the caves, and the Apostles when all were scattered through that persecution, as Luke testifies, had the exercise of the word amongst them. And it is not likely that the Apostles wanted some to teach, suppose they were not known to all: no not to their persecutors: otherwise they would have been persecuted. And siklike we doubt not, but in the time of Queen Mary's persecution in England, and in other partes under that Antichristian tyranny but the Lord had his own both Pastor & people, amongst whom the truth was preached, suppose neither we, nor their adversaries knew them all: for it is oft times for the safety of the Kirk to lurk, and to be hid, that she may escape the fury and rage of her enemies. As for Augustine, Cyprian, Origen, Ch • ysostome, and Jerome whilk ye quote heir, they speak either of the perpetuitye & eternity of the Catholic Kirk, or else of the largeness and clearness of the particular Kirks whilk were in those days whilk is neither against the inuisibility of the Catholic kirk nor yet against the obscure estate and small handful of the Kirk of Christ, whereunto she should be brought in the days of the Antichrist, as was fore-told by the Scripture, and fulfilled in your Papistical kingdom. For we grant that in their days the Kirks of Christ was frequent & glorious, but yet they did not ay remain in that estate. For the Kirks of the East are almost overthrown 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 been redacted to a small handful, as hes been said.

Master John Welsche.

Last of all I will set you down the names of these worthy men, that in the midst of Popery spake against their errors, and preached the same Religion that we preach. I will but only name a few 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 Clergy of Rome was become the whore of Babylon, fore spoken in the Revelation: this was 400. years past. In the year of our Lord 1160 one Waldus a Citizen in Lions in France, with a great number taught that same doctrine whilk we teach now, condemned the Mass to be wicked the Pope to be the Antichrist, and Rome to be Babylon. They were persecuted by the Pope, & remained long in Bohemia. In he year 1112, the Pope caused an hundred persons in the country of Alsatia, whereof many were noble men, to be burnt in one day, for the maintaining of that same doctrine that we now maintain against the Kirk of Rome. About the year of our Lord 1230. almost all the Kirks of the Grecians whilk with the rest of the Kirks of Asia and Africa, who doth not acknowledge the supremacy of your Pope, are moe then the Kirks of Europe, who submits themselves to him, did all renounce the Pope, and the Romish Kirk, because of their execrable simony and Idolatry, in the year 1240. In the country of Sueuia there were many preachers that taught freely against the Pope, and affirmed he and his Clergy were heretics and Simoniacks, in the year 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 heretic, about the same time. Gulielmus de Sancto Amore, Master & chief ruler of that University, taught that all the testimonies of the Scripture, spoken of the Antichrist, should be applied to the Pope and his Clergy, and so taught them to be the Antichrist, and the whore of Babel, anno 1290. Laurence an Englishman and Master of the Vniuersi • ie in Paris, proved mightily that the Pope was the Antichrist, and his Clergy the synagogue of Babylon. About the same time Robertus Gallus a man of noble parentage, taught the Pope was an Idole, and said the judgment of God would fall upon him, and his Clergy. Because I have no time to write the doctrine of the rest that spake against the Pope. I will but note their persons, Robert Grosshed John Geyll • s, ane preaching Frier, anno 1253. Gregory Ariminensis, Franciscus de Rupe Scissa, Taulerus in Germany, Gerhardus Rhidit, Michael de Cesena, Petras de Carbona, and Johannes do Poliaco. Johannes Rithetalanda, anno 1360. Armachanus the archbishop in Ireland 1360 Nicholas Orem, Matthias Parisiensis, Nile archbishop of Thessalonica, John Wiclef, and the Lord Cobham, and sundry others.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Master John hes set down heir a number of obscure and infamous persons, for the moste parte justly condemned for heresies, without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he allege • : and all two hundredth year before Calvin began their Religion, or thereabout. Of the whilk I contend not, whether they spake against the Pope, or not. For all heretics from the beginning hes barked against the Pope: but our contention is, whether such heads of Religion, as they denied, were heresies, or not? whilk as yet Master John hes not proved, nor is not able to defend these, whom he calls, his worthy men: for appearandly by this all heretics are worthy men by him, albeit they be not of his Religion in all things.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You calumniat our Religion of novelty, and says Martin Luther began it anno 1517. Unto the whilk I answered, that our Religion hes Christ Jesus in the old and new Testament to be the author thereof, and hes the primitive Kirk many hundredth years there-after, to be the teachers and professors thereof, the whilk I have proved already by some examples, and that even till the smoke of that Antichristian darkness of yours did overspread all, as it was foretold by the holy Ghost. At the whilk time also the Lord did reserve his own elect to himself, even these hundredth forty and four thousand, whilk did not bow their knees to your Baal, as it was fore-prophesied: whereof also a great many is recorded in histories, and of whom I set down some examples heir. Upon the whilk I reason: That Religion whilk is warranted by the Scriptures, and professed in the primitive Kirk, &c. and hes sundry that taught and professed it, and that even in the midst of Popery, when it was at the hight thereof; is not a new Religion, nor invented by Martin Luther: but ours is such, as hes been proved: therefore unrighteous and blasphemous must ye be, who slanders the Lord's truth & Religion of novelty, and fathers it upon flesh and blood, whereof he is the author. Your answer to the first two, we have examined: now let us see your answer to this: first you say they are obscure men, I answer: If you call them obscure because they wanted the outward glory, wealth, and renown of this world: then, suppose it were so, yet have they Jesus Christ the Prince of life, who was called a Carpenters son: and his Prophets, of whom some were heard mē and his Apostles who were fisher-men: and his Kirk who consists not of many wise, mighty, or noble, but of the foolish, weak and vile 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 indeed your Popes and Clergy are not obscure: for they have the wealth and glory of the world. But as Bernard said to the Pope, In this they succeed not to Christ or Peter, but to Constantine. But they receive their good things in this life with the riche glutton, and therefore they must receive their pain with him in the life to come. But why do you call these obscure whom I named heir? are not some of them Friers, some of them Prouincials of gray • riers, some of them Masters and rulers of Universities: some of them excellently learned, whilk your own Kirk cannot deny: some of them Bishops, and Arch-bishops: some of them noble men: And some of them, as namely the Greek and Eastern Kirks, in number, learning purity of doctrine, and godliness, far exceeding your Papistical Kirk. Who is worthy 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 Master Gilbert, more noble personages who hes resisted your Popes Monarchy. As K. Philip le bel of France, the Prelates of France joining with him in his dominions, about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third, King of England despised the Popes curse, & appealed from him to God, about the year of God 1346. And also sundry Emperors, as Constantine the fifth, Leo his son, and Constantine the sext in the East, and Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. and Frederick the seconde in the West. Will you call these Kings and Princes of the whole world, obscure men? So all sorts of men, Master Gilbert, both rich and poor, Princes and subjects, and these also within your own bowels being overcome with the strength of the truth of God, hes spoken against your Religion. Why you call them infamous and heretics, justly condemned I know not, except it be because they taught and professed the truth of God, & condemned your Antichristian idolatry and abominations. But all are not infamous and heretics whom ye call so: and surly if murderers, heretics, adulterers, Sodomites, open bargainers with the Devil, and the vile monsters of the earth, is to be called obscure, infamous, and heretics: then your Popes are to be called so, who of all men that ever the earth hes born, hes been the vilest monsters & heretics, as I have proved in my other treatise, concerning the Mass and the Antichrist.

You say next that you contend not whether ye have spoken against the Pope or not, for all heretics hes ever barked against him, and that sore against your heart, (Master Gilbert ) because you cannot deny but ye have taught this doctrine with us: and if it be so (Master Gilbert ) that these men and Kirks and many thousand more of all sortes hes taught this doctrine with us many hundredth years before Martin Luther, for the first two whilk I named was almost 400. year before him: then why were you so shameless both to write it & also speak it, to blind your poor countrymen to their and yours damnation that our religion was begun by Martin Luther, & never professed before him. So leave off (Master Gilbert ) to beguile the simple and ignorant people with this sottish and blasphemous reason of yours, ( Martin Luther is the author of our religion) for now you are enforced to grant the contrary that infinite numbers hes taught the same doctrine before him. The truth is too strong for you (Master Gilbert ) that compels you to grant the thing that ye would wish with all your heart the people never knew it: but comfort yourself (Master Gilbert ) for the truth will be victorious at the last, and your darkness daily more and more will be discovered. Indeed the least stroke that ye can give for the defense of your Pope is to call them all heretics who hes spoken against him, for I grant the Pope and his Clergy is not such fools, as being their own Judges to condemn them selves, and to justify them, who not only hes taught it, but also sufficiently did prove it, and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist, & his Kirk Babel. But with them, they have the son of God, & the Apostles, Paul and John heretics: for they also did condemn his Idolatry, and tyranny, and errors. But where about now will ye contend (Master Gilbert? ) ye say whether their doctrine be heresy or not? I would you and your Kirk would stand upon this, and give over all your other contentions whill this were first proved, whether their doctrine in so far as they aggree with ours: & ours, in so far as it dissents from yours, be heresy or not, that is, be against the scripture or not, the whilk if you would do, then I hope our contentions would soon be ended. But for as fast as you run to this now, you will flee from it as fast again, when we desire to have yours & our doctrine, tried by the Scriptures whilk of them is heresy: and consequently, whether ye or we be heretics? And therefore you ever refuse to let your doctrine be tried by the scripture, but runs to your pretended antiquity, and successions, Councils, and lying miracles, & many other vain starting holes, like a wild Fox, when he is hunted out of one hole he flies to another, and dare never abide the fair fields. And mark their craft, reader, when we affirm that our religion hes Jesus Christ to be the author of it in the Scriptures, as we offer to prove the same, ye refuse this trial by the Scriptures, and says that Martin Luther invented our religion, and we had none that professed it, and taught it before him. When we again reply that we had sundry of all sortes many hundred years before him, even when your Kingdom was at the hight, and produces their names, they not being able to deny it, they slyp from that again, and says they contend not whether there was such that taught such doctrine or not: but they contend whether that was truth or heresy: so they run from one starting hole to another. But I will ask you (Master Gilbert ) if it be proved that this their doctrine was not heresy, will you contend anymore then, shall the pley cease then? will you ever slander our religion of novelty in saying Martin Luther was the first that began it, and we had none who professed before him: but you will say, this you have not proved? It is true I had not proved it then; but now I hope I have proved it sufficiently that your Popes are the Antichrist, & your Rome Babel, whilk was one of the principal heads of the doctrine whilk ye taught, and sundry others also. Disproue you it if you can (Master Gilbert. )

Master Gilbert Brown.

But, he says, they preached the same Religion that he preaches, &c. Let Master John name any of these his Doctors, that he will abide at in Religion, and I shall let him see, that he was not of his Religion in all things. For that is the thing that we say, that albeit Master John and his brethren have renewed many old condemned heresies of heretics: yet they were not of their religion in all things. And therefore this that Master John calls the only truth, was never professed in all heads, as it is now in Scotland, before in no country, no not by any one man, let be by a number, whilke thing Master Robert Bruse grants himself in his sermons, in these words: And God hes chosen a few hearts in this country, where he hes begun his dwelling place, for God dwells now in the harts and consciences of his own by his holy Spirit. And surely so hes he dwelt with us these thirty years, in such purity, that he hes not done the like with no nation in the earth, he hes not remained with any nation without error and heresy so long, as he hes done with us, &c. So God dwelt in no place without error and heresy the space of 10, year whill now in Scotland.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

But you say, they dissent from us in some things, and is not of our Religion in all things. Wherunto I answer: that suppose this were true, yet it will not follow but that they are of our religion, seeing they and we do aggree in the main foundations thereof. For we have learned to call them brethren, whilk do hold the foundation, as the Apostle says, suppose they have built haye, straw, or timber upon the same. Otherwise, if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure us, if you will have none to be accounted of your religion, but these only that professes with you in all things, as your Kirk does now: then not only (by your reason) shall ye want the Lord Jesus, his Apostles, the primitive Kirk, as ye do indeed: and that not only in the first 600. year, but long after, till the thousand year: & long after that also, to be of your profession: because not only the weightiest points of your doctrine hes not their original in the Scripture, and are unwritten Traditions, by the testimony of some of yourselves: but also sundry points of your religion hes been brought in after these days, being unknown in the former ages, as yourselves will not deny, and I have proved in some heads, in the other part concerning the Mass. Yea, you shall want all the Fathers by this reason of yours. For there is not one of them but they have their own errors, whilk ye yourselves will not defend: and the most part of thē are with us against you, in many things, whilk you cannot deny: and that whilk is more, ye shall want almost, all the general Councils, except three or four, & many of your own Popes, Doctors Bishops, Cardinals, and Jesuits: for not only hes some of them had errors, and some of them been heretics by your whole confessions: but also some of them have been with us in some points against you, as I have proved before, so that I need not repeat thē now. As for example, Pope Gregory affirms that the books of the Maccabees are Apocrypha: and so hes sundry others of your Clergy, as Sixtus Senensis, Caietanus, Arias Montanus, Nugo Cardinalis, against you and with us in the books of Apocrypha. Gelasius is against your Transubstantiation, also against your Communion under one kind: and Pope Adrian the 6. against this, that the Pope cannot err and teach heresies. Panormitane against this, that it is not lawful to Ministers to marry after their ordination. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis, c. 19. Michael Bai, Gerson, & Roffensis all Papists, against your venial sins. Abulensis and Durand & Peresius Papists, against your making of the Images of the Trinity. A great many of you, as Alexander, Thomas, Cajetan, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almayn, Carthusianus, and Capreolus teaches, that that same worship should be given to the image, whilk is given to that whilk the image represents: and yet Durand, and Alphonsus à Castro, & others is against this: therefore either the one or the other is not of your religion. And ye yourself if ye be measured by this measure, is not a right Papist, because you dissent from many of them in many things as hes been proved before. And certainly, Master Gilbert, if this reason of yours hold forth, you shall cut off from your profession such a number of Popes, Councils, Jesuits, Cardinals, & Doctors frō your religiō, that it is to be feared, that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholic faith, yea from being a member of their synagogue, that for the defense thereof is compelled to cut off so many from the same. And secondly, I say, your reports concerning their doctrine, is not to be credited, but their own apologies and writings, whereby it appears that it hes been always your fashion, the more to discredit them, to charge them with a number of absurd opinions, whilk they never held. As for example, you charge heir Waldus and his followers to have had their wives, and all other things common, whilk is your calumny of them, and not their practice, or doctrine. For Gulielmus Parvus writes that their life was commendable, & Reinerus in his book of inquisitions, one of your own religion, a writer of 300. years ago, who was often at the examination of them, as he himself says, confesses that they had great show of holy life, and that they believed all things well of God, and all the articles contained in the Creed, and lived justly before men: and 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 believe all things well of God, nor yet to have a show of holy life, and to live justly before men: and also they were of our religion in all things.

And where you say that we renew many old condemned heresies: I answer, that neither the doctrine whilk I affirmed they taught heir was heresies, nor yet themselves heretics. But you and your Kirk who hes condemned them for the truth of God, and hes renewd old condemned heresies, as shall be proved afterward. And we have renewd no heresy at all, but only the truth of God whilk your Kirk hes obscured and buried. Therefore your conclusion is false, that our religion was never professed in all points as it is now in Scotland before in no country, no not, say you, by any one man. For it was taught & professed by Christ and his Apostles, and also by all the primitive Kirks in their days, 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 prove by their writings, and I have proved the same in sundry heads heir. Next, the substance thereof was continued many hundredth years in the Kirks of Christ, whill partly by the heresies that sprang up (for the popple was soon sown among the good seed, and the mystery of iniquity began to work in the Apostles days) and partly by the Mahomet, & partly by the darkness of Popery, it was corrupted piece & piece. And what difference can you find between the religion that the Waldenses professed, and us; if ye will give credit to their Apologies, and Reinerus testimonies of them? As for Master Robert Bruses testimony whilk ye produce, it serves no ways to confirm your purpose: but seeing ye abuse the testimonies of Scripture, it is no wonder suppose ye abuse the testimonies of men. For it is most true whilk he affirms that the truth of God hes continued for that space in this kingdom without heresy or schism, as we never read it did in any nation in the earth, in such purity without heresy and schism for such a long space. And yet it follows not but he hes dwelt in sundry Kirks in such purity before, suppose not so long together, whilk you omit in your conclusion. Doth it follow by his testimony, but that our religion hes been preached & professed in all true Kirks, in all points, suppose not so long in such purity, as it is in Scotland? neither doth it follow but that the substantial and main points of our religion hes been professed in all Christian Kirks, longer nor that space, suppose mixed either with some heresies or schisms. So you must coin a new logic (Master Gilbert ) before ye can confirm your proposition by his testimony.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But heir it is to be noted also, that Master John can find none before the year of Christ 1158. that said against the Pope and his religion, & none immediately before Luther, the space of an 100. year and more. So the Kirk was without his Doctors, elleuen hundredth year and fifty, or thereabout. And siklike Martin Luther had no predecessors to whom he succeeded in his Religion.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

You note two things here whilk are both false: the one that I can find none that said against the Pope and his religion before the year of Christ 1158. for our Savior and his Apostles and sundry learned Fathers in all ages, and councils, both general and provincial: and sum of your own doctors and Popes, hes spoken against the Monarchy of your Pope, and your doctrine & religion, as I have proved before. And Reinerus a man of your own religion testifies that some said the Waldenses who had the same religion whilk we proses, was continued from Siluesters days, who lived about the 320. year of God. And some said that it continued even from the Apostles days: therefore the first is false. The second thing is, that I can find none before Luther immediatlye the space of 100. years and more. I see you are not ashamed to speak anything for the defense of your Kingdom, were it never so manifestly false: for it appears that either ye are not acquainted with the histories of that age, or else ye dissemble it of purpose: for John Wickles he left so many behind him in England who professed our religion, that though your Prelates did molest them what they could, yet they & their favorers in short time grew to such strength & multitude, that by the year 1422. (whilk was 100. years immediately before Luther) Henry Chichesley the Arch-bishop of Canterbury writ to the Pope, that they all could not be suppressed they were so many, but by force of war. The professors of our religion began to gather so great force in Bohemia after the burning of John Hus, and Jerome of Prague at the council of Constance, whilk was about the year 1417. (whilk was just ane hundredth year immediately before Luther ) that they were able not only to defend themselves by force of arms against the tyranny of your Popes, but also obtained many notable victories, against the strongest power that the Pope did raise against them. In England William Tailor, was burned, anno 1422, and two years after that William White was burnt. And betwixt that time, and 1430. Father Abraham of Colchester, John Wadden, and Richard Houington were burnt. And after that, Richard Wiche, and John Goose, one Braban, and one Jerome, and others with him were burnt. Hieronymus Sauonarola, a Monk in Italy, with two others, named Dominick and Sylvester, were condemned to death at Florence, in the year 1500, with sundry others whom for shortness I omit heir. Now surly, I cannot but wonder, Master Gilbert, that ye should have been so impudent as to have set it down in write, that I could get none that professed our Religion, an hundredth year immediately before Martin Luther. But the reader may gather what credit he may give to your notes: and yet with such impudent lies ye blind the poor people. Upon the whilk I gather, that both these conclusions of yours, is false. For the Kirk of Christ in all ages, even from the Apostles days to this day, hes ever had her own teachers and professors, (unto whom Martin Luther hes succeeded in his religion) suppose not in the like frequency and purity, and that by reason partly of the smoke of that bottomless pit, that is of your doctrine, whilk darkened both the Sun and the air, that is, both teachers and people: and partly by your extreme persecutiō, whereby ye made war with the Saints of God and overcame them. But your smoke will euanishe away at the last, and the clear light of the Lord shall shine more and more, maugre all your hearts.

Master Gilbert Brown.

But that Master John shall not think that we slander him and his with old condemned heresies, let him read S. Augustine, Epiphanius, and others noted on the margent as of these, and many the like.

1 Novatus forsook the Pope of Rome Cornelius, and caused others do the like, as Eusebius and Nicephorus reports.

2 Arius the heretic denied that offering or prayers should be done for the dead, & that fasting should be free, as S. Augustine & Epiph declares.

3 Eunoninus and Arius held that only Faith justifieth, as Augustine and Epiphanius writes.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Now are we, by God's grace, come unto your last calumny, in affirming that we renew old condemned heresies. This is indeed (Master Gilbert ) a heavy challenge, if it were true: but it is but like the rest of your calumnies: yea, it hes less appearance of truth, nor anything whilk ye have spoken against us. Alyar, Master Gilbert, shall not enter in that heavenly cietie, but his portion shall be in that lake that burns with fire and brimstone, and he that slandereth his neighbor (much more then be who slandereth the truth of God) shall not rest in the Lord's holy mountain. But to come to the first, Novatus intruded himself in another man's charge, and caused set up himself against Cornelius the lawful Pastor in the Kirk in Rome then, & that craftily: and withdrew many of his flock from him, whilk is as contrary to our doctrine, as black to white. For we teach that every pastor should have his own particular flock, as Cornelius had then in Rome, and no man should intrude himself in another man's charge, as he did. So this is a calumny, Master Gilbert. But your Popes are like Novatus, who not only hes disturbed all the Christian congregations in Europe almost, by setting up and thrusting down such Pastors as he would, but also all the kingdoms in Europe. As for this doctrine of Arius, I answer 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 heresy or not, whilk you have not proved, nor ever will be able to prove by the Scripture. It is true Epiphamus, & Augustine following him, reckons him amongst heretics, but Theodoretus in his book de fabulis Iudaerum, and the Ecclesiastical history reckons him not amongst heretics: and he was not condemned for an heretic in any Council: that therefore whilk he taught according to the Scripture we embrace. But as for the errors of the Acrians, whilk are errors in deed, and whilk are ascriued unto them, as the damning of marriage, urging of continency, requyring them whom they receive to their fellowship to forsake their own proper things: these heresies, I say, your Kirk hes renewed, who damns marriage, and vrges continency in your Clergy, and receives none to your religious orders, but such as refuses their own proper things. As to the third, the Aetian and Eunomian heresies, they secluded holiness of life from that faith of theirs, and taught such a faith that might stand with whatsoever sins, and with perseverance in them. Will you stand to this (Master Gilbert ) before the Lord, that we teach such doctrine? Is not this our doctrine, that only living faith whilk works by love, & brings forth good fruits doth justify? But you are like to them that knows no other justifying faith, but such a faith, as both the reprobates and the Devils may have. So this is your third calumny.

Master Gilbert Brown.

4 Simon Magus, Marcion and Manichaeus denied that man had Fre-will as S. Augustine, S. Jerome, and Epiphanius makes mention.

5 Iouinianus affirmed, that Priests marriage was lawful, after the lawful vow of chastity. He moved sundry Nuns to marry in the cietie of Rome He made fasting and abstinence from meat superfluous, as S. Augustine writes of him.

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

Julian the Apostate, was of the same opinion, as Cyrillus declares. The same Julian despised the image of Christ and his Saints, as the forsaid Cyrillus makes mention.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As to this fourth heresy, they took away all the liberty & freedom of the Will in man, but this is not our doctrine. For we affirm that man hes a liberty and freedom in his Will in natural, moral and sinful actions: but not in these things whilk pleases God, before he be renewed. This is your fourth calumny.

As for the fifth, Jovinian taught, as Augustine and Jerome sets it down, and Bellarmine reports, that the married estate was equal with Virginitie. Unto the whilk we answer, that true and undefiled Virginity we prefer always, as the more noble and excellent gift in them to whom it is given: but we doubt not to say, but that marriage is better in them, that cannot contain. And generally we dar prefer the honest marriage of Christians, before the proud & feigned virginity of many Monastical votaries, as Augustine says, Lowlie and humble marriage is better then proud and haughty virginity. As to the second point, he affirmed indeed that the choice of meats and fasting was no merit, and this is no heresy: But if this be heresy, then the doctrine of the Scripture is heresies: for it teaches us that life everlasting is the free gift of God: as hes been proved before. This is your fifth calumny.

As for the sixth of Vigilantius heresies, if the denying of prayer to be made to Saints be an heresy, then it is an old heresy: for it is the Lord's who is the ancient of days, for this is his doctrine: call upon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee. And let Augustine also go for an heretic who says that the Saints are not called upon. As for the dispysing of the burning of lights and candles in the Kirks in the day time, I know not to what use it serves, except to be a sign that ye are blinded of the Lord, who in the midst of the day, lights your candles: did Jesus Christ or his Apostles so? And this was the custom of Pagans, whilk you have taken from them. Irenaeus lib. 6. cap. 2. As for the despising of the relics of Martyrs: if he despised these, then he erred: for we both teach & practice that the bodies of the Saints should be 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 heretic in this, but you are heretics and idolaters who express contrary the commandment of God, doth worship the creature. And Vigilantius was no heretic, nor his opinions condemned as heresies, only there was a hot contention between him and Jerome. And as for Iuliane, he calumniated the Christians that they adored dead men for God's, and the tree of the croce. Unto whom Cyrillus answered that they adored not the sign of the croce, but God only. So this was but Julian's calumny against them. But if he had lived in your days he might justly have objected it unto you.

Master Gilbert Brown.

7 Valentinus the heretic denied the very body of Christ to be in the sacrament, as Irenaus says.

8 Simon Magus, Marcion, and the Manichees held, that God compelled man both to do evil and good, as S. Augustine, Vincentius Lar • nensi • , S Clement of Rome, and • piphanius hes in then works whilk is the doctrine of the most learned of the Protestants, as Melanchthon, Calvin, BeZa and others.

9 The Novatians denied Penance, as S. Augustine affirms.

10 The Manichees denied the necessity of Baptism, as the same S. Augustine reports.

11 Arius, Eustachius, and the Manichees condemned fasting days ordained by the Kirk, as Leo, Epiphanius, the council of Gangra, and as S Augustine records.

12 The Manichees used to fast on the Sunday only, as S. Augustine, & S Leo witnesses Read for this also Council. Gang cap. 13. & de consecrate. dist. 3. Ne quis. Ignatius ad Philip. de consecrate. distinct. 3. Ieiunium.

13 The Pepusians and Collyridians denied holy orders, and made it no Sacrament, as S. Augustine and Epiphanius writes.

14 The Pelagians denied that confession should be made to a Priest, as our Chronicle writer testifies. They deny also that Baptism was neidfull to bairnes or infants, as S Augustine reports.

15 The Donatists denied the order of Monks, and other religious persons, as S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom writes.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Whether Valentinus taught so or not, I contend not: but the question is of this doctrine, of the real presence, whether it be contrary to God's word, or not; the whilk I have proved sufficiently before in the fourth point of doctrine: and so the denying of it is no heresy. But yet it appears not by this testimony of Irenaeus, whilk ye cite heir, that he taught such doctrine.

As for the 8. heresy, it is a calumny to ascriue it to us, for Melanchthon, Calvin, and Beza hes no such doctrine. You are not ashamed, Master Gilbert, of impudent lying.

As for the 9. of Novatus heresy, that is a calumny to ascriue it to us. I or Novatus denied that there was any place of repentance to these, who after they were baptized, fell from the faith, by ony infirmity, or violence of persecution, as Epiphanius testifies of him that he said, No man who hes fallen after Baptism can anymore obtain mercy. But our doctrine is contrary to this: for we teach that there is place to repentance for any sin, except the sin against the holy Ghost, whilk is ever punished with final impenitence.

As for the 10. of the Manichees heresy, their doctrine was as Augustine says there, that Baptism served nothing for salvation to any: and that none, who followed their sect, should be baptized. and therefore they brought in a contempt of Baptism, whilk is contrary 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 contemn not fastings that are appointed by the Kirk, for lawful causes: but we deny that they should be tied to certain and prefixed days, as your Kirk does: and we think it no heresy to fast on the Lord's day, more then other days: both to stir up our repentance, and to make us more meet to holy and spiritual exercises, because it is not contrary to the word of God. As for Leo his Epistle, it is wrong quoted, for it should be Epist. 91. and there fasting on the Lord's day is not like ours: for they fasted on the Lord's day, because they believed not that Christ was a true man, as Leo in that same place testifies whilk you will not say yourself that we do, for we acknowledge him to be a true man.

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

As for the 14. heresy of the Pelagians, if they denied that these who were accused of any scandalous offense, & guilty thereof; should make their confession of it to God, his Ministers, & the Congregation, for to take away the offense of it, then they erred, and our doctrine and practice condemns this: but if they denied the absolute necessity of your auricular confessions, then is it no error, because there is na such thing commanded in the whole Scriptures of God. Now as for the testimony of Boetius, I have not seen it. As for their second heresy concerning Baptism, they taught, as Augustine reports in that place, that Baptism was not needful to children, because they were borne without original sin, as they taught whilk is an heresy indeed: but this is a calumny to ascriue it to us, for we teach that children are borne in original sin, and so should be baptized. And surly this heresy rather aggrees to you, who teaches that Marie was not borne in original sin, and therefore she needed not to be baptized.

As for the last of the Donatists, denying the order of Monks. I answer: first, your Papistical and Idolatrous Monks, are far different from these whilk Augustine and Chrysostom defended, and these of the Primitive Kirk. For first they were bound to no prescript form of diet, apparel, or anything else, by solemn vows of willful poverty, and perpetual cōtinencie, as yours are, next, the former Monks remained in the order of private men, and laicks, and had nothing to do with Ecclesiastical charges, whilk was afterward broken by Pope Boniface the 4. anno 606. But yours are not so: they have Ecclesiastical charges, and are more then private men. And last of all, suppose their kind of life was mixed with some superstition, for the envious man sone sowed the popple amongst the good seed, and the mystery of iniquity began sone to work: yet their religion was not defiled with Idolatry, worshipping of Images, prayers to Saints, opinion of merit, the sacrifice of the Mass, and other abominations wherewith your Papistical Monks are defiled. Next I say, these Monks and religious orders of yours, hes not their foundation within the four corners of the Scripture of God.

Master Gilbert Brown.

These and many the like new renewed heresies by the Ministers, was old condemned heresies in the primitive Kirk of the former heretics, as testifies the ancient Fathers: and therefore this is a true argument. What ever was heresy in old times is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics, as they were of old: but these former heads that I have set down, with many the like was heresies in old times, and the defenders thereof heretics, as testifies the ancient Fathers: Therefore they are heresies yet, & the defenders thereof heretics.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Now here was all the cause (Christian reader) that made (Master Gilbert ) so oft to cry out of us, that we renewed old condemned heresies, whereof some are such as we our selves condemn, and some are such whilk do better aggree unto themselves, nor unto us: & some heresies he forceth upon us whilk we never taught nor maintained: and some are such whilk are not heresies indeed, but aggreable to the Scriptures of God. So that if we err in these, suffer us to err with Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Now to answer to your argument whilk ye bring. What ever was heresy in old times, is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics. I answer, if ye define heresy to be an error obstinately maintained against the Scriptures of God: I grant your proposition. But if ye define heresies in general, to be whatsomeuer any one Father or Doctor, or some more hes rebuked as an heresy; then I deny it, for sundry of the fathers hes maintained errors themselves against the Scripture, and hes accused some doctrine to be heresies, whilk hes been aggreeable to the truth of God, whilk you will not deny, I hope. For if you would, I could prove it both of the Fathers, Councils, and your own Popes. Now to your assumption. But these former heads, say ye, whilk ye have set down with many the like was heresies in old times, and the defenders thereof heretics, as testifieth the ancient Fathers. I answer that some of these are heresies indeed, and we abhor and condemn them more nor ye, and some of these as falsely laid to our charge, and some of these are not heresies indeed, but aggreable to the Scripture. And therefore, your conclusion falls not upon us, who hes renewed no old condemned heresy, and therefore is not heretics. And where you say many other like. I answer: It is true they are like, for they are both calumnies and horrible untruths, and lies as these hes been, whereof one day ye shall make answer to the great God that Iudgeth the quick and the dead. But the pit whilk you •• gged for others you have fallen in it yourself: for certainly in this you do as thieves does, who the better to eschew the crime of theft whilk is justly laid to their charge, and that they may the more easily escape in a fraye, doth cry out and shout out upon others, common thieves, common thieves. Even so do you: for these crimes whereof ye are guilty yourselves you falsely charge us with. Therefore that all men may se that you are the men who hes renewed the old condemned heresies, I will not do, as ye have done to us, that is either to lay to your charge such heresies as ye maintain not, or such things to be heresies whilk are not heresies indeed, whilk ye did to us. But in this I will deal sincearelye with you, feigning nothing neither of them nor of you.

1. Simoniani, worshipped the image of Simon and Selenes, whose heresy they followed: so doeth your religious orders worship the image of these, who were first authors of their orders.

2. The Basilidians worshipped Images, and used inuocations, so do you.

3. Carpocrates had some painted Images in great estimation, both of others, as also of Christ: So do the Papists paint Christ, and says that his form was painted by Luke the Evangelist.

4. The old Idolaters did excuse their idolatry, that they did not worship the Images, but the thing represented by the image: so do you excuse your idolatry.

5. It was the custom of the old idolaters to afflict and whip their own bodies, that they might please their own God's, so do some of you now.

6. It was their custom also to light candles at noon days, in the time of their service, so do you.

7. Basilidiani, and Carpocratiani kept secret their doctrines, counting all other men dogs and swine: so do you keep secret your mysteries from the common people, and will not suffer the Scriptures to be read of all: least, say ye, precious pearls be cast before swine.

8. Marcosij they spake some Hebrew words in Baptism, to astonishe and afray the hearers: but you are worse, who in all your service speaks nothing but a unknown language: and that, say you, to make there mysteries to be had in greater reverence.

9. The Heracleonites anointed their dead with oil, balm, and water superstitiouslie, and so do you.

10. Marcion and the Pepuzians heretics, permitted wemē to baptize, so do you.

11. The Ossenes taught, that it was not needful that prayers should be made in a known language: so do you: and therefore your prayers are in Latin.

12. The Messalians affirmed Baptism only to serve for the washing away of the sins going before it, so do you.

13. The Tatians and sundry other heretics 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 perfect, but suffered it in the rest: so do the Papists, in their Priests and religious men they damn it, but they do tolerate it in the laicks: and yet the spirit of God calls it, a doctrine of Devils to forbid marriage.

15. The Manichees they had the Communion under one kind: so doth the Papistical Kirk. The Council of Constance so decreed it, against the Scriptures, with these heretics. Siklike their Fasting and your Fasting is alike: for they made choice of meats, and abstained from flesh: but yet used their delicates, and so do you.

16. The Manichees affirmed there was two beginnings: so doth Augustinus Steuchus a Papist, in sua cosmopoea, in principio Genes. where he says, that the Crystalline heaven 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 us had written such, how would heaven & earth have been filled with cries against us?

17. Montanus an heretic received the whole Scripture, but yet he denied that it contained all doctrine needful to salvation: so doth the Papists: & from this error springs their Traditions, their Ceremonies infinite in number, partly Jewish, partly Ethnic.

18. This Montanus was the first who prescriued certain Laws of Fasting, the Scripture appointing no such thing: so doth the Papists, their fastings are upon their prefixed and set days.

19. Montanus taught that small faults was to be suffered for after this life neither was the souls to be delivered from the prison, till they had paid the vtmoste farthing. So doth the Papists also.

20. Siklike the doctrine of the Montanists was, that Abrabams bosom was beside Hel, or in the uppermost part of hell.

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

22. That only the Martyrs souls goes immediately to Paradise.

23. That prayers and oblations should be made for the dead.

24. That extreme unction should be givē after Baptism.

25 That the sign of the Cross should be used, all whilk your Kirk hes renewed.

26. Helcesaitae made two Christ's: one above, another beneath: so doth your Kirk make two Christ's: one in heaven having a true natural body with his own essential properties, in a certain place, visible: another in earth, made of the bread and wine, with all the essential properties of a true body, invisible, in the Sacrament.

27. Sampsaei, kept the dust of the feet, and the spittle of two wemē whilk they worshipped as Goddesses, whilk they affirmed did serve to cure diseases, and whilks they used as amulets: so doth your Papistical Kirk, keep the relics of Saints, worships them, and carries them about, as serving either to preserve, or to recover health. The like also was the superstition of the Ossens.

28. Cathars gloried in the merits of their works, and affirmed that they were made righteous, with an inherent righteousness. The Papistical Kirk in this heresy goes beyond them: for both they glory of their works, & affirms that we are justified with an inherent righteousness.

29. The heretics called Angelici, and also the Caim, they worshipped Angels, so do the Papists.

30. The heretics called Apostolici, admitted none in their number, but these who vowed willful poverty, and chastity. So the Papists admits none to their religious orders, but such, who vows both.

31. There were some heretics who went bare-footed, so do 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 sundry places calls them back to the Scriptures: so doeth your Kirk.

33. The Collirydians worshipped Marie, and therefore they are called Idolaters by Epiphanius, so do the Papists.

34. Armenij worshipped the croce of our Lord, and therefore they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, worshippers of the croce, so doth the Papists.

35. The Pelagians affirmed Adam would have died, suppose he had not sinned: so doth Augustinus Steuchus, a Papist of great name in his annotations upon the 2. of Genesis. He says, Death is natural, and sin is not the cause of it, and the infants and Adam would have died, suppose they had not sinned.

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

37. The Pelagians affirmed that the Gentiles might by Philosophy have known God, and been saved. So Andradius a Papist, lib. 3. orthod. explic. so Catharinus a Papist, who was present at the council of Trent affirms in his commentary upon 1. Timoth. 4. That some unfaithful men may be saved, whilk is as mekle to say, as some may be saved who knows not God, nor Christ, whilk is horrible, and more then Pelagian.

38. Also, they affirmed that a man may fulfill the Law, and be perfitelie righteous, so do all the Papists.

39. They affirm that infants wants original sin: so doth Pighius a Papist in his book of controversies, in the controversy of original sin, that in them that are baptized, original sin is taken away: and he writes also that Marie was borne without original sin: and Thomas of Aquine writes that Marie had the fullness of • ll graces, whilk is to equal her with God. For only in him the fullness of all dwelleth: and many other heresies of the Pelagians hes the Papists renewed.

40. A kind of heretics called Anomi, taught that the obedience to the Law was not needful, so doth the Papists. First, in affirming, that concupiscence without consent is not sin, & is not forbidden in the Law. Secondly, some of them says, as Sylvester Prierias, It is honesty (says he) but not of necessity that God should be loved above all things. And so Molanus another Papist affirmeth. The same Molanus also says, that it is not commanded of God that we should pray for our enemies in special: and yet the Scripture says most plainly, Pray for them whilk persecute you. And in another place he affirms that it is not commanded that we should salute our enemies with a friendly and loving heart. And also he says, That he who doth not tell to him who is ignorant, his manifest defect is not unrighteous. And again he says He who gives counsel to do a less evil to eschew a greater, sins not. Siklike contrar the second command they universally teach, that the worship of Images is no break of it. And they call the Cross their only hope. What horrible blasphemy is this? And Torrensis a Papist, objected to Catharinus another Papist, that he denied the Law of Moses to be God's law, and the precepts of Paul to be Christ's precepts. Moe also I might bring, but these will suffice. Now of these things I may most justly conclude, that your religion hes renewed many of the old condemned heresies. And as you made one argument, so I will make another. What ever was heresy in old times, is heresy yet, and the defenders thereof heretics: this you cannot deny, because it is your own proposition: but these former heads whilk I have set down (wherein I have used no calumny as ye have done) was heresies in old times, and the defenders thereof heretics, as witnesses the ancient Fathers: Therefore they are heresies yet, and the defenders thereof heretics. And so by your own argument many points of your religion, are old condemned heresies, and yourselves heretics, who doth defend them.

Master John's conclusion.

One thing whilk I hope will cut off all controversy, I offer to prove, 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 Revel. 14. shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

Master John Welsche, preacher of Christ's Gospel, at Kirkcudbright.

Master Gilbert Brown.

If this controversy of ours shall not be cut away while Master John prove the Pope to be the Antichrist, certainly it will endure ten hundredth thousand year after the Laird of Marchistouns doomesday. Then it must follow (seeing that is a thing impossible to be done) that all they that will not openlie and priuatlie obey the Pope, and reverence him as the Vicare of Christ, because he is chosen by God to rule his Kirk heir on earth, that they must drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

It is not impossible to prove your Popes to be the Antichrist. It hes been proved already by the learned on our side: to the whilk you, and all your Clergy of Rome is not able to answer. It hes been taught & sealed with the blood of infinite numbers of Christians: and I have not taken so long a term as you have set down heir, and yet, I hope, I have proved it sufficiently. Put all your might to disprove it if you can. And as to that threatening of yours, Master Gilbert, wherein ye say that all these, who will not openly and privately obey the Pope, &c, must drink of the wine of the wrath of God. If it may be believed, then howe doth this stand first with your Popes pardons, whereby he gives men pardon or license to profess, subscriue, and swear to our religion: as it is reported that some of your own religion hes confessed it? Next, howe stands it with the dissimulation of your Jesuits, and seminarie Priests when they come to any place where our religion is openly professed? Thirdly, what comfort is this whilk ye have pronounced to your own poor countrymen, who do not openly avow Papistry, but hes subscriued and communicate with us? Is this an open profession, or not? And if it be not, if ye be a true Prophet, then must they drink of the wine of the wrath of God, then must they be condemned in Hel by your judgment, because they profess him not openly. And last of all, if this threatening of yours be true, then beside the many infinite thousands who professes him to be the Antichrist, you condemn to Hell all the Greek and Eastern Kirks, who in number far exceeds them who obeys you, and all the Kirks that hes been 600. year and more after Christ: for they obeyed not the Pope openly nor priuatlie as Christ's Vicare over them, as I have proved before. And also you condemn a number of your Anti-Popes to Hell, with their Cardinals, Bishops, & Kirks who followed them: for they gave out themselves to be Popes, and did not obey the other. As also a number of the Fathers of your own religion, who in two general councils the one of Constance, where there was almost 1000. Fathers: the other of Basil, did not obey the pope, in defining general councils to be above the Pope. So, if ye speak truth, infinite millions of Christians in all ages, and innumerable Kirks, & thousands of your own religion are condemned to hell. But this is false, Master Gilbert, and who will believe you? And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure, that seeing his kingdom is that second beast that hes two horns like the Lamb and speaks like the Dragon: and himself is that man of sin, and son of perdition, that adversary and Antichrist that was to come: & his doctrine is that Apostasy and abomination foretold in the Scripture: and his seat that Harlote and mystical Babylon, that mother of hoordomes, who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, whosoever receives his mark on his forehead or hand, that is, openly or priuatlye professes obedience unto him, shall, as the Angel proclaimed, drink of the wyne of the wrath of God, yea of that pure wyne in the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy Angels, and before the Lamb. And the smoke of his torment shall ascend forever more: and they shall have no rest day nor night whilk worship the beast or his image. And as for your prayer, I beseech God (Master Gilbert ) that he may open my eyes, and enlarge my heart to understand and embrace his truth more and more, and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more. But that whilk ye call truth is heresy, and that whilk ye call the true Kirk is Babel: and therefore that doctrine and Kirk of yours is that strong delusion and whore of Babel, with the whilk whosoever shall communicate is excluded from the merits of Christ, and shall be partakers of her plagues, and finally shall be damned.

The several things that are handled in the first part concerning the Mass are these.

1. COncerning the name it self, the variety of their opinions concerning the derivation of it, and the cause wherefore they give it this style of Mass is shown: and that neither in proper terms, nor in substance it is to be found in the Scriptures of God, & therefore to be rejected

2. That the sacrifice of the Mass is neither figured nor foretold in the old Testament, nor yet instituted by Christ in the New Testament, in the latter Supper.

3. Is shown the difference betwixt the Mass, and the latter Supper, whilk Christ instituted: & it is proved that the Priests in the Mass does not the same whilk our Savior either did, or commanded to be done in the latter Supper.

4. It is proved by the testimonies of sundry learned Papists, and great defenders of their Religion, that the Mass is not set down in the Scripture, and instituted by Christ in the same.

5. That we have all these things whilk our Savior comprised in the institution of the Supper, and they have them not.

6. Solide, most clear, and evident proofs out of the Scripture, against the abhominable sacrifice of the Mass, whereby it is sufficiently confuted, amplified also by their doctrine and testimonies.

7. By the testimonies of the ancient Fathers even until the 1000 year after Christ, it is confuted.

8. That it may be known howe this abhominable sacrifice of the Mass crap in. First, the estate of the public worship of God in the celebratiō of the sacrament of the Supper the first 300. or 400. year after Christ is set down: next the manifold means and degrees, whereby it crap in piece and piece: how it was first conceived, formed, brought forth into the world, and then nourished, strengthened, and rooted in the hearts of all men, and universally embraced. And thirdly, the authors of the ceremonies of the Mass, who put to every point of it, and in what year of God is set down. So that betwixt the first that put to the first piece, to the last that clamped to the last cloute, is a thousand year and more.

9. Is set down the manifold absurdities, abominations, idolatries blasphemies, vain, idle, superstitions, Jewish and Ethnic ceremonies of their abhominable Mass, as in a table, a great number: whereby it is made evident and plain to all those who are not blinded, that of all worships and services that ever was devised by man, it is the most absurd, blasphemous, and idolatrous.

10. The manifold oppositions and contradictions amongst themselves, concerning this their Mass, both in the matter, form, effect, substance, and circumstances of the same: whereby it is evident, that it is Babel a town of confusion: and that they and their kingdom cannot stand, seeing they are so divided amongst themselves in this point.

IN THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the Antichrist, these heads are handled

1. The reasons that M. Gilbert brings for to defend his Popes frō being Antichrist are answered. Wherein it is shown: first, that Antichrist should not be a Jew, and repair to the temple of Jerusalem, and the Jews should not receive the Antichrist, as their Messias: next, that the Pope. suppose he pretends that he come in the name of Christ, & that he is the Vicare of Christ, and the seruand of seruands: yet he is nothing less. He hes neither his calling of God in his word, nor is left in the room of Christ: but hes entered in, not by the door into the sheepfold, but another way, as a thief and briggane, to steal and devour, and does no true service to Christ, but tyrannizes over his pure flock, and over the princes of the earth. Thirdly, that the Antichrist should not be one singular person, but a succession of many, in the self same, Apostate kingdom and tyranny. Fourthly, that for all his pretenses of humility and piety, yet he is an adversary to God, and lifted up above all that is called God.

Secondly, it is proved by all the marks whereby the Antichrist is discriued in the Scriptures of God. in the 2. Thes. 2. Apoc. 13. & 17. that the Popes of Rome are the undoubted Antichrist, because to him only aggrees all these marks, and to none other. And first they are proved to be the men of sin, and sons of perdition, by their moste monstrous and abhominable lives, as their own friends and flatteters, and Historiographers of the time, hes descriued them: a few are brought forth as examples to prove this. Secondly, it is proved that he is an adversary to God, by comparing of his doctrine with the doctrine of Christ how it overthrows his person, offices, Prophetical, Priestly and Kingly, and all his benefits, and all the means, outward and inward, of the knowing and applying of them: and that it deprives the Lord of his sovereign glory, in communicating to stocks and stones, oil and water a piece of bread, Angel and man, bones and ashes, and the moste vile things that can be. And also howe it overthrows the Sacraments of Christ, and puts to others whilk he never instituted: & the whole frame of his Discipline and government, whilk he hes commanded in his word His officers, his offices, his Laws. And hes put himself in Christ's room and hes made new offices, officers, & laws, whilk the Scripture knows not of. Thirdly, that he hes lifted up himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. First, above the whole Kirk, and all general councils: next, above all Kings, Magistrates, and powers: And thirdly, above the Angels in heaven, and above them in Purgatory and Hell: & hes equalled himself with God himself, in his styles, and properties, and works, and equalled himself to Christ Jesus. And hes also lifted up himself above the God of heaven and his son Christ Jesus. Fourthly, that he sits in the Temple of God as God, and so forth of the rest in the 2. Thessal. 2. chap. and in the Revelation. Whereby it is shown, that everything that is foretold of the Antichrist, is fully filled & accomplished in them: and that Babylon that harlote, that is set down in the Revelation, is by their own confession, Rome. Further, it is also proved by the testimonies of sundry of themselves, and others, that the Popes of Rome is the undoubted Antichrist, and Rome is that Babel.

Master Gilbert Brown.

WE have only in our Kirk that heavenly action and Sacrifice, (whilk we call the blessed Mass) that our Savior did at his latter Supper, and was prefigured by the Law of Moses, & forespoken by the Prophets. For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests (according to the order of Melchizedek in this action, & according to the order of Aaron upon the Cross) took bread and wine, and having given thanks to his Father of heaven, blessed the same, by the whilk blissing, and heavenly words he made them his body and blood, [as I said before] and gave, or offered himself then for them, (that is) for his. And last of all gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten, whilk we call to communicate. And when he had done the same, he commanded his Apostles, (and by them the lawful Pastors of the Kirk till the worlds end) to do the same, for the remembrance of him. And seeing that our Priests does the same, as our Savior did, how can Master John say that our religion (in this) was not instituted by Christ?

Master John Welsche his Reply.

I Come to the 10. point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass: whilk suppose ye call blessed, yet is it most abhominable idolatry, as (by the grace of God) shall be made manifest. And first concerning the word it self MASSE, you are of such variety of opinions amongst yourselves concerning it, that some of you says it is taken from the Hebrew: some from the Greek, some from the Latin: and some says it is called the Mass for one cause, and some for another. I will only speak this of it, that it is usually taken by the ancient writers, for the dimission, or skailling (as we cal it) of the Kirk, after the public service was done to God, as Bellarmine grants, in the first acception of this word Mass. And therefore in the end of your Mass, the Deacon cries, Ite missa est, that is, Go your way, the Congregatiō is dismissed. But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense, for the skailling of the Kirk, or dimission of the people, after the service of preaching, prayer, & so forth: but for that abhominable sacrifice of theirs, wherein, as they suppone, they offer up Christ his very body and blood, in a sacrifice for the quick and the dead as Master Gilbert does heir. And for this cause they call this sacrifice, the Mass, that is, first sent from the Father to us, that Christ his body and blood might be with us: next, sent from us to the Father, that he may interceede, and may be for us with the Father. But how can he be sent from them to heaven? seeing he descends in the mouth, stomach, and belly of the Priest? for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest, and to be sent up to heaven, are things contrary. So by this style of the Mass, as they take it, it is plain, that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth daily in the Mass, whilk some of thē grants also) whilk is contrary to an article of our faith, that he sits at the right hand of his Father, whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored: or else their Mass-priests, dust and ashes, are the creators of their creator, whilk is a blasphemy.

This mekle now for the name of the Mass, whilk all Christians should abhor, according to that of David, that he would not take the name of false God's in his mouth. For that word, whilk is proponed by men for an article of our faith, whilk is not found in the Scripture, neither in proper terms, nor yet in substance, and by necessary consequence out of the same, should be rejected by the kirk of God, as a profane, and a bastard word. But the Mass is such: for it is proponed by the Kirk of Rome, as an article of our faith: and yet it is neither found in proper terms, nor in substance, nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture: Therefore it should be rejected; as profane & idolatrous, by the Kirk of God.

This for the name: now to the matter. This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us, concerning your sacrifice of the Mass: whilk, as ye account it most heavenly, so we account it most abhominable, as that whilk iniures the son of God, whilk derogates from his death and passion, whilk is injurious to his everlasting Priest-hoode, whilk is idolatrous, vain, neidlesse, and frutelesse, whilk hinders and overthrows the true service of God: all whilk shall be made plain of it, by God's grace. The matter of our controversy therefore is: Whether Jesus Christ, God and man, his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up, in your sacrifice of the Mass, (as ye call it) and whether this your sacrifice be a propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of the quick and the dead: this your Kirk affirms and holds, and this we deny. Now let us see your reasons first, and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the word of God, to the contrary. As to yours. First, ye say it was prefigured by the Law of Moses: next, forspoken by the Prophets and thirdly, done and instituted by Christ our Savior, and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world. As to the first, This sacrifice was prefigured by the sacrifices of the old Testament, for the whilk purpose ye quote Levite. 2. and 6.20. Unto the whilk I answer: that the sacrifices of the old Testament were figures and shadows, of that great & bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus, once offered up, upon the croce, never to be offered up again, as the Apostle says: and of our spiritual sacrifices, and service to God, whereof the Apostle speaks in these places cited on the margent. The whilk also were fulfilled in that one, and only sacrifice of him self upon the croce, for the sins of the world: and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves, & of the calves of our lips continually. But that these were figures of your abhominable sacrifice in the Mass, there is not a sillabe in the whole Scripture, to prove the same: for that whilk was prefigured in the old Testament, was, and is fulfilled in the New Testament. But the New Testament hes not so mekle as one sillabe of your sacrifice of the Mass: therefore it could not be prefigured in the old Testament. For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the old Testament, it behooved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians, or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross: for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament, and recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament: but your sacrifice of the Mass, is one with neither of them: for it is not one with the first sort, for they are spiritual, and you will have it external: neither is it one with the other of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross, for there he died, & there he shed his blood, and there he suffered the torments of God's wrath, and indignation for our sins: and there he satisfied the justice of God, and merited an everlasting redemption to us. But in your sacrifice of the Mass, your selves grants, that neither is he crucified, nor is his blood shed, nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins, nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same, nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass: therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. For two several actions whilk hes two different forms, & are done in diverse times, and places, for diverse ends, cannot be one only, and the self same sacrifice: for it is the form that gives a thing to be, and distinguishes it from all other things. But Christ his offering up of himself upon the croce, and your sacrifice of the Mass hes different forms, are done in diverse places and times & for diverse ends, therefore they cannot be both one. Further, if they were both one, then it should follow, that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is of an infinite valure, so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valure. But Bellarm. says, That the sacrifice of the Mass, is but of a finite valor, and the sacrifice of the Cross of an infinite valor. Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice: Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass, seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices, is not prefigured in the old Testament.

As for the second: that it was foretold by the Prophets: It is as true as the former: for all the sacrifices whilk were fore-told by the Prophets in the old testaments, are fulfilled in the new Testament. But the new Testament, (as hes been said) makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices, Christ's on the Cross, and our spiritual sacrifices: and not a sillabe of the sacrifice of the Mass: Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the old Testament. As for these Scriptures whilk ye quote, they speak of the spiritual worship of God, and of the spiritual sacrifices, whilk the Gentiles being called, should offer up unto God, under the Gospel, whereof mention is made in these places. For either they speak properly and literally, or else figuratiuelie. But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak heir of that legal, and ceremonial worship of the Jews, and so these places does not appertain to the New Testament. Or, if you will say they speak figuratively, then, I say, they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass, whilk you will have to be a sacrifice, not figuratively, but properly. So howsoever ye expone them, they cā no ways make for your external sacrifice in the Mass. Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass, in the new Testament first, (whilk ye will never be able to do) or else the figures and prophecies in the old Testament, will never prove it, seeing there is nothing either prefigured, or foretold in the Old Testament, but that whilk in the New Testament is fulfilled. Let us see therefore what you can allege for this your sacrifice in the New Testament. You say, that Christ the chief Priest (according to the order of Melchizedek in this action, and according to the order of Aaron upon the Cross) instituted it. (m) Matthew, Mark, and Luke: & commanded to be observed to the end of the world. Before I come to the institution, there are two things to be examined, whilk you have written heir. The first, that you say, that Christ, according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the Cross. Unto the whilk I answer: first, that you gainsay heir, two great Papists, Alanus and Bellarmine, whereof the one says that Christ never sacrificed Aaronice, that is, according to the order of Aaron. The other says, that Christ his sacrifice upon the Cross was neither according to the order of Melchizedek, nor yet according to the order of Aaron. And not only he affirms it, that it is not according to the order of Aaron, but also he affirms, that this should be certain to all the faithful. So, if you be of the faithful, and his doctrine be true whilk the Pope your head hes privileged to be printed, this should also have been certain to you, & so you should not have gain-said it. You had need to be ware of this (Master Gilbert ) to contradict so openly the learned fathers and masters of your Catholic faith, for by this doing, ye will both bewray yourselves, that you have no unity, and concord one with another, and also ye will bring yourself in suspicion with your head: that ye are not a defender of the Catholic faith, seeing you so openly contradict the masters and defenders thereof. Mark this (Reader) what concord these men hes amongst themselves, some saying one thing, some another. Next, I say: if you refer this also to his person, that as this action was according to Aaron, so himself was a priest according to his order, in his sacrifice. Then I say, you both gainsay the plain. Scriptures of God, and also the learnedst of your Kirk. For, suppose it be true, that this sacrifice of his upon the croce, did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron, and put an end unto them, according as he said, It is finished: Yet he offered up this sacrifice, not as he was a Priest according to Aaron, (for he was not a Priest according to his order at all) but as he was a Priest, according to the order of Melchizedek: and therefore the Scripture joins both together: to assure us that he offered up himself upon the croce, as he was Priest, not according to Aaron, but according to Melchizedek.

The second thing is: that you say, Christ according to the order of Melchizedek in this action, whilk you mean the Mass, did offer up his body and blood under the forms of bread and wyne. It is true indeed, that Christ, according to the order of Melchizedek is an hie-Priest, and not according to the order of Aaron: but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture, that Melchizedek did offer up bread and wine, in an external sacrifice. For the Scripture says only, he brought it forth, whilk is not to sacrifice. And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham, & his company to refresh them with, after the slaughter of these Kings. And the Apost. whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchizedek was a type of Christ, he does not so much as give any inkling of this: for there he compares Melchizedek with Christ: first, that as Melchizedek was both King and Priest, so was Christ. Next, as Melchizedek was without father and mother, beginning, and ending, the Scripture not mentioning of it, so was Christ. Thirdly, as Melchizedek was greater then Aaron, and had a more excellent Priesthoode then the Levitical Priest-hoode, so was Christ's. But never a word heir, of a sacrifice of bread and wine, wherein Melchizedek should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass, as ye suppose. So you find out heir that whilk the spirit of God found not out: and so ye make yourself wiser then the holy Ghoste in his Epistle. But we will learn not to be wise above that whilk is written, and to search no further, then the spirit of God hes found out already. And suppose it were granted to you (whilk ye are never able to prove,) that Melchizedek did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hes this with your devilish abomination of your Mass, wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away, only the forms remaining. For if your sacrifice in the Mass, be like the sacrifice of Melchizedek, then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchizedek, and the bread and wine should be offered up, and not Christ's body and blood, as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchizedek his sacrifice, So then, either Melchizedek his sacrifice is not a tipe of your sacrifice in the Mass, or else true bread and wine remains in the sacrament, and not Christ his body and blood whilk is offered up. Choose you then, whether you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchizedek, or else will you let go your real presence, your Transubstantiation, and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abhominable Mass, for one you must do. Thirdly, if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper, as was prefigured by Melchizedek, whilk you affirm heir, then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfitely: and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again, and so heir will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests, whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again. Fourthly, I would ask you, Whether is this sacrifice, whilk ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchizedek in his last supper, one with that sacrifice whilk he offered up upon the C • oce, or not? If it be one, then, I say as he died and shed his blood on the croce, & purchased an everlasting redemption by the same: so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joined with his death, and shedding of his blood, and must have the like virtue and effect to redeem us, and so two absurdities will follow. The one, that Christ not only should twice have died, once in the Supper, and afterward upon the croce: but also dies, and is crucified continually: in your Mass, & yet the Scripture says he died but once. The other, that that sacrifice of his upon the croce is superfluous: for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind, since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption. For if his sacrifice upon the croce was a sufficient redemption, whilk you cannot deny: and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that: of necessity it must follow, that as his sacrifice upon the croce was a sufficient redemption: even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind. And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholic faith, saith, according to the judgment of the council of Trent, that the new covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper, before he was crucified: and that Christ was truly our Passover the day before he suffered: and he says, This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine, according to the judgment of the council. Now if this be true, that he was our Passover, before he died, and the covenant was founded in his blood whilk he offered up in the Supper: then, certainly, Christ died in vain, whilk is more then blasphemous: and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be, whilk carries with it such a blasphemy. And if you will say, it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the croce: then, I say, first you are contrary to your own Kirk in this, who says, it is one with that sacrifice of the croce. Next, Christ his body and blood is not offered thē in the Supper: for his body & blood was offered up upon the croce, and so your Mass is gone, or else make two Christ's: one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine, whilk the Disciples saw not: and another who was offered up upon the croce, whilk was seen of all. So whether will ye go, and unto what side will ye turn you, Master Gilbert, for the uphold of your Mass? for there are rocks and sand beds on every side. So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper, neither did he it according to the order of Melchizedek. But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution. And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point, as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls does hing: therefore I pray thee (Christian Reader) deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition, but take good head what ground is in the institution for this their sacrifice, for if they prove it not heir, it will never be proved by the Scripture. You say therefore that Christ took bread and wyne, we grant that, yet heir is no sacrifice. What then? He gave thanks: yet heir is no sacrifice. What next? He blessed it. Yet heir is no sacrifice. And whereas ye say that by this blissing, and his heavenly words the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Christ: that I have sufficiently (as I hope) overthrown in my answer unto the fourth point of your doctrine in the first part. But to return to the words of the institution: after the blissing of the bread, whilk Luke expones by giving of thanks: the text says, He gave. What gave he but that whilk he took, and had blessed? And what took he, and blessed he, but the bread? And therefore the Apostle says, The bread whilk we bliss, &c. So thē it was bread whilk he gave, and not his own body and blood corporally. And unto whom gave he it? the text says, Unto his disciples, both in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all with one consent. Now, that whilk was given to his Disciples was not properly offered up in a sacrifice: for a sacrifice is an offering to God. And the text says heir, He gave it to his Disciples. So there is not a sillabe in the institution, that can make for your pretended sacrifice. You heir corrupt the word of Jesus Christ wonderfully: for first you expone by Giving, Offering up in a sacrifice. Next, whereas the Scripture in Matthew, Mark and Luke hes but giving once, and refers this giving not to God, but to the Disciples: And he gave it to the Disciples: you allege heir two giuings: the one to God, whilk is your own invention, whereof the Scripture makes no mention: the other to the Disciples, whilk is the form of a Sacrament and not of a sacrifice: for a sacrament is given to us, a sacrifice to God. So all the grounds of your sacrifice of the Mass is two: the one is, your devised Transubstantiation: so one error leans upon another: the other is, not the words of Christ, And he gave it to his Disciples, but your own words, and your own exposition only, And he gave, or offered up himself then for them. These are your own words, and not the words of the holy Ghost. So this sacrifice of your Mass, hes not the words of Jesus Christ as Matthew, Mark, and Luke hes set them down, to be the ground of it: but only your own words, and your own interpretation. For howe dare ye be so impudent as to affirm that Christ gave it twice: once in an offering for his Disciples and another time in an sacrament to his Disciples, seeing we will believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the sworn pen-men of the holy Ghost, who says only he gave it to his Disciples as a sacrament, and makes no mention at all, that he gave it to God as a sacrifice. Do you think the Lord will never take an accompt of you for such a manifest lie of the son of God, of his Scripture, of his Apostles and holy writers who write it, they all saying, he gave it to his Disciples, and you affirming beside that giving to them, that he gave it, that is, offered it up for them. O sinful man! Who will venter the salvation of his soul upon so small a thread: yea, upon so impudent a lie, as ye make of the son of God. O repent, or else you shall one day feill the fierceness of the Lord's hot wrath & indignation upon your soul & carcase for evermore. Leave off therefore to be the cause of the damnation of souls, for you deceive them, and makes them believe that this monstrous abomination of your Mass, hes Jesus Christ to be the author of it, while it hes not so mekle as a sillabe in the whole institution, that gives sa mekle as an inkling of it. Are you wiser then the wisest of your generation, Bellarmine, who for all the arguments that he brings, never so mekle as once gives an inkling of this your argument. For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving heir, out of the words of the institution: and too absurd a exposition to expone, He gave, that is, he offered it up. And therefore he hes no such reasoning for his sacrifice of the Mass. Yea, that whilk ye think is plain out of the institution that Christ offered up his body and his blood in the supper: he says, that the action of offering cannot be easily distinguished and separated from the other actions whilk was done jointly there together, by the words of the institutiō. And more plainly he says, that the Evangelists hes not expressly said that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper. This is a plain speaking: now your sacrifice of the Mass, hes no express warrand out of the institution of Christ if you will believe him, whose controversies are allowed by the Pope to be printed. But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further trial, and therefore you regarded not what you write. You have stolen yourself in such credit with the simple amongst you, who are deceived & blinded by your lies, that ye are not ashamed to be plain enough in speaking untruths and lies of the word of God. But the Lord will recompense this one day. But now to return to the rest of the words of the institution, as ye rehearse them. And last of all ye say, He gave his body and blood to his Disciples to be eaten: He gave it spiritually, and they did eat it spiritually: and he gave the sacraments of his body and blood, the bread and wine corporally to them, and they did eat them corporally, suppose for a spiritual use and end. For that whilk he gave they did eat: he gave the bread and wine, therefore it was bread & wine whilk they did eat, and drink. And therefore the Apost. says plainly, for whosoever shall eat of this bread, &c. He calls it bread that is eaten. And our Savior says Verily, verily from hence forth shall I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you. That whilk he gave his Apostles to drink corporally in the latter Supper was the fruit of the vine, (so the Evangelists says.) But Christ's blood was not the frutie of the vine: therefore it was not his blood whilk they corporally drank, but wine, whilk was the fruit of the Vine-tree. I go forward. And when he had done this, ye say, He commanded his Disciples, that is, the lawful Pastors of the Kirk to do the same for the remembrance of him to the end of the world. That is true, that whilk he did heir, he commanded to be done by his Disciples to the end of the world: but never a sillabe heir that he offered up his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine in the Supper, in a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead: Therefore he commanded not this sacrifice of your Mass to be done to the end of the world. And whereas ye restrict this commandment, Do this, only to the Pastors, ye have to understand that as there is something heir whilk Christ did, whilk is proper to them, as to be the dispensers of these heavenly mysteries: so there is some actions heir, whilk is common also with them to the people: as to receive, to eat, to drink these Sacraments of his body & blood in his remembrance. Seeing therefore this commandment, Do this, is to be referred to the whole actions of the Supper: and seeing there is some actions in the same, whilk the other Christians should do also: Therefore this commandment, Do this, is not to be restricted to the office of the Pastors only, (whilk ye do) but common with them to the actions of the people. Now to your conclusion: Seeing (say ye) your Priests does the same in this sacrifice, whilk our Savior did: howe can I say that your religion in this, was not instituted by Christ. If ye do the same that he did, indeed I will grant you it. But you do not the same whilk our Savior did: Therefore your religion in this is not instituted by Jesus Christ. The whilk I prove. First, Christ took bread and wine in this Sacrament and gave it to be eaten and drunken: and bread was eaten, & wine was drunken by his Disciples. But your Priest takes bread and wine, & coniures the substance of it away by your Transubstantiation, and only remains the forms of the bread and wine behind: therefore you do not the thing whilk Christ did. Secondly, Christ took bread and brake it you take bread and hangs it up, and keeps it in a box, to carry to the seek, and in processions. Thirdly, Christ took bread and gave it to his Apostles: your Priests like gluttons in the sacrifice of your Mass eats it up every whit himself alone. Fourthly, Christ gives a Sacrament to strengthen men's faith: but your Priests gives a sacrifice to redeem men's souls. Fifthly, Christ gave it to be eaten, your Priests gives it to be worshipped. Sextly, Christ gave bread, your Priests say they give God. Seventhly, Christ gave the Cupe to his Disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this, your Priest drinks all himself, and takes away the Cupe from the people, both in your sacrifice and sacrament. Eighthly, Christ instituted the Supper, and commanded the Kirk to celebrate the same, as he had instituted it: but the Mass hes been clamped up by many sundry Popes: one made the Confiteor, another the Introit: another the Kyriceleison, another the Gloria in excelsis: and so forth of the rest, as shall be proved afterward. Ninthly, Christ intending to celebrate his Supper, changeth not his garment: but the Priest going to say his Mass, doth naught but cloth and vn-clothe, & every garment carrying a great mystery. The Priest saying Mass must have his head and beard shaven, and upon his head a circle of hair, whilk they call a crown: imitating the Priests of the Gentiles in this, Baruh chap. 6. ver. 30. and not Christ and his Apostles. Tenthly, Christ in the Supper used common bread, but the Popish Priest must expressly use other manner of bread, baked betwixt two irons, whilk is properly, Wafers. Elleuenthlye, Christ made his Supper upon a Table, the Popish Priest must have a consecrate Altar, with some pieces of relics put in the hole of it, or else a marble stone, in the borders whereof are little pieces of cloth, whilk they call corporales, to say his Mass on. Twelfthly, Christ in the celebrating of the Supper, preached & taught his Apostles: the Popish Priest mumbleth betwixt his teeth certain prayers: he turneth to and from the altar, one while his back, another while his face to the people: now goeth he from one side of the altar unto another: now he singeth with an high voice, now with a low voice: now he lifts up his arms, now he casteth them down. Briefly, he seemeth to be a man wholly mad, not knowing what countenance for to use. Thirtenthly, Christ in the Supper spake in a vulgar tongue, that all might understand: the Popish Priest in their Masses, speaks in a strange tongue, whilk the most part of themselves understands not. Fourtenthly, Christ first brake the bread, and then gave it to his Apostles: the profane Prieste first speaketh certain words over the bread in his Mass, and then breaketh it, (or the accidents of it, as they say) at their pleasure. Fiftenthly, Christ after he had broken the bread says, This is my body the Popish Priest speaks the words, without breaking of the bread, and not content with the words of Christ, he addeth this word enim unto them. Therefore you cannot M. Gilbert, but speak against the light of your own conscience, when you say that your Priests does the same in their Mass that Christ did in the Supper, and heir I appeal your conscience before the terrible and everliving God, and before Jesus Christ that shall judge the quick and the dead, whether ye do not speak in this against the light of your own conscience or not, and whether your Priests in your Mass, does the same whilk Christ did in the Supper or not? Think you not that you must stand before the living God, and give a reckoning of these things. Repent in time, and cease to deceive the souls of your countrymen anymore. But to conclude this: What ado hes your Mass with the Supper of Christ? what likeness is there between the one and the other? In the Supper whilk Christ instituted in the Scripture, we are remembered of his death & passion upon the Cross, whereby he appeased the wrath of God for our sins, and of our duty towards him: whereby we acknowledge in our consciences, that we are oblished to die to sin, seeing it behooved the eternal son of God by his death upon the croce, to redeem us from the same: upon the whilk arises an earnest thanksgiving in the hearts and mouths of every true Christian, for so great a salvation, purchased so wonderfully, as by the death of the eternal son of God. In your sacrifice of the Mass is there any such thing? Is there any remembrance of his death and suffering there? Is his death shown to the people in a known language that they may understand it? Is there any acknowledging of any duty there, for his death? Is there any true thanksgiving there? No, none. But instead of these, a heap of words in an unknown language, and a diversity of Apish gestures, & Morishe and Jugglers tricks, to feed the eyes of the poor people, whilk neither the people, nor yet many of yourselves do understand. In the Supper we are also admonished of our spiritual conjunction with our neighbor, and of our duty towards him, in that we are all partakers of one bread, made of many grains, and of one wine made of many grapes: to signify unto us that we are all renewed and redeemed by one blood, members of one body, living by one spirit, drawing life, motion, & feeling all from one head, being one with him, and so one with others, whereby follows our mutual duties one toward another. In your Mass there is no communion of the bread made of many grains, and of the wine made of many grapes, to signify this conjunction and communion, either with Christ our head or amongst our selves, the Priest eating and drinking all himself. In the Supper, according to Christ his institution by giving, taking, eating, and drinking of the bread and wine by all the Disciples, whereby our bodily life is nourished and strengthened, is not only signified and represented our spiritual growth in that spiritual communion with him, whereon our spiritual life depends: but also in the same, all the faithful doeth truly by faith eat and drink spiritually his flesh & blood, whereby they are made one with himself, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, whereby they are strengthened in that spiritual life, and confirmed in the hope of that glory. But is there any such thing in your Papistical sacrifice? Is there any giving, and taking, eating, and drinking of bread and wine by the faithful, either to represent our communion with Christ and amongst our selves, or to strengthen us in that spiritual life through his conjunction. Do the poor people eat or drink, either bodily, or spiritually in your Mass? Is there any action there to stir up their conscience? or any instruction to incres their knowledge? Are they ought but idle be holders of a pretended mystery, whilk is both dumb & deaf, and of a Priest that eats and drinks all himself alone? So that instead of these heavenly dishes, whilk our loving Father doeth propine unto us, upon his Table in the Supper, what is there in your abhominable sacrifices, but a feeding with husks, an apishe game, and Jugglers tricks to feed the fantasies of poor people, that sees but understands not, that hears, but they know not what. So that in truth there is as great likeness betwixt Christ's Supper, and your Mass, as is between the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils, and light with darkness. Seeing therefore there is such a difference betwixt your sacrifice in the Mass, and Christ his Supper, as hes been seen: therefore your Priests does not the same in the Mass, whilk our Savior did in the last Supper. And therefore howe can you say, that your religion in this is instituted by Christ? And this is so evident, that some of your own Doctors and learned writers hes been forced to confess the same. As Petrus á Soto and Lindanus cōfesses that the sacrifice of the Mass, with many other points of their religion, is an unwritten Tradition, whilk hes neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And Gerson, a Papist, & exponer of the Mass says, that the office of the Mass was ordained by Saint James and Basil the Bishop of Cesarea, but the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ. And he alleges the Canon Law for him. So first there is three hundredth years betwixt Basil and James, whilk are the composers of the Mass. Secondly, he distinguishes betwixt the supper and the Mass, and he says the Supper is instituted by Christ, and the office of the Mass by S. James, and S. Basil. So if he speak true, the Mass and the Supper is not both one, and the Mass is not instituted by Christ, as the Supper is. And so out of your own mouths, your Mass is confessed not to be instituted by Christ in the Scripture. Shamelesse therefore & impudent (Master Gilbert ) are ye in affirming that your religion in this is instituted by Christ.

Master Gilbert Brown.

There are five chief things wherein the institution of Jesus Christ consists (as I have shown before.) Of these five, the Ministers wants three of the chiefest in their communiō. First, a lawful Priest or Minister. Secondly Thanksgiuing. Thirdly, blissing. Fourthly, giving or offering. Fifthly, communicating. First, ane lawful Minister; as after I shall show. Secondly, the blissing of the bread and wine, whilk they have blotted out of their Scots Bibles, and put in thanksgiving for the same, as if both were one: not the les, that both the Greek, and Latin is against them, and signifies two diverse actions, both done or said in S. Mark at his Supper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 benedicens, blissand, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gratias agens, giving thanks. And thirdly, giving or offering of his blessed body and blood to his Father for his faithful, whilk properly is to sacrifice, as the holy Fathers writes upon the same. And as for their thanksgiving, it is but an invention of their own head, as may be seen in their Psalm books: and their communicating is but of bread and wine, but ours is of the body and blood of Christ. So we only huae the true institution of Jesus Christ, & not they, & that by the trial of the touchstone.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for the five chief things wherein ye say the institution of Christ consists: to wit, a lawful Minister, 2. Thanksgiuing. 3. Blissing. 4. Giving or offering. 5. Communicating. We grant that a lawful Minister is required, but not a sacrificing Priest heir, because there is no external and outward sacrifice heir, as ye suppone, and as hes been proved. And seeing your Prieste are sacrificing Priests of a sacrifice that hes not a sillabe in the word of God to bear witness unto it, and seeing their authority depends of the authority of the Pope, whilk is Antichristian, as shall be proved heirafter: and seeing the most part of your Priests are admitted without the due trial and examination of gifts and manners: and the moste part cannot preach the Gospel, as experience teaches, therefore in your communion, or rather abhominable sacrifice of your Mass, (for how can it be called a Communion, where the Priest only eats and drinks up all?) there is no lawful Minister: and seeing our offices is lawful: to wit, the preaching of the Gospel, the administracion of Sacraments, and Discipline: and seeing our entry to the offices is lawful also: by dew examination of life and doctrine: and seeing the authority of our calling is from God, who enables whom he calls with gifts meet to discharge the calling, and from his Kirk examining, trying, testifying, approving, or dayning, & consenting unto the same: Therefore in the administration of our Communion there are lawful Ministers. As to the second, Thanks-giving, we grant also it is comprised in the institution of Christ his sacrament, and is required in the celebration of the same: But you say, our thanksgiving whilk we use is but an invention of our own heads, as may be seen in our Psalm books. Wherunto I answer: If ye respect the matter contained in our Thanks-giving, it hes the warrand of the Scripture, and so in that respect it is not our own invention. If ye respect the authority, we are taught & commanded by our Savior, both by his example, for he gave thanks: and also by his commandment, Do this, to do the same. And so in that respect it is not our own invention. If you respect the end, it is God's glory, whilk is the proper end of all thanks-giving. If ye will respect the form of this thanks-giving: to wit, the words and order wherein it is cōceaued: I say, it is left indifferent to the Kirk of God to form their prayers and thanks-giuings: so being the matter, end, & authority of the using of them publicly, have there warrand out of the word of God. So seeing the authority to give thanks, and the matter also of our thanks-giving, and end thereof is set down in the word, and seeing the Lord hes left it free to the Kirk of God concerning the outward form of the same, the Scriptures not determining it, whilk yourself, I hope, will not deny. For your canon hes many forms of prayers, and thanks-giving in your Mass, whilk after that form and order is not set down in the word of God. Therefore, you injury the Lord's spirit and his Kirk, who calls our thanks-giving our own invention.

As to the third concerning Blissing, whilk you distinguish from thanks-giving: and says, we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles, and put thanks-giving in the room thereof: & so you say, we want that part. First then, I will ask you, Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form & the chief points of the institution of that sacrament? I trow you will not deny it, for it were too plain an impiety for you to say, that either Luke the sworn pen-man of God's spirit, or Paul, who said, I have received of the Lord, that whilk also I have delivered unto you, that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament, a principal point thereof: but either this Blissing is one with Thanks-giving, or else they have omitted a principal point thereof, for neither of them makes mention in these places of Blissing, but only of Thanks-giving: therefore it is one with Thanks-giving. Secondly, I say, either the whole three Evangelists, and the Apostle Paul, in setting down the institution of the sacrament of the Supper, omits a chief thing: to wit, the blissing of the Cup (whilk I trow ye will not say) or else the Blissing of the Cupe is one with Thanks-giving: for the Apostle Paul and Luke makes no mention at all of blissing, but only of thanks-giving: and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark, makes no mention of the blissing of the Cupe: but says, that after, or Also he took the Cupe, and when he had given thanks, &c. therefore they are one. Thirdly, if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark hes this word, and he blessed: Luke and Paul hes these words, And he gave thanks. And whereas Matthew and Mark hes this word Blissing after he took the bread, they use the word thanks-giving after he took the Cupe, to signify that they are both one. And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture, they are both one. Yea, what will you say to Bellarmine, who says that some Catholics contends, that both the words to bliss, and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing: and therefore they interpret Thanks-giving, Blissing. So if you will credit your own Catholics, they are both one heir.

And whereas you say, that both in the Greek & Latin they signify diverse things: I answer: Indeed it is true that sometimes they signify diverse actions: as Blissing, for the petition of a blissing. But yet sometimes also blissing is taken in the Scripture, for thanks-giving, as both I have proved in these places, as also, if ye will deny, there is places ynow in the Scripture for the contrary. And whereas you say that in Mark they signify two distinct actions, I have proved before they are both one.

And last of all I say, if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body whilk is broken for you &c. as (d) Bellarmine affirms that the Roman catechist so expones it, and the Theologes commonly teaches the same: then I say we want not that chief point, for we rehearse the words of the institution. So howsoever the word (blissing) be taken, either for thanksgiving, or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use, by prayer: whilk is cōprehēded in the thanksgiving, or for the words (as ye call them) of the consecration, we have always this blissing in our communion. And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and challice, with your crossing and charming them, after the manner of Sorcerers, with a set number and order of words and signs: your hyding it: your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crumbs: your first thortering, and then lifting up of your arms: your joining and dis-joining of thumb and fore-finger: and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities, whilk you use in blissing of the elements: they have neither command, nor example of Christ's institution and action, and the Apostles doctrine and doing, in the Scriptures of God.

Now as for the fourth, giving, or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father, by the faithful: We confess a giving to his Disciples, whilk you call afterward a communicating. But for another giving, that is, (as you expone it) an offering up of his body and blood to his Father, we alluterly deny it, as a thing not so mekle as once mentioned in the whole institution, but contrary to the same, and Antichristian: and therefore we utterly abhor it, and detests it, as an invention of your own, as Antichristian, as idolatry, as abomination, as that whilk derogates from that blessed & only one sacrifice, whereby he offered up himself once upon the Cross, never to be offered up again, as the scripture testifies. And Bellarmine says plainly, that this offering up is not expressly set down in the words of the institution, and that it cannot be easily discerned.

And as for the fifth a communicating we have it, and that not only of the bread and wine, as ye here imagine, but of Jesus Christ God and man, his very flesh and blood, and all his blissings by faith spiritually: seeing therefore we have all these points whilk are requisite in the institution, a lawful Minister, thanksgiving, blissing, giving, and communicating: therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the sacrament. And because in this your abhominable sacrifice of the Mass, (as hes been said) there is no communion, for the Priest takes all; and because you affirm the personal and corporal presence of Christ's flesh and blood in your sacrifice, and the corporal eating and drinking of it, whilk is Capernaiticall and more nor carnal, contrary to the Scripture, contrary the nature of a sacrament, contrary the truth of Christ his humanity, and contrary the articles of our faith of his ascension, sitting at his right hand and there remaining, till his returning in the last day, all whilk your sacrifice of the Mass, and Transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth: Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture. I might end here, but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass moste heavenly and the principal part of the worship of God, and we account it a most abhominable idolatry: , herefore I will set down some arguments against the same, whereby if you will you may perceive the abomination of it. First I say, all lawful sacrifices hes the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrand the institution of them to be of God. But your sacrifice of the Mass hes no express testimony of the Scripture, whereby it can be made manifest that it is instituted of God: therefore it is not lawful. What now will you say to this, the proposition you cannot deny, for our Savior says, in vain worship ye me, teaching for doctrine men's commandments. And Jeremiah reproves the Jews that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them, but according to their own willes. And the Apostle condemns all voluntary Religion. Therefore this is most certain, that that Religion or sacrifice, whilk hes not express Scripture whereby it may be made plain that it is instituted of God, is not lawful: for all that is done without faith is sin: and faith hes only the word of God to lean to: And dare the creature be so bold as to appoint a mean to worship God, without the warrand of his will in his word? Now to the assumption, what can you say to it? Bring me an express testimony out of the Scripture, that God hes instituted your Mass, and take it to you? Yea, if it be instituted in ony place of the Scripture, it is instituted in the last Supper (for this you grant yourselves:) But there is not a sillabe in the whole institution, that Christ offered up himself in a sacrifice in the same, as hes been proved: and Bellarmine the learnedest of your Kirk confesses plainly, that the Evangelists hes not said expressly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice. And therefore others of your own Religion, Papists of great name, hes reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass amongst the traditions, whilk hes not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures. So then by your own confession, the sacrifice of the Mass hes not express Scripture to warrand it: yea, it is a tradition, whilk hes neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And I would ask this question of you: What can be the cause, wherefore the typical sacrifices, and all the rites and ceremonies thereof, is so expreslye set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament, (whilk you will not deny) and this sacrifice of yours, whilk ye account more excellent then all these, not to have been expressly see down in the new Testament, neither the sacrifice, nor the rites and ceremonies thereof, yea, not so meikle as the very name of it? Is the New Testament (think ye) more obscure then the old Testament? (whilk is absurd to say.) Shall the old Testament be clear in setting down the sacrifices and all the rites thereof, whilk is but the shaddow: and should not the new Testament, have been at the least, as clear in setting down the sacrifice of the new Testament, whilk ye affirm to be the Mass, if it were such, what an absurd thing is this? Christian reader assure thyself, the Lord Jesus would have dealt as louinglie, and plainly with thee, in setting down the sacrifice of the Mass in the new Testament, (if ever he had instituted such a sacrifice) as he was in setting down the sacrifices of the old Testament. But thou may assure thyself, and thy conscience may lean unto it, since he hath not so much as once expressed it in all the New Testament, therefore he hes never appointed it. Secondly, I say, in all the places of Scripture wheresoever the Apostles speaks of the sacrifices, whilk Christians should offer up, they ever speak of spiritual sacrifices, and never speaks of this their external sacrifice of the Mass. They never remember of this their sacrifice, of the offering up of Christ in the Mass Look throughout the whole new Testament, and thou shall not find this, as namely, in these places noted in the margent. Are you and your Mass-Priests more wise then the Apostles are? Whether shoule we then think & speak as they spak and thought, or as ye would have us? They never spak of your sacrifice of the Mass, and bring one instance, if ye can: therefore neither should we. We will believe them rather then you. Thirdly, that doctrine whilk is expressly gainsaide by the Scripture, must be false:) this you cannot deny:) but this your doctrine concerning the often and daily offering up of Jesus Christ, his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass, is expressly gainsaid by the scripture: for the Scripture says in sundry places, that he hes once offered up himself, never to offer up himself again, Heb 10.10. By the whilk will we are sanctified, even by the offering up of Jesus Christ once made. 11. And every Priest standeth daily ministering, and ofttimes offereth one manner of offering, whilk cannot take away sin 11. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth forever at the right hand of God. 14. For with one offering hath he consecrated forever them that are sanctified. Heb. 9.24. Christ hes entered into the very heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us, not that he should offer himself often, &c. 28. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. Heb. 7.27. Christ died once, whē he offered up himself, Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms so plainly, that Christ once offered up himself, and you affirm that in your abhominable sacrifice, he offers up himself often: since the Scripture says, the offering up of Christ is once only and ye say it is often in your Mass: Therefore this doctrine of yours is plain against the express sayings of the Scriptures. For suppose ye will have an unbloody offering up of Christ, yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himself upon the croce.

Fourthly, I will ask you to what purpose serves the personal sacrifice of Christ in your Mass? It must be for one of two: to wit, either to satisfy for our sins, (and therefore ye call it a propitiatory sacrifice) or else to apply that satisfaction once made by his death upon the croce unto us, (the whilk ye affirm also of it:) But for neither of these is Jesus Christ to be offered up again: therefore for no cause is he to be sacrificed in your Mass. Not for the first, to satisfy for our sins, because the Scripture says plainly, that he hes satisfied for our sins, by his once oblation upon thh Cross, never to die again, and therefore our Savior says upon the * Cross, It is finished. And our redemption and satisfactiō is ascriued only to his death once made, and his blood once shed. And yourselves will not deny this, but the death of Christ is a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for all the sins of the world, and therefore Bellarmine grants this, that the virtue of his once offering up upon the croce, is infinite and everlasting, to sanctify us: so that there needs not another sacrifice of the croce, or the repetition of the same. And the truth of this is manifest: for if Christ must be offered up in the Mass to satisfy for our sins, he must die again, and suffer again. For what is it to satisfy God, but to pay to God that whilk we owe? And what owe we unto him for our sins, but death: for death is the stipend of sin? So that to satisfy God for our sins, is to die for our sins: and therefore we say, Christ hes once satisfied for our sins, because he hes once paid our debt, whilk is death: that is, he hes once died for our sins. So thē either Christ hes not fully satisfied for our sins, by his once death upon the Cross, (whilk is impiety to think) or else the Lord craves a debt already paid, over again: (whilk is blasphemy) or else Christ needs not to be offered up in your Mass, to satisfy for our sins. And so your sacrifice of the Mass availles not for to satisfy for our sins.

Let us come to the next: If ye will say, he is offered up in the Mass for to apply the virtue of the death of Christ unto us, (whilk your Kirk also says.) First, I say, Christ is applied to us, when he is offered, not to God in a sacrifice, but to us in the word and Sacraments: therefore he should not be offered up to God in a sacrifice, but offered to us in his word & Sacraments, that he may be applied to us: for it is the word and Sacraments whilk outwardlye applies Christ and his death to us, and not a sacrifice: for in a sacrifice the thing whilk is sacrificed, is offered to God, and not applied to us. Next, I say, if your sacrifice serves but to apply the virtue of Christ his satisfaction unto us: then it is manifest, the satisfaction is already made: for first the salve must be made, before it can be applied. So your Kirk heir errs, whilk says your sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory to appease the wrath of God, and also applicatorie to apply the same to us. I say thirdly, if Christ should be sacrificed again, that the virtue of his death may be made effectual in us: then also should he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin borne again, die again, and rise again: that the virtue of his incarnation, birth, death, and resurrection, should be applied unto us: for will you say, that he must be sacrificed again to apply the virtue of his sacrifice upon the croce unto us: and what reason then can ye pretend for you wherefore he should not be incarnate again, die again, and rise again that the virtue of these may be applied to us? Do you think this absurd? What is the cause then that ye will not blush at the other. Fourthly, I say, if your sacrifice of the Mass be an application of Christ his sacrifice: then it is not the sacrifice itself: for the applying of the salve, is not the salve itself: and therefore since you say that it is the applying of Christ his sacrifice, wherefore should ye say that Christ is sacrificed in it: for these two cannot stand together. Fifthly, in Baptism, the sacrifice of Christ, and the virtue of his death is truly applied unto us: and yet ye will confess that Christ is not sacrificed in Baptism. Wherefore then may not the virtue of this death and sacrifice, be applied to us in the sacrament of the Supper, and yet he not sacrificed again in it. And last of all, neither you, neither any creature should appoint or make moe means of the applying of Christ & his death to us, then is set down in his word: but his word only sets down the inward operation of God's spirit applying it to us, and faith upon our part apprehending it: and the word the sacraments, and discipline proponing and confirming the same unto us. But never a sillabe in the whole scripture, that the Lord hes appointed your sacrifice of the Mass to apply the death of Christ unto us. Seeing therefore your sacrifice of the Mass, neither satisfies for our sins (for Christ by his death hes done that sufficiently) nor yet applies the satisfaction once made by the death of Christ unto us, (for that is done by the spirit and faith inwardly, & by the word sacraments, and discipline outwardly, and that sufficiently:) Therefore your sacrifice of the Mass is needless, and serves to no use in the earth.

Fifthly, the Scripture ever conioynes with the sacrifice of Christ, his death: so that he cannot be sacrificed but by dying, as the Scripture plainly testifies, Heb. 9.25. and 26. Not that he should offer up himself often, for then must he have often suffered from the foundation of the world. The same may be seen also in sundry other places, whereof I have quoted a few on the margent. So the Scripture says, if he must be often offered up, he must often suffer. And Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa, fol. 725. says, That if there be not a true and a real slaughter of Christ in the Mass, then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice. But the Scripture says plainly that he hes but once died, and I trow you will not say that he is to die again: Therefore seeing he cannot die again, he cannot be offered up again: for the Scripture acknowledgeth no sacrifice of Christ, but that whilk is joined with his death.

Sextly, Bellarmine grants that in all external sacrifices, the sacrifice must be changed. It is also required (says he) in a true sacrifice, that that whilk is to be sacrificed be alluterly destroyed. And in another place, That whilk is offered is ordained to a true, real, and voluntare destruction. But Christ now being glorified cannot be changed and alluterly destroyed: therefore he cannot be sacrificed, if yourselves speak true: or else as oft as he is sacrificed in your Mass, he is alluterly destroyed, whilk is blasphemy.

Seuinthly, the scripture says, Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering: that is, all external propitiatory sacrifices ceases: but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ, as the Scripture testifies, and yourselves will not deny. Therefore there needs no more oblation of Christ in your Mass for the same.

Eighthly, the Scripture saith, That without shedding of blood there is no remission: but in your sacrifice of the Mass there is no shedding of blood, as yourselves grants, for ye call it an unbloody sacrifice: therefore by your sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sin.

Further, the Scripture acknowledges no other Prieste of the New Testament, but Christ only, These Priests says the Apostle to the Hebrews, speaking of the Priests of the old Testament, were many, because death hindered them to endure: but he, speaking of Christ, because he abydes forever, hes an everlasting Priest-hoode, whilk cannot pass from one to another. So Christ is the only Priest of the new Testament. Now if it be true whilk you say, that Christ is offered up in your Mass, and that by your Mass-Priests, then are there moe Priests of the new Testament then Christ, whilk is plain against the Scriptures. What will you say to this? That Christ is the principal priest of the New Testament, and yours are secondary Priests and under him, by whose ministry he offereth up himself to God But first, was not the Priests of the Old Testament only secondary Priests? this you will not deny, seeing their sacrifices were figures of his, and their Priesthood figures of his Priest hoode. But the Apostle oppones the Priesthoode of Christ, not to another principal Priesthoode, but to the Priesthood of men, whilk was but secondary, and says it cannot stand with that secondary Priesthood in the old Testament: therefore it cannot stand with your Priesthoode of the New Testament. And the reason whilk the Apostle alleges will not only serve, to exclude the Priests of the Old Testament, that was but secondary Priests also: but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever, of the propitiatory sacrifice of the new Testament. For the reason is, because he bydes forever, and hes a Priesthoode whilk cannot pass from one to another, whilk will serve as well against your Mass-Priests, as against them: for they are mortal as the Priests of the Old Testament were: and his Priesthoode cannot pass from one to another, as it might have done amongst the Priests of the old Testament, and also does amongst your Priests. For to what purpose should your Priesthoode and sacrifice serve, seeing Christ his sacrifice hes fulfilled all the types of all the sacrifices of the old Testament? If you say, to signify Christ his sacrifice to come, as theirs did: then that is false, for he is sacrificed already. But if you say, to signify and represent his sacrifice already done: then I say, what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose? for the word and sacraments does represent him sufficiently: and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice. And if you say it represents his sacrifice: then I say, it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the croce, whilk you will be loath to grant, for your Kirk saith, that it is one with that in substance. And I say farther, if you will say with Bellarmine, That this place of the Apost. only excludes absolutely the multiplication of Priests in the same dignity and power with Christ: that then they exclude yours also. For if you offer up the same sacrifice whilk he offered up, then you have the same power & dignity whilk he had. But this you say you do: for it is no matter of the difference of the manner, since the sacrifice is one. Seeing therefore Christ God and man, whilk ye say ye offer up in your Mass is of that same dignity, whilk he was of, when he was offered up upon the croce: and seeing the equal dignity of the sacrifice makes the equal dignity of the Priest that offers it up: therefore sacrilegious are your Mas-Priests, and excluded heir by the Apostle. And thirdly, I say, This is a vain distinction of yours, of principal and chief Priest, and secondary Priests: for this is the nature of this sacrifice of Christ that it cannot be offered up by none, but by himself. And fourthly, if your Mass-Priests be but Ministers in this sacrifice, and Christ the principal, (as you say) who offers up himself by you: then I say as ye offer up Christ as instruments, for your sins and the sins of the people: it should follow that Christ offers up himself in your Mass by you, for his own sins, and the sins of the people: But this is blasphemy, and expressly gainsaide by the Scripture. And last of all, I say, seeing (as your Kirk says) Christ his sacrifice in the Mass is one with that sacrifice upon the croce: therefore as Christ offered himself upon the croce, without the ministry of secondary Priests, so should he be offered up in your Mass, without the ministry of the same, or else it is not one with that. So your Mass-Priests are no ways to be called secondary Priests to Christ, except in that respect that Judas, with the band of men of war and hie-priests, were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking, death, & crucifying: even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ daily in your Mass, so far as in you lies: and in this respect brook ye your style of Mass-Priests. And because they have a common distinction in their mouths of a bloody and an vn-bloody sacrifice: for they affirm that sacrifice of Christ upon the croce to be bloody, and that sacrifice of him in the Mass to be vn-bloody: Therefore I will take away this refuge & vain starting hole from them. And first I say, this distinction of theirs of a bloody, & vn-bloody sacrifice of the self same thing that is sacrificed, wants all war •• nd in the word of God. For there is not so meikle in the whole New Testament as a sillabe, that tells us that there is a proper sacrifice of Christ whilk is vn-bloody: and you ar never able to bring one instance to the contrary. Secondly, I say, it is repugnant to the Scripture: for the * Scripture only acknowledges such a sacrifice of Christ as is joined with his death, as hes been proved before. See Heb. 9.24.25. Not that he should offer himself often, for then should he have suffered often since the beginning of the world. Now if the Apostle his argument be true, that Christ cannot be offered up often, because then he must die often: then this doctrine of yours is against the scripture, y ^e says, Christ may be offered up often, and yet not die often. But if you will say, this is spoken of that bloody sacrifice: I grant that: and I say the Apostle knew not, nor never spak of another sacrifice: and therefore your doctrine is vain, that would have another sacrifice, then ever the Apostles in the whole Scripture hes made mention of. And I say thirdly, this distinction of yours cannot stand with your own doctrine: for if there be a true sacrifice of Christ properly in your Mass, as ye say, then his blood must be truly shed, and he must truly die, (for this is the nature of all such sacrifices for sin, as Bellarmine grants it) lib. 1. de Missa, fol. 725. saying, If there be not a true and real slaughter of Christ in the Mass, then is not the Mass a true and real sacrifice: And also, In all true, real, and external sacrifices, the sacrifice must be a thing sensible and must be made holy of a profane thing, as Bellarmine confesses: & these conditions he requires in the definition of the same: but this, I hope, ye will not say of Christ: for he is holy always, and is insensible in your sacrifice, & cannot be slain again: therefore properly there can be no true sacrifice of Christ in your Mass, by your own doctrine. To conclude this then: For these causes we reject this abomination of your Mass. First, because Christ cannot be offered up in a sacrifice, but he must die also, as hes been proved, and the Scripture testifies that he hes once died, and all Christians confesses it. Secondly, because the death of Christ is a sufficient satisfaction for our sins, and so we need not that he should be offered up again to satisfy for the same. Thirdly, because the spirit of Christ and faith, by the outward means of the word & sacraments & censures, is a sufficient mean to apply him to us, and so we need not the sacrifice of the Mass for that end. Fourthlye, because Christ only is the Priest of the New Testament, who hes no successors, & whose Priesthood cannot pass from one to another, because he lives for evermore, and he only can be sacrificed by himself, & therefore he only can offer up himself, whilk he hes once done upon the croce. Fifthly, because the sacrifice of Christ upon the croce is perfect, and the virtue of it endures forever, and it cannot, nor should not be reiterate. Sextly, because the Scripture propones Christ now sitting in glory at the right hand of his Majesty, and not under the forms of bread and wine in your sacrifice. And seauenthly, because it is but the devise of man, wanting God to bear witness to it in the Scripture, repugnant to that only one sacrifice of his upon the croce, abolishing the fruits of his death and passion, turning the sacrament of the Supper, in abhominable idolatry, causing men to worship a bit of bread, as the son of God: and last, because it spoils men of the fruit of the sacrament Therefore in all these respects it is abhominable, to be detested, and in no sort to be communicated with.

Unto this I will adjoin some testimonies of some of the ancient Fathers, whereby it is manifest what their doctrine and judgment was concerning this point. Clemens Alexandrinus, who was neir the Apostles days, says, We sacrifice not at all unto God, meaning with a real and external sacrifice but we glorify him who was sacrificed for us. And then he subjoins what kind of sacrifices they offered up to God: to wit, a sacrifice spiritual, of themselves, of prayer, and of righteousness: and upon what alter, to wit, upon the alter of their souls, with the perfo • me of their prayers. Justinus Martyr says, I dare says he, affirm that there is no other sacrifice perfect and acceptable to God but supplications, and thanksgiving. And he says, that Christians hes learned to offer up these sacrifices only. Tertullian says, That it behooues us to sacrifice unto God, not earthly, but spiritual things, so we read as it is written, a contrite heart is a sacrifice to God. Origen says, The blood of Christ is only sufficient for the redemption of all mē, what need then hes the Kirk of ony other propitiatory sacrifice? And as for the sacrifice of Christians, he says, they are their prayers and supplications. It was a common reproach wherewith the Christians was charged by the Pagans three hundredth year after Christ, that they had no altars; unto the whilk their common answer was, that their altars was a holy soul, not corruptible altars, but immortal altars. If then the Christians had no material altars the first three hundredth year after Christ as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Minutius Felix, and Arnobius do testify: therefore it must follow they had no external sacrifices nor Masses all that time: so there was no Masses the first three hundredth year after Christ, seeing there was no altars. Epiphanius says, That God by the coming of Christ hes taken away all the use of sacrifice, by that one sacrifice of Christ. Athanasius says, that the sacrifice of Christ once offered up, hes accomplished all things, and remains forever, and that he is a Priest without succession. The same says Basil. And he says further, There is no more question of a continual sacrifice: for there is but one sacrifice whilk is Christ, and the mortification of his Saints. Because it were over longsome to set down the sentences of the rest, therefore I will only quote them on the margent: & I would desire Master Gilbert to read the same. And if he will believe them, I am sure he will leave off to be a Mass-Priest any longer: for they all aggree in this, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the croce, hes accomplished all the sacrifices of the old Law: and that the virtue of it is everlasting and therefore should not be reiterate: and that the sacrifice of Christians are not propitiatory, but only spiritual.

Seeing therefore the sacrifice of the Mass was so long unknown to the Kirk of Christ, it remains now that we show by what degrees it crap in: for as after the going down of the Sun, darkness comes not in immediately, but there is a twilight before the darkness come: even so after the bright stars of the primitive Kirk had ended their course, in process of time, and piece and piece: first, the third part of the Sun, Moon, and stars were darkened: till at the last the bottomless pit was opened, & that great darkness came up, as the smoke of a great furnace, that darkened both the Sun and the air. Out of the whilk this great abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass did proceed. For Bertrame who lived between the 800. and 900. year after Christ, says, Our Savior hes done it once in offering up himself: for he hes once offered up himself for the sins of the people: and this oblation is always celebrate eueryday, but in a mystery: and he says, that once oblation of Christ is handled every day by the celebration of these mysteries or sacraments, in the remembrance of his passion. There he oppones a real sacrifice to a mystery, & Christ's sacrifice once made, to a daily commemoration or remembrance of his suffering. Haymo siklike, reckoning out the sacrifices of Christians, he calls there, the praises of the believers, the penitence of sinners, the tears of supplications, their prayers, and alms. Theophilact, who lived in the 900. year after Christ, he says, That there is but one sacrifice, and not many: because Christ hes offered up himself once. And he says in another place: Christ hes offered up himself once, a sufficient sacrifice forever, and we have need of no other sacrifice: to wit, propitiatory. And Anselm who lived in the 1000. year of God and after, he says, That whilk we offer every day is the remembrance of the death of Christ, and that there is but one sacrifice, not many: for it hes been once only offered up. And again, Our Lord, says he, bade take eat, not sacrifice and offer up to God. So this was the doctrine of the moste learned, who lived 1000. years after Christ, that Christ offers up himself but once, and that sacrifice, was sufficient and everlasting, and the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual: and the sacrament (whilk they called sometimes a sacrifice) was a commemoration of Christ's one sacrifice, once offered up upon the Cross. But from thence unto this time, this abuse and sacrifice of their Mass crap in, but by diverse degrees, and by the concurrence of many causes.

Master Gilbert Brown.

I thought siklike to have proved the ceremonies of this blessed sacrifice, by the same holy word: but because it were something longsome, I have continued the same till another place.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

As for your Ceremonies, you did most wisely in rejecting the probation of them till another place: and so to hold the reader in y ^e half (as we speak:) because ye are never able to do it: and it is good to delay to enterprise a thing that is impossible. But how can you be so impudent, as to write, that you will prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the scripture seeing the Mass it self hes not the warrand out of the same, out contrary and repugnant to the same, as hes been proved. And I can scarcely think, (Master Gilbert ) that you have spoken this in earnest, when you said, you would prove the Ceremonies of your Mass by the same holy word, whilk is the Scripture. For what then will you say to the Council of Trent, who refers not the institution of them to the Lord Jesus in his written word, but to the Kirk by the unwritten Traditions. And to Bellarmine who says the Kirk instituted them, and so refers the institution of them, not to Christ in his written word, but to the institution of the Kirk and to youre own Doctors, & Canon law, and writers, who ascriues the institution of them, to your Popes, and others of your Kirk, as I have proved before. O Master Gilbert! What a preposterous love is this that ye bear to your abhominable sacrifice, that ye are not ashamed to write, that the very Ceremonies of it hes their warrand in the same holy word, and that contrary your own general Council of Trent, and all your learned Doctors and writers. I think ye thought that we had never read your ceremonies, or never known them, that ye write so boldly of them: Shall the Council of Trent say they are instituted by the Kirk, by Apostolical Traditions, whilk your Kirk confesses are not written in the Scripture: and yet are not you ashamed to say, they have their warrand by the Scripture, and so openly to contradict the doctrine of your own council of Trent I will say no further, but surely either they err in this, point, or else ye: and if they err, then the general Kirk may err, and hes erred: & so one of your main foundations is gone. Choose you whether you will take this blot to yourself, or let it fall on them.

But because ye account this Mass of yours moste heavenly: and ye vaunt, that ye only have in your Kirk that heavenly action: and because it is the chiefest point of your service and worship, whilk ye give to God in your Kirk: & also because ye so impudently affirm, that the ceremonies thereof hes their warrand out of the Scripture: Therefore I will discover heir, as shortly as I can, the abominations, absurdities, blasphemies, idolatries: vain, idle superstitions, Jewish & Ethnic ceremonies of the same, that poor folks be not deceived any longer therewith. For certainly, for as heavenly as ye think it is, I dare affirm that it is nothing else, but a very sink and filthy closet of all abominations, idolatries, and horrible blasphemies. So that as it is said in the Proverbs of the virtuous woman, that many weemen hes done vertuouslie, but thou surmounts them all: so it may be said of the Mass: Many services and worships devised by man, hes been idolatrous, blasphemous and abhominable: but this sacrifice of the Mass brought in the Kirk of God by Antichrist, in idolatry, abominations, and blasphemies surmounteth them all: so that the like of it hes never been before it, nor never shall be after it. For beside the foresaid abuses, that it is a will-worship instituted by mā, that it hes corrupted the Sacrament of the Supper, whilk was given us to assure us of the grace of Christ, and hes turned it in a sacrifice, and that a propitiatory sacrifice, & meritorious not to the Priest only, but to the beholders also: and not to the present only, but to the absent, and not only for the living, but for the dead: that it hes abolished the death of Christ, and the virtue of that one sacrifice: and that it hes spoiled Christ Jesus of his Priest-hoode, and communicated it unto others: beside these intolerable abuses, it abounds and ouerflowes with other intolerable abominations.

As first, their altars in their Mass, whereon they think they sacrifice the son of God, and therefore in the beginning of their Mass, the Priest says, And I will go in into the altar of God: whereby they renew either Judaism or Paganism: for their material altars was a parte of the Ceremonial law of the Jews, whilk was abolished by the death of Christ: and Nuna Pompilius 700. year before Christ, ordained that the Ethnic Priest when he went about to offer sacrifice, that he should draw neir to the altar. This entry of the Mass is said to be the ordinance of Pope Celestine the first, about the year of God 426. And because the Priests takes the altars for the Table whereon the Supper is celebrate, whilk he cōfounds with the abomination of the Mass: and also because Master Gilbert said he was minded to prove the ceremonies of the Mass by the Scripture: therefore I will ask him and his fellow Priests these few things concerning their altars? Firste, where read they that Christ did ever institute in the new Testament, that the Table of our Lord should only be of stone, & not of timber, or any other metal, as their altars whereon they chant their Mass, must be according to their law? Secondly, where read they in the new Testament, that the Table of the Lord should be consecrated with oil and chrysme, with a sprinkling of water, mixed of wine & salt, of ciphers of holy water, at the four corners of the same, at the middle part: and that none may do this but a Bishop: if a Clark do it, that he be degraded, and if one of the Laics do it, that he be excommunicate. (What folly is this, that a Priest hes authority (as they think) to sacrifice the son of God, and yet he may not pour a little oil upon a stone?) that the Bishop compass the altar seven times, singing the 51. Psalm, Thou shall wash me with hyssop, &c. profaning the truth of God. And there to bury the relics of some Saints put in a little shrine, with 3. grains of incense, that God for their cause may hear the prayers & accept of the sacrifice offered up upon that altar: and then annointing the Table of the altar with oil, & singing, Jacob erected up a stone, &c. Where, I say, read you these in the new Testament, that Christ commanded these things to be done to the Table of his Supper, whilk ye do to the altars whereon ye say your Masses. And siklike, where read ye that none should chant their Masses, but on such altars as are consecrated, and siklike that your altars are not lawful, where there is not found the bodies or relics of some Martyrs? Siklike, that ye dedicate your altars whereon ye chant your Mass to others then to Christ, as unto the Virgin Mary, Peter, and other Saints departed? And siklike, that the Priest should kiss the altar often? and namely, when he approaches unto it, carrying the Challice? Hes Christ commanded this? Hes the Apostles used them? Hes the Scripture made mention of them? What think you will you answer to God, when it shall be said to you, Who required all these things at your hands? And wherefore also transgress ye your own law in having moe altars then is necessary, seeing by it ye are commanded by express terms, that superfluous altars be destroyed? To conclude this then with Ambrose, As our sacrifice, says he, whilk is no other thing but our prayers and thanksgiving, is not visible, but invisible: so our altar also is not visible but invisible.

The second abuse is in the confession of the Priest, that he says in the entering of the Mass, I confess to God almighty, and to the blessed Virgin, and to all the Saints that I have sinned: in the whilk are sundry absurdities. First, that this confession is made not only to God, but also to the dead who neither sees the secrets of the hearts, nor yet are able to give remission. The second is, in the prayer that is set down in the latter end of it, saying, I pray thee blessed Marie, & all the he Saints, and she Saints of God, to pray to God, that I may have mercy, wherein are two horrible abuses: one, that he makes no mention of Jesus Christ our only Mediator, and desires him not, to make intercession for him: next, that he prays unto the Saints departed, and makes them intercessors and Mediators, who neither knows our necessities, and the secretes of our hearts, neither is able to hear or help us, whilk wants all warrand out of the word of God. And seeing prayer is a honor only due to God, and Jesus Christ is our only Mediator and intercessor: therefore this prayer to Saints departed is both idolatrous, and injurious to Christ his intercession and mediation. This confession was instituted by Pontian and Damasus Popes, anno 335. and 368.

The third abuse, is the absolution pronounced to the beholders of the Mass: Amen, Brethren and sisters by the mercy of our Lord Jesus, by the help and sign of the Cross, by the intercession of the Virgin Marie, by the merits of the Apostles, and of all the he Saints, and she Saints, God give you mercy. First, this aggrees not with their private Masses, where the Priest and the Clark only are present: for how can the Priest speak truly, Amen brethren and sisters, since none is present but the Clark only. Next, that whilk is only proper to Jesus Christ, to his death, merits, and intercession, to make the Father merciful unto us, and to make him to forgive us our sins, is taken from him heir, and communicate unto the virgins Marie, and the merits of all the he Saints & she Saints: and whilk is most horrible, unto the sign of the Cross: that by her intercession, their merits, and the help of the sign of the Cross, God might have mercy. What horrible idolatry is this, to join such helpers to the son of God, who is a perfect Savior. To join the merits of flesh and blood, to his merits, as though his were not sufficient to obtain salvation. And as though men were not only able to merit eternal life to themselves but also had such abundance of merits that they served to obtain mercy for others: and so not only to make them saviors of themselves, but of others also. And that whilk is yet more horrible idolatry and blasphemy, (if worse can be) to join with him the help of the sign of the Cross. Therefore in their Breuiarie they say, Keep us Lord with thy peace, &c. whom thou hast redeemed by the tree of thy holy Cross. And in a hymn, O Cross, hail O Cross, only hope, increase, righteousness to the godly, and forgive the guilty. And in their breuiarie they say, We adore thy Cross ô Lord. Now what is it to mock God, if this be not: to substitute creatures, yea a very stock and a tree in the room of the son of God, and to ascriue redemption unto it: and to pray for righteousness and remission at the same, to adore it, and to call it their only esperance? What place is left then to the blood & death of Christ?

The fourth abuse is in this prayer of the Mass, We pray thee Lord, for the merits of thy Saints, whose relics are heir, to forgive me all my sins. Where first, he makes no mention of Christ or his merits: next, he prays to God that for the merits of the Saints he may be forgiven, so he puts them in the room of Christ. Thirdlye, they have the relicts of the Saints in such account, that they have made a law that it shall not be lawful to celebrate ony Mass, but upon such altars, where the relicts of some Saints are. But to what purpose is this? To mak their altars commendable, and their sacrifices acceptable? But hes not the Priest, (as he thinks) in his hands, Christ Jesus the holy of the holiest? And is there relicts of Saints more precious and worthy, then his blood is? yea, and what relicts, I pray you, for the moste part? not of Saints, but of harlots and brigands: yea they have so multiplied their relicts, that they have made some of them to have moe heads then one, to have moe legs and arms then they were born with. As for example, Peter his whole body is buried in Rome in Vatican, and yet the half of him is in another part of Rome, another part in Constantinople, and his head kept in the fourth place, and another part of his head in the fifth place, another part of his head in the sext place, and yet sundry of his teeth in other partes. So that if he had as many bodies, and bones, and teeth, and heads, and arms, and legs, as are said to be his, and are kept as his relicts, his body were monstrous. And the head of Saint Barbara was shown in so many parts, that it behooved her to have seven bodies, or at the least seven heads. And that whilk is yet worse, they honor them, adores them, and prays unto them: the whilk is so manifest by the ordinary practice of their Kirk, that it needeth no probation.

Unto this we may join the fifth abuse, their images upon the hosts of their Mass, and the rest of their Idols and Images, whilk they call the books of the Laics, wherewith they fill their Temples & Chapels: whilk they honor, adore and prays unto, saying unto a stock, Thou art my father: & to a stone, thou art my mother: not only without commandment or example in the Scripture, but contrary the express commandment of God given out of Mount Sinai in horror and fear, so that the mountain shook, and Moses himself feared, Thou shall make thee no graven Image to worship it. And contrary the whole Scripture, and also the doctrine of the Fathers.

The sext abuse is in the prayer that the Priest says when he offers his host upon the altar, Receaue holy Father this immaculate sacrifice whilk I offer unto thee, for my own sins, and for the sins of all the faithful, both living and dead, that it may profit to me and them to salvation and everlasting life. And he prays the like when he offers the challice upon the altar, That it may ascend in the presence of his majesty, for the salvation of him and of all the world. Wherein the Priest commits horrible blasphemy in ascriuing remission of sins and redemption, to the sacrifice of bread and wine, for as yet the words of consecration are not pronounced: and so by their own confession they are yet but bread and wine: and yet the Priest says, he offers it to God for the sins of the quick & dead, and for the salvation of the world. Now what blasphemy is this to ascriue that to the sacrifice of bread and wine, whilk by their own confession is not changed yet in Christ's body and blood, whilk is only proper to the blood of Jesus Christ. Next, that he offers this sacrifice for the salvation of the dead seeing the elect departed are in heaven, and so they need no sacrifice for them: and the reprobate departed are in hell, so no sacrifice will auaill them. And as for Purgatory whilke they dream of, the Scriptures knows not such a thing. I pass by the mixing of the wine with water, contrary the express institution of Christ, and the necessity of the silver & golden veshels, or at the least tin veshels in your sacrifice.

The seventh abuse is their magical blessing of their incense, after the manner of sorcerers, without the warrand of the word, and the virtue whilk the Priest prays for, that it may chaise away the devil, make whole every disease: whilk hes no more virtue then their Exorcismes and adiurations, whilk the Priest makes in Baptism, and in their other services, by their holy water, by their lighted candles, their oiles, annointings, and other like ceremonies. And in this ceremony they either Judaize: for the Jews used this ceremony of incense under the law, to figure the sweet savor of the sacrifice of the son of God to his Father: and so makes the death of Christ of no effect to them: or else they follow the custom of the old Roman idolaters. For we read more then 700. year before Christ, that they used incense in their sacrifices and other services, whilk they did to their Idols. Some says, that Leo the third joined to the Mass this part, concerning the incense, about the year of God 800.

The eight abuse is, in that they make their Mass a memorial of Christ his incarnation, circumcision, resurrection, & ascension: and that they celebrate the same to the honor of others then to God: to wit, to the honor of the Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whilk is horrible blasphemy, to give that whilk is God's glory to his creatures. And therefore they have a Mass of our Lady, a Mass of S. Antone, a Mass of Saint Michael, &c. Now if the Mass be one with the Lord his Supper (as they say it is) then it is properly a memorial of his death, and it is instituted only to the glory of God, and not to the honor of any creature: therefore our Savior says, Do this in remembrance of me, and not of his Saints.

The nynth abuse (passing by their monstrous Transubstantiation, whereof I have spoken in another place) is their round host, taken from the use of the old Roman idolaters 700. years before Christ, who had little round bread whilk was consecrated to the honor of their gods, whilk they did eat after the sacrifice. So it was not the spirit of Christ whilk taught you this form, but the spirit of Numa Pompilius, the Magician, who breathed this doctrine in you: for there is no word of this round bread in Christ's Testament.

The tenth abuse is the lifting up of the sacrifice above their head, and the adoring and worshipping of the same, whilk is abhominable idolatry, to worship a bit of bread, as the great God and creator of all the world, contrary the express commandment of God, Thou shall only worship the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve. And how can they excuse themselves from idolatry, according to their own doctrine: for they hold this, that if the Priest have not an intention, (some says actual, other some habitual) that is, a purpose to consecrate, that the bread and the wine are not changed in the body and blood of Christ: and if he had a purpose to consecrate but the one half of the bread, the other half is not changed, but remains common bread. They therefore that adores it, if the Priest had not that purpose, what do they worship but the creature, and that according to their own doctrine. And who can be certain of the Priests intention? So who can worship in faith that god of theirs, seeing they cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest, upon the whilk this change depends: and that whilk is done without faith, is sin. Secondly, their own doctrine is, that the intention of the Priest suffices not, unless it be according to the institutiō of Christ: now sundry of their own learned doctors says, that their private Masses, where there is no public communion, is not according to the institution of Christ: therefore by their own doctrine, they are vile idolaters, both Priest and people, in worshipping a bit of bread that is made of wheat, as the great God: seeing by their own doctrine there is no change there in their private Masses of the bread and wine in the body and blood of Christ. Last of all, seeing there are sundry cases, and that very ordinary, wherein the Priest (by their own doctrine) doth not consecrate at all: as if the Priest have forgotten to put wine in the challice: if the bread be made of other thing then flower if the water surmount the wine: if the wine be sour: if he left out one of the words of consecratiō: now what certainty can the standers by have, that the Priest hes fallen in none of these cases. So with what assurance of faith can they worship their breaden God.

To prove this by some examples, that by their own doctrine they make the people to commit idolatry in worshiping of their breaden God. About the year 1536. there was four Augustine Friars, hanged in Ciuil in Spain, who had secretly by night murdered their Provincial. The day following to avoid all suspicion of the murder, they all four said Mass, but they had no intention to consecrate, as they themselves afterward confessed: and so there was no Transubstantiation there, by their own doctrine. And therefore, all these that heard their Mass that day, by their own doctrine committed Idolatry, because there was no consecration there. I will set down another example. There was a certain Priest who being deposed for his filthy life, wherein he had continued for the space of 30. years with a harlote: being demanded by one, if he had truly repented him of this his abhominable life, and if he had put away this his cōcubine from him, with intent never to receive her again? he never had (said he) ony such purpose. Being asked again, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 how then said he Mass every day, and made he no scruple to eat the bread of the Lord, and drink of his holy Cupe, his conscience accusing him of such an erroneous sin? At the last, he confessed, that to avoid the unworthy receiving of the body & blood of the Lord, he did not pronounce the sacramētal words wherewith it is consecrate. And being urged again, how he durst commit so horrible a wickedness, as to give so great an occasion of so horrible idolatry to the people: who kneeling on their knees, casting themself on the earth, lifting up their hands towards the altar, striking their breasts, did worship the vn-consecrated bread and cupe. Unto whom he answered, that it was not so great a fault as he said of it: and that he was not allone, but many moe did the same, whilk thought it not so abhominable an offense, as he made of it. These two histories I find written by a Spanish author, one Cyprian Valera, the title whereof is, Of the Pope and his authority, & of the Mass & the holiness thereof. All these than that heard the Masses of these men, and adored the sacrament whilk they lifted up, committed idolatry by their own Canons and decrees: for the last did not pronounce the words of consecration, & the other four had not the intent to consecrate: and therefore there was no Transubstantiation there, by their own doctrine, & so they worshipped bread and wine as their great redeemer & creator. But what a miserable religion is this, that depends upon the intention of another: and therefore who can be certain, by their own doctrine, whether it be God they worship or not in their sacrament. And this made a certain inquisitor, an enemy to the truth, fearing when he heard Mass, whether the Priest had intention to consecrate or not to say, O Lord, if thou be there I adore thee: and so by this subtelty he thought to escape committing of idolatry. In the time of the Council of Constance, there was three Popes that the Council for their abominations did depose, & elected another: these three not being Popes could not ordain Priests, nor give them authority to consecrate: so that by their own Canons, all they that heard Masses of such Priests as had their authority from them, committed idolatry. This same may be said of them that heard the Masses of all these Priests that were ordained by Pope Constantine the first, and the whore Pope John the 8. For neither of these had power to ordain Priests by their own Canons. And as for Pope John, there is no controversy of it, because she was a woman, not capable of that authority by their own Canons. And as for Constantine the first, he was a laick man, who without receiving any orders was by force named Pope. He not being a Priest himself, could not give this authority to others. And so by their own doctrine, all these that heard the Masses of such Priests did commit horrible idolatry. And howsoever the Pope and his Clergy affirms it to be God, and not bread and wine, whilk they adore; yet ye shall see what estimation they have themselves of that breaden God of theirs, by some examples. Pope Gregory the seventh, used it for coniuratiō, and sought a response of it, and because it would give him none, he caste it in the fire, and burned it, and so burned his Creator. They use it to revenge their wrongs, hatred and malice by it: and therefore Pope Victor the third in the year. 1088. was poisoned in the Challice by his sub-deacon. Siklike the archbishop of York, poisoned in the Challice. Siklike Henry the seventh, poisoned by a Dominican Friar in the Sacrament. They use it for an Haruenger, sending it one or moe days journey before, with the basest sort of the people. The Dominican Friars of the town Auferra in France in the year 1536. did burn it, being vomit out by a Fria • that said Mass. And the Franciscans de alia Villa burnt the Cow whilk had eaten up the sacrament out of the Priests hand, and so in burning her, did burn their Creator with her. Molon, one of the Spanish inquisition, 35. years since, being to go into procession upon the day of Corpus Christi, & the host that was to be put in the box, being so great that it could not be placed in the same, he being impatient to awaite whill another host had been consecrate, demanded ane pair of sheares, and clipped his God and Creator: and so went on forewarde to their procession. Of the whilk we gather two things. First, that their Popes and Ecclesiastical rabble is without all God and religion, that makes so light of their God as to clip it and burn it, and use it as the instruments of their malice & revenge. Secondly, that this consecrate bread of theirs whilk they sell to the people to be worshiped and adored is moste abhominable Idolatry, whereof one day they shall give a reckoning to God: and thus much for the tenth abuse of their idolatrous Mass.

The eleventh abuse is, that in your communions, first contrary the institution of Christ, ye give not the bread to the hands of the people to take, but puts it in their mouths, as though their mouths were holier then their hands. Next ye spoil the poor people of a sweet pledge of their salvation, the sacrament of the wine; giving them only bread: contrary first the express command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of this: next, contrary the doctrine of the Fathers, your own canon law, and Pope Gelasius. The second is that in your Mass, suppose ye speak of a communion and communicants, yet there is none at all; for your Priest eats and drinks out all. And therefore have ye eiked to the words of Christ eat all, drink all, contrary the express institution of the Supper, take ye, eat ye, and drink ye all of this. And contrary also to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the primitive Kirk, & of some Councils, and some of your own Popes also.

The twelfth abuse is in the prayer contained in the canon • f the Mass in these words. Look mercifullie upon these things to wit, Jesus Christ his body and his blood, whilk the Priest • hinks he offers up to God, & so Biell a exponer of the Mass • nterprets the same;) and accept of them, as thou accepted of the sacrifice of Abel, of Abraham and of Melchizedek. And in ano • her place, the Priest prays unto God to receive that sacrifice (to wit of Christ) and to sanctify it with the blissing wherewith he san • tified the oblation of Abel. Now if anything can be said to be blasphemy, certainly this must be blasphemy, to a Mass-Priest a sinful creature to interceede between God the Father, and Christ his Son to pray the Father that he may sanctify his Son and accept of him; as though he were not fully sanctified in him self, and were not the fountain of all holiness to others, and as though the Father were not well pleased in him already. And because the Mass-Priest vantes that in his sacrifice of the Mass he offers up the eternal son of God in a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the quick and dead, I will ask him this: doth not he blaspheme horribly, who vants that in something that he does hs is more acceptable to God, nor Jesus Christ is? This cannot be denied. But I assume that the Priest vantes that in his Mass he is more acceptable to God, nor Jesus christ is: therefore the Priest is a horrible blasphemer. And I prove the Assumption thus: The Priest vaunts that in his Mass he offers up Jesus Christ to God his Father: the Prieste also in the Mass prays the Father, that he would sanctify and accept of his son whilk he offers up: Therefore the Priest vaunts y ^t he is more acceptable to god in the Mass, nor Jesus Christ is: for God regards more the person that offers up, then the thing that is offered up. This is Irenaeus language: and for this purpose he brings forth the examples of Abel and Cain, & their sacrifices. For he says, They two offered up to the Lord, but they were not both accepted of him: for Abel his sacrifice pleased God, because his person pleased him, and that because of his faith: but the sacrifice of Cain pleased not God, because his person pleased him not, and that because of his incredulity. Seeing therefore that the Mass-Priest vaunts that he offers up Jesus Christ in his Mass to the Father: and seeing the Priest must be more acceptable thē your sacrifice: Therefore it must follow that the Priest in the Mass vaunts, that he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is, and so is a horrible blasphemer in his Mass.

The thirteenth abuse is, that he compares the sacrifice of the son of God, with the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, & Melchizedek, whilk by infinite degrees surpasseth them all.

The fourtenth. What horrible blasphemy commits the Priest, when he prays that that oblation whilk he thinks to be Jesus Christ, may be carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel, as though Christ were not as powerful now to ascend 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 to heaven, as he was after his resurrection, and therefore hes now need of the help of an Angel, to carry him to heaven What blasphemy is this? But let me ask you, Master Gilbert, Wherefore pray ye that he may be carried to heavē seeing ye eat him, and makes him to descend in your belly, as ye think, and to ascend and descend are things contrary? And if ye will say, that first it mounts to heaven, & then descends again: then I say, first the accidents of the bread and wine are left there allone: for they are not carried to heavē, but remains in your hand: and Christ's body and blood are not under them, seeing he is carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel: and so your real presence is gone. Secondly, seeing ye eat his body and drink his blood, it must follow that ye must make a new Trāsubstantiation, to cause Christ come down again from heaven, and to make the bread & wine to be trans-changed again in his body and blood, that ye may eat him and drink him. And so these are many voiages whilk ye cause Christ to make: First, to descend from heaven by the means of your Transubstantiation, then to make him to ascend to heaven by the means of your prayer and then last of all, to make him again descend from heaven, that ye may eat him and drink him. These are the blasphemies whilk follows on your blasphemous Mass.

The fifttenth abuse, is in their prayer for the dead, wherein they pray for a place of refreshment, light and peace for them, who hes died in faith, sleeps in peace, andrests in the Lord, and yet in the Masses that are said for them, they will not give the Pax to be kissed, whilk is a sign of peace: let them advise how they will reconcile this. But first I say, their prayer for the dead, is without all warrand of the word: next, I would know who these are for whom the Priest prays: not for them that are in Hell, for they have not died in faith, nor sleeps in peace, nor rests in the Lord: and prayers for them are needless, for out of hell is no redemption: not for them that are in heaven, for what greater light or peace, or joy can they have nor that whilk they have already? not for them that are in Purgatory, for beside that it is but the devise of man, according to their own doctrine, they that are in Purgatory sleeps not in peace, but are tormented in fire, (if their doctrine of the fire of Purgatory be true:) and so this prayer cannot be for them neither.

The sixtenth, is your horrible cruelty against the son of God, in breaking the body of Christ in three cupons in your Mass, (as ye think) whilk is greater cruelty then the men of war did to him upon the croce: for they brake not a bone of him, and yet ye Mass-Priests makes no scruple to part his body in three cupons.

The seuententh, is your dipping a part of the host into the Cupe, whilk is without all warrand or example of the Scripture, and is against the doctrine of one of your Popes.

The eighttenth, is in the prayer wherein the Priest prays, that the receiving of Christ his body be not to his condemnation, seeing he means not heir by the body of Christ, the bread whilk is a seal of his body, but properly the body of Christ: whilk whosoever receives, receives not to death but to life; seeing he is life and salvation itself.

The ninetenth, is the blowing & mumbling of the Priests on the bread & wine, there turning of their back to the people when they prouounce the words of consecration: their so oft signing with the sign of the Cross in their Mass, 25. times: their keeping and inclosing of Christ's body (as they suppone) in a box: their burning of candles before it: their carrying of it in processions vpō their solemn days whilk they call the feast of God, in their Temples, Villages, streets: their carrying of it to the sick and diseased, with these blasphemous words spoken by the Priest to the patient, Behold my friend God your Creator, whilk I have brought unto you. What blasphemy is this? and what a God is this that cannot come by himself, but must be brought by another? and what comfort can this God bring to the patient, that cā not bring himself to the patient, but as he must be borne by the Priest? What a mockery of God, of his word, of themselves, and of the poor people, is this? Does their Priests the thing that Christ did in the Sacrament? Did he any of these things, or commanded he them to be done? Crossed he the bread and wine? Did he blow & mumble the words upon it? Commanded he the bread to be kept in a box, to be carried in Processions, to be carried to the sick, to burn candles before it? What spirit hes revealed to you these things? seeing the spirit of Christ hes not revealed them in the Scriptures? You must seek therefore for a new Gospel, to prove these ceremonies: for the Gospel of Christ makes no mention of them: yea, this keeping of the sacrifice, it is forbidden by your own Canon law. So ye both fight against the Scripture, and your own Canon law.

The twentieth abuse, is their manifold stiles and titles that they give to their Mass, whilk cannot be all aggreeable to the same: some taken from the persons in whose name and honor they are celebrate: as the Masses of the Trinity, of the name of Jesus, of his croce, crown, and five wounds, of our Lady, of the Angels, of the Saints: some taken from the persons and matters wherefore they are said. For there are sundry sorts of Masses, for sundry sortes of persons and matters; as one for the Pope, another for the Emperor, the third for the King, the fourth for a man, 5. for a woman. 6. for the bridegroom. 7. for the bride. 8. for Prisoners. 9. for them that sailles. 10. for them that goes a voyage. 11 for the dead. 12. for him of whose soul there is doubt. 13. for the pest. 14. for the rage. 15. for the tempest. 16. for the fire. 17. for all sortes of diseases both of man and beast. And last of all, some of their stiles are taken from the diversity of times and seasons where in they are said: one sort of Mass for Summer, another for Winter: one for the time of lent, another for the time of flesh: one for Christ-mas, another for Pasche, another for Whitsonday, & other some for other feast days. Now these Masses are so diverse, that the Mass that is said at one of these solemn times, cannot serve for another: the Mass for lent, cannot serve for the time of flesh: the Mass for Pasch cannot serve for Christmas, and so forth of the rest. In the whilk there are many horrible abuses. First, if the Mass be one with the Supper (as they say) then as there is but one Supper of the Lord, whilk is instituted only for the remembrance of Christ, whilk is but one in general for all: & whereof all the faithful are partakers, of whatsomeuer rank they be: be they great, be they small, be they riche, be they poor; and whilk serves for all times. For, as our Savior did institute but one Baptism to serve for all persons, & for all times so he did institute but one Supper to serve for all persons & all times. If therefore the Mass were one with the Supper, it should be but one for all persons, and for all seasons. But this diversity of Masses does testify that it is not the institution of Jesus Christ, but the institution of Antichrist, & that it is not one with the Lord his Supper, as they falsely allege: Yea, it doth testify that they have forsaken the truth of God and are given over of God to believe lies, and to be deceived by strong delusions, that they might be damned.

Secondly, what needs several Masses of the Trinity, of the holy spirit, of the name of Jesus? for seeing the three persons of the Trinity are one, & they all concur in the work of our faith, the Father giving his son by his holy spirit in the word and sacraments: therefore this diversity as though the persons of the Trinity were separate, is needless.

Thirdly, this would be marked: that suppose they have styled their Masses from sundry persons, yet they have not ascriued a singular Mass to Jesus Christ, that it might be named simply the Mass of Jesus Christ: and this, no question is not without the providence of God, that seeing the Mass is not the institution of Christ, but of Antichrist; not the ordinance of God, but of Satan: he would not that such a blasphemous and idolatrous invention should have the same style to be called the Mass of Christ simply, without any further addition, as the Supper is called the Lord's Supper. Fourthly, they have a several Mass to the name of Jesus, unto the whilk Boniface the sixth, hes given pardon of 3000. years to them, that says this Mass deuotly: as though his name were a thing separate from himself: & as though there were some special virtue in the sillabes and letters of that name, after the manner of Magicians and Sorcerers.

Fifthly, their Masses to his Cross and crown, is manifest idolatry, in ascriuing that whilk was proper to Jesus Christ, to the tree whereon he hang, and to the crown of thorns whilk he bure: as though either they had redeemed us, and not himself who was crucified on the tree: or else that they were one with himself, whilk are both blasphemy. Sixtlye, their Masses to the honor of the Virgin Marie, to Angels, & Saints is manifest idolatrye: for the Supper was not instituted in the honor of any creature, but only to the honor of him who did redeem us. Seventhly, wherefore serves any Mass for the Pope? for if he be such a one, as himself and his Kirk hes written of him: to wit, that his will is heavenly, that he may make something of nothing, that he may of right dispense against right: that he may make righteousness of unrighteousness, and that he may deliver as many souls out of Hell and Purgatory, and place thē in heaven, as pleases him, he needs no Masses to be said for him. Either therefore these sentences that are spoken of him are false, or else all Masses said for him are superfluous. 8. if the Mass be one with the Supper, then as the Supper was only instituted for the living, and not for the dead: and therefore our Savior in the Supper commands, To take eat, drink, and to do it in remembrance of him, whilk the dead cannot do: so these Masses should not be for the dead. And for what dead are these, that these Masses are said? If they say, for them that are in heaven or hell: I answer, the one needs them not, and they are unprofitable for the other. If they say, for them that are in Purgatory: I answer, this Purgatorye is but their own invention, to draw water to their own mil, and to enriche the Popes treasures, for the Scripture makes no mention of it. Ninthly, their Masses that are said for them that are absent, as for the Prisoners, for them that sailles, & are in their voyage, &c. makes it manifest also, that the Mass is not one with the Lord's Supper: for it was instituted not to them that were absent, but to them that were present. For in the Supper they are commanded to take, eat, and to drink in remembrance of him, whilk the absent cannot do. Indeed it is true, that these that are present at the Mass does eat and drink as little, as they that are absent: the only vantage they have is to be beholders of the Prieste eating and drinking all himself allone, and of these vain and iuglers tricks of the Priest in saying of his Mass, whilk the absent canno • see. Tenthly, how can their Priests please God in saying Mass for him, of whose soul it is doubted, seeing it cannot be said with faith, and whatsoever is done without faith the Apostle says is sin: and this doubting, as James says, cannot stand with faith: therefore this Mass of theirs for his soul of whom there is doubt, cannot please God? But what is all their religion, but conjectures, and opinions, and doubtings. Elleuenthly, is their Masses for the pest, tempest fury, fire, and all afflictions, and maladies, as well of man, as of beast, whilk containeth intolerable and vile idolatry: for every Mass hes his own Saint to be a patron, according to the subject thereof, and every Saint hes his own office. Against the pest, the Priest says the Mass of S. Sebastiane, & S. Roch, for they are the patrons and defenders against it: after the custom of the Pagans, who honored Apollo & Aesculapius by feasts and sacrifices for to be saved from the contagion of the same. Against the tempest, they say the Mass of S. Bernard, S. Graith, S. Barbe, and others, instead of Jupiter whilk the Pagans worshipped. Against the rage or fury, they say the Mass of S. Hubert, who is the patron of hunters and dogs, as the gods Diana was the patron amongst the Pagans. Against the fire they say the Mass of S. Anton, for they make him the patron of it: and they say it is a greater oath to swear upon the arm of S. Anton, then when one swears by the name of God. For a woman with child, they say the Mass of S. Margaret, instead of Diana and Juno whilk the Pagans worshipped for women with child. For a horse they say the Mass of S. Eloy, or S. Anton, yea, for a poor wifes hen, if it be sick or lost. And for their pigs, they have the Mass of S. Antone. But first what blasphemy is this, to have their recourse to Saints, he or she, to obtain of them, or by their merit, or intercession, health in sickness, &c. and such like things, whilk are only in God's hands to bestow: for it is he only that sends health, and sickness, fair wether, & foul wether, & so forth. Next, the Lord's Supper was not instituted to be a charm for such diseases of man or beast, or for the fire, pest, tempest, &c. but for the remembrance of Christ's death. So that if there were no more abuse in the Mass, but these two things, it is sufficient to make all men to abhor such abhominable idolatry.

The twenty and one abuse, is their mixing of parcels of the Scripture, with their abomination & idolatries in their Mass, after the manner of those who goes about to impoyson any: who mixes their poison with some good food, that it may be the less suspected: or rather as the Magicians & Charmers does, who mixes with their devilish practices, parcels of the Scriptures of God, and makes those to serve for their devilish purposes, whilk was appointed to God's honor So are all the places of Scripture, whilk are read and sung in their Mass, they are brought forth, not for the truth, but against the truth for their idolatry and abomination: & this they have done, that their idolatry may be less suspected by the simple. Next, what warrand have they to prefer the Gospel, (as they call it) to the Epistles, in standing up at the reading of the Gospel, and sitting at the reading of the Epistles, seeing they are both inspired of God, and they both contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle testifies. Thirdly, the Gospel and Epistles, were appointed not to be sung and chanted in the Kirk, (as they do) but to be red & interpret: for the Psalms and other hymns in the Scrip • ure are ordained for that use. Fourthly, seeing the Scripture whilk is read and sung in your Mass, is read and sung in an unknown language, as all the rest of your Mass is done: to what purpose does it serve? and what is it but a mocking of God, and abusing of the poor people.

The twenty and two abuse, is their wax candles whilk they have burning in the time of their Masses, in the fair day light, mocking as it were thereby, both God the author of all light, and the light of the sun. And to what purpose cā they serve to burn in the day light, when the sun is shining, but to bear witness against them in the great day, that in the midst of the noon day, they groped in darkness, & that they have put out the light of the Gospel, that should have shyned in their hearts? What shall I speak of the rest of your ceremonies whilk are superstitious, idle, carnal, and Jewish? In attire like them: for as their Priests were cled in an Ephod, a Miter, a broidered coat, a girdle, a breastplate, and a robe. So with you your Priests must have an Amice, an Albe, a girdle, a fannell: whereof some of them are taken from the fashion of the Pagans. For Numa Pompilius when he used to worship, he covered himself with a kerchiffe or veil: and he ordained that these idolatrous Priests should have their Albe, and a painted coloured coat above it: as the Jewish Priest had a lawer, whereat they must wash, before they sacrificed, so have yours: as they lifted up a part of the host, so you lift up the whole host: as they sounded the trumpets at their sacrifices, so you ring your belles. And what shall I speak of the rest of your vain and superstitious ceremonies? in washing often, in crossing and blessing often, in censing often, in soft speech & whispering, in kissing of the Amice, kissing of the fannell, kissing of the stole, kissing of the altar, kissing of the book, kissing of the Priests hand, and kissing of the Pax: in smiting and knocking of the breast, in gesturing by rule and measure, in bowing and becking, in spacing foreward and backward, & turning round about, and traversing of the ground: his gesture so ridiculous, so changeable, so affectate in saying of his Mass, that a man would think a plaier were coming forth upon the stage to play, when the Priest addresseth himself to the Mass: beside the music of your Organs where it may be had, and your threefold salutation of the Priest, Dominus vobiscum, whilk can have no use in the private Masses, where the Priest is himself allone together with the Clark. So that in truth it is more then Jewish: for in ceremonies they are above their ceremonies, in orders more exquisite, in cautels more diligent: so that it seems rather to be a stage play nor the worship of God. But I see it is fulfilled in them whilk was foretold, that God would send them strong delusions, that they might believe lies, that all these might be damned whilk loved not the truth. Let the Christian reader judge now, whether the Mass be an heavenly action, or whether it be not a sink and closet of all abomination or idolatry, or not.

As truth confirms the self, so falset destroys the self: A Kingdom divided against it self (as our Savior says) cannot stand: Therefore their divisions and contradictions amongst themselves concerning this their sacrifice of the Mass, is an evident token that y ^t kingdom cannot stand. Some of you says, Christ descends daily frō the bosom of the father to the altar, & ascends frō thence to heavē again: other some says the contrary, that he neither descends from heavē in the Mass, nor ascends from thence to heaven. 2. Bellarmine says in a part, that the sacrifice of the Mass does not satisfy for our sins, or merit properly the forgiveness of them. and yet in another place he says, that Christ offered in the last Supper a sacrifice for the sins of the Apostles, and the sacrifice of the Mass (says he) is one with that. And their Priests says in the Mass that he offers it up for the redemption of souls: and the counsel of Trent calls it a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. And Gabriel Biell a exponer of the Mass, says that the Mass is one in substance with the sacrifice of the Cross, and that it proceeds the self same effects; to wit, the appeasing of God his wrath: If it then appease God his wrath, and be offered for the redemption of souls, then it must both merit properly, and satisfy properly. 3. Some of you affirms that the sacrifice of the Cross, is more excellent then the sacrifice of the Mass, and the virtue of the Mass depends upon it: and yet some of you says, It is but one sacrifice with that of the Cross, the same sacrifice & the same Priest in both, how then can the one be more excellent then the other? 4. Bellarmine says, that the valor of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite, and therefore it is oft repeated: but Cajetan a Cardinal says, that the virtue, quantity, and effect of it, is infinite, as the suffering of Christ. 5. Some of them says, that Christ is offered up in the Mass by the words of the Kirk, when it is said, Tua de tuis offerimus tibi, some when the words of the consecration are pronounced: but Bellarmine aggrees with neither: he says, the sacrifice is offered up, not so much by the words as by the putting of the sacrifice upon the altar. 6. Bellarmine says in a part, That if there be not a real and true slaughter of Christ in the Mass, then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice: for says he, to a true and real sacrifice, is required a true and real slaughter of the thing that is sacrificed: for the essence, says he, of the sacrifice stands in the slaughter. Vppon the whilk follows, that either Christ is daily truly crucified in the Mass, by their Priests, or else their Mass is not a true and real sacrifice. And yet in another part, he says, that the sacrifice of the Mass requires not a true slaughter of the sacrifice. 7. Gaspa Casilius says, that there are two diverse sacrifices in the Eucharist or Mass, the one of the bread and wine, the other of the body and blood of Christ: and yet Bellarmine and sundry others denies it, and says there is but one. 8. Pope Innocent says, that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered up for original, venial, and mortal sins, & yet the Master of sentences, and Gerson says, that the Mass purges but venial sins, & Thomas of Aquine aggrees with neither of them, for he says, the sacrifice of the Cross was for our original sin, but the sacrifice of the altar, is for our ordinary sins. 9. M. Gilbert Brown says, that their Priests does the same in the Mass, whilk Christ did in the Supper: but . Bellarmine frankly grants that Christ did not offer up the bread by the same words, that their Priests do now in the Mass, therefore they do not the same thing that Christ did. 10. Master Gilbert Brown says that Christ did offer his body and blood to the Father after the consecration, but Bellarmine says that neither Christ nor his Apostles in the beginning did offer up any oblation after the consecration. I leave the rest of their contradictions, so that seeing they have no concord amongst themselves, neither in the matter, nor in the form, nor in the effect, nor in the substance, nor in the circumstances of their pretended sacrifice: but that the Lord (as is said in Hosea) hes divided their hearts: therefore their Mass must perish. And seeing the Lord hes sent such a confusion amongst them, that they understand not the language one of another: some saying one thing, some another: therefore it is Babel the tower of confusion whilk they are building, and not the house of the Lord.

To conclude this, they will have their sacrifice not a creature, but a Creator of all creatures: and therefore they worship it with the worship of Latriae, whilk by their own doctrine is only proper to God: therefore they sing after the consecration, It is not bread but God and man my Savior: and yet they say that this Creator both begins to be where he was not before, after the consecration: and ceases to be where he was before: and that he is not everywhere as God is. And they say that the Priest makes Christ his body of the bread in the Sacrament, & Christ this king is made of bread. Now how can he be the true God, & a true creator, whilk hes a beginning, and ceases to be, whilk is not everywhere, as God is, whilk is made of bread and wine by a Mass-Priest, and that by their own doctrine? Howe therefore shall their Kirk be cleared from abhominable idolatry, that worships that whilk they call God, creator and Savior: and yet such a God, as by their own doctrine hes a beginning and ending, and is not everywhere, and is made of bread and wine by dust and ashes. O, woe be to their souls that worships God, whilk made not heaven and earth, and causes others to do the same! And howe shall their Mass-Priests be cleared from sacrilegious blasphemy, whilk vaunts that in their Mass they daily creat their Creator, and that of bread and wine: and so makes themselves God's, and more then God's, for God created but creatures, but they (as they suppone) creates the creator. And as they worship a false creator in their Mass, so do they worship a false Christ and Savior in the same. For the scripture says, That the true Christ is made of the seed of David, & of the seed of the woman, and not of any other substance. But the Christ whilk they offer up in their Mass, by their own doctrine, is made of bread and wine, and that by the Priest. So Bellarmine confesses, and Pope John 22. For the one says, that it is no absurd thing to the Priest to make Christ his body of bread, and the other says, that Christ the King is made of bread: Therefore they worship not Jesus the son of Mary who was made of the woman, and of the seed of David: but a false Jesus made of bread, and baken in the Oven, and formed by the Priest: therefore of all idolaters they must be the moste blasphemous and abhominable. And this meikle for the first head, concerning that idolatrous abhominable Mass. Now follows the second point concerning the Antichrist: that the Popes of Rome are that undoubted Antichrist, that the Scripture foretold should come.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Secondly, Saint Paul in descriuing of the Antichrist, tells that he shall be but one, the son of perdition. Now then, if there shall be but one chief Antichrist, whether is this present Pope he, or some other before him. For every man knows that there hes been moe then 230. Popes, as all the writers of their lives testifies. They cannot all be Antichrists, for that repugnes to Saint Paul, who hes put him in the singular number. And if Master John will follow the word, as he says he does, where will he find that there shall be many chief Antichrists, and not one only? For that place of Saint John where he says, That now there is becomed many Antichrists, can no ways be understood, but of the fore-runners of the great Antichrist. For at that time Master John will grant himself, that the great Antichrist, the son of perdition was not begun.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

Your second reason is, the Antichrist is but one singular person. The Popes hes been many: therefore they are not the Antichrist. I deny your proposition, for there lies all the controversy. We say the Antichrist is not this Pope, or that Pope an certain person. But we ascriue this name, to the whole seat and the succession of your Popes: we say the body and the kingdom of your Romaine Kirk, whereof your Popes are the heads, is that Antichrist whilk was to come. So if you prove that the Antichrist should be but a particular person, and not a body, a kingdom, a seat and succession of men that are adversaries to God and to Jesus Christ, I will grant you have sufficiently cleared your Pope from being Antichrist. But content yourself (Master Gilbert: ) this ye will never prove by the Scripture: and therefore ye must let your Popes be accounted the Antichrist still. And if this reason of yours be good, the Antichrist is one certain person. Therefore the Popes, because they are many, are not the Antichrist; wherefore (I pray you) shall not this also be good: the Vicare of Christ is one certain man, but the Popes are many: therefore they are not Christ his Vicare? What difference (I pray you) is there beetwene the one and the other? And if ye will say, the Vicare of Christ is not one singular man, but a succession of many in one office: why will ye not also grant, that the Antichrist is not a singular man, but the succession of many in the self same impiety. So either choose you, whether will ye grant that the Antichrist is not one singular man, but a succession of many; or else that the Popes are not Christ his Vicare: for the one ye must do, if this reason of yours hold forth. But how do ye prove that the Antichrist is but one singular person? You say, that Saint Paul tells that he shall be but one. Howe would ye have cried out, if I had fathered such a falset upon the spirit of God as you do heir? but let such be far from me. You say, Saint Paul calls him the son of perdition, and puts him in the singular number: therefore say ye, the Antichrist shall be but one singular person. I fear ye take pleasure to deceive the simple with such silly reasons. Our Savior says, that a good man o anthropos, out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things. And he says, The Sabbath was made dia ton anthropon, for man, and not o anthropos dia ton sabbaton, man for the Sabbath. And also he says, o anthropos man shall not live of bread only. Also that o anthropos the man of God may be made perfect. And, For it behooues ton episkopon a Bishop or overseer, &c. Heir are the same phrases of speech: they speak all of a man in the singular number, with that same Greek article o, as the Apostle speaks heir in descriuing the Antichrist, and yet I trow ye will not be so ignorant or impudent, as to say, that our Savior and the Apostle speaks of one singular person in these places. So what warrand have ye to gather that heir, whilk you dare not gather out of the like phrases of the Scripture? If then in these places there is not a singular man understood, suppose they speak of a mā in the singular number; it will not follow that the Antichrist must be one singular person, because the Apostle speaks of him as of one man, in the singular number, for the phrases are all one: but the first ye must grant: therefore the next will follow. Secondly, in the 16. of Matthew, our Savior says, Epi taute te paetra, Upon this rock I will build my Kirk, he speaks heir in the singular number with the same article te, that the Apostle speaks of, in descriuing the Antichrist. Now let me use this same argument against your Popes, that they are not this rock upon the whilk the Kirk is built, as you say, as you have used heir to prove that he is not the Antichrist. This rock upon the whilk Christ promised to build his Kirk, is but one singular person, because our Savior puts him in the singular number (Epi taute te petra) Upon this rock: but your Popes of Rome are not one singular person, but many: Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this Rock upon the whilk Christ promised to build his Kirk What difference is there between your argument for the Pope, and this argument against the Pope, seeing both are grounded upon the like phrase? Choose you then, Master Gilbert, whether will you have the Antichrist, not to be one singular person, but a succession of many: or will you have the Popes not to be the rocks where upon the Kirk is built? for the one ye must. Thirdly, I say, the Apostle Paul says speaking of the Antichrist, that the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work. And John says, this is the spirit of that Antichrist whilk ye hard was to come, and is even now present in the world: and the Apostle says, the Lord shall destroy him with his presence: and your doctrine is, that he shall not come while the end of the world. Now what a monstrous man will ye make him, whose spirit was in the days of the Apostles, and who must continue till the end of the world, if the Scripture be true, a man of fifteen hundredth year of age already. Is this credible? or are you able to persuade men that hes but the least drop of reason left in them, and believes the Scripture, that the Antichrist should be but one singular man, since the Scripture says, that his spirit was present in the world and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apostles days, that is, 1500. year since, and he shall continue to the end of the world. Fourthly, is it possible that one singular person can perform all these things, whilk either the scripture or your own doctrine tells he shall do? For the scripture says, he shall resemble the Lamb with horns, he shall speak like the Dragon, he shall do all the power of the former beast, he shall make all men to worship the beasts image, he shall make all, both rich and small, &c. to receive his mark, &c. so that no man shall buy or sell but he that hes his mark, &c. so that all nations shall be drunken with the wine of her fornication. And your doctrine is, that he shall build the Temple of Jerusalem, whilk the Turks hes now in possession, that he shall destroy Rome, that he shall abolish all religion, and all the outward ceremonies thereof, that he shall conquer and overcome the strongest impires in the earth, and be Monarch of the whole world. Now, is it likely, or can it be, that any one mortal man is able to perform so great and so wonderful things? Was there ever yet any King, Emperor, or any other creature under heaven, that ever performed so great and wonderful things, and especially in so short a time, as ye assign to your imaginary Antichrist, as of three years and a half? That one ciety of Troy kept all the Grecians for the space of 10. years almost besieging it, before they could overcome it. The temple of Jerusalem was seven years in building by Solomon, who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth, who had an hundredth fifty three thousand, and sex hundredth workmen for the same. That great Conqueror Alexander, with whom no Monarch is comparable, neither in power, nor happy success, was not able to conquer all Asia the space of ten year, whilk was the fourth part of the world And shall we think that a miserable Jew, by the help of their scattered people, being an enemy to God and all good men shall be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks, against whom all the power of Christendom hes not prevailed: & not only to overcome them, but also to overcome all the empires and kingdoms in the earth, and to restore the ciety of Jerusalem, and build the Temple again from the foundation, and abolish all religion, both true and false, except his own: (for this is the doctrine of your Kirk concerning the Antichrist) and that in so short a time as three year and a half, as you ascriue unto him. Who will believe you, Master Gilbert? Will any Turk, Christian, or Jew himself believe, that any one man, suppose his age were never so long, and his person never so strong, can be able to accomplish and perform so many, and so wonderful things, as your own doctrine affirms shall be done by the Antichrist. So this doctrine of yours, that the Antichrist shall be but one singular person, can neither stand with the scripture, nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist. Fifthly, as partly hes been proved, this is the common phrase of the Scripture, in the person of one to understand a multitude: & therefore Daniel in the descriuing of the Monarchies, he compares them to sundry beasts in the singular number, to a lyon, a Bear, a Leoparde. &c. and yet by them was not signified one certain person, but a succession of kings in the selfsame kingdom: and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast, to signify a kingdom, & succession of persons in that kingdom. Tertullian calls the Antichrist a ciety, whilk prostitutes the self to fornicatiō, to wit, spiritual Ambrose calls the woman cled with purple (who is the Antichrist) the ciety of the devil. Augustine calls that beast whilk is the Antichrist, the ungodly, and body of the wicked, who fights against the Lamb, a people contrary the people of God, whilk jointly with their head is called the Antichrist, a heretical Kirk, whilk is called Babylon: nonnulli non ipsum Principem, sed vniuersum quodammodo corpus eius, id est, ad eum pertinentem, hominum multitudinem, simul cum suo principe, hoc loco Antichristū intelligi volunt. Gregory a Pope says, the beast is a multitude of them who preaches the Antichrist. And Thomas a Papist says, the beast (whilk is the Antichrist) is a body, & so not a singular person. And the ordinary gloss says, The head and the body together makes the Antichrist. And Hugo a Cardinal calls him an University, or communalty. So not only the scripture and reason, but also the testimonies of these Fathers, & of some of yourselves concurs all in this, that the Antichrist is not a singular person, but a body, an estate, a succession. So I hope the reader hes seen nothing, neither by scripture, neither by reason alleged by Master Gilbert, wherefor the Pope may not be the Antichrist.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Thirdly, Saint Paul says, He shall be an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, &c. whi k no manner of way can aggree with the Pope. For he calls himself the seruand of God, & prays most humbly to Christ, and desires support at his holy mother and Saints. If he will deny this, I cannot tell what any man can say to him, but whether God will or not, he will have the Pope to be the Antichrist, albeit it be repugnant to the word of God. These are no dark prophecies, but manifest sayings of Christ and his Apostles. I would wish Master John to read Saint Augustine de Antichristo, tom. 9.

Master John Welsche his Reply.

I come to your third reason. The Antichrist shall be an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God. I grant that: but your Pope is not an adversary &c. This I deny: the whilk if you prove, then shall I grant he is not the Antichrist. Let us see your proves then, for they had need to be sure, seeing all your religion and safety of your Kirk depends upon it: and if ye cannot clear him from being an adversary to God, and from lifting up him self above all that is called God, or that is worshiped: then your head and your religion is gone. You say he is not an adversary to God because he calls him self the servant of God, and prays most humbly to Christ. We answered to this before. It is not his stiles whilk he sacrilegiously claims to him self, nor yet his form of godliness that can free him from this: for Wolves will be clad in sheep's skins, and false Apostles and Prophets hes pretended the authority and calling of God: and the Apostle testifies that there are many whilk profess God in words, but denies him in deeds: and Satan can transform himself in an Angel of light. And it was fore-told that the Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God, that is, in an eniment & high room in the Kirk of God, and that he should have two horns like the Lamb, that is, as Augustine interpretes it, two Testaments as the Kirk hes: but yet speaks like the Dragon, that is, as he interpretes it, who under the name of a Christian pretends the Lamb, that he may spout in more secretly the poison of the Dragon: and that harlot who makes all nations drunken with the wine of her fornication should have a golden cup, that is, a show of godliness, that he might the more easily deceive. And Origen says the Antichrist holds nothing but the name of Christ, neither does he his works nor teaches his truth. Christ is the truth, and the Antichrist is a disaguised truth, a disaguised justice and mercy. He takes the testimonies of his false doctrine out of the Scripture, for these that will not be pleased otherwise, and he sitteth upon the chair of the Scriptures, showing him self as though he were God. And Cyprian says that they teach despair under the pretence of hope, and perfidy under the pretence of faith, and the night for the day, and perdition instead of salvation, and the Antichrist under the name of Christ. So then if ye will believe either the Scripture, or these testimonies of the Fathers, neither the stiles, nor yet the show of godliness whilk your Popes hes will clear them from being the Antichrist.

And as to his humility towards men, we have heard somewhat of it before: and as to his humility to God, we shall hear of it heirafter, whether he be so humble as he pretends or not And certainly, it had not been possible that his spiritual idolatry and abominations had been so greedily drunken out by all nations, if they had not been put in a golden Cupe, & his delusions had not been so strong to deceive, and they had not been a deceive-able unrighteousness: that is, such a unrighteousness as had the show of righteousness, that it might the more easily deceive: and the doctrine of the Dragon had not been so easily and universally embraced, if he had not had two horns like the Lamb, that is, the pretence of the royal and Priestly authority of the son of God. So he hes taken on these maskes that he may the more easily deceive. It is not then these visards and maskes that will be able to hide him from these, whose eyes the Lord hes opened. And as for the third thing, the invocation of Saints departed, I say, this argument is so far from clearing him from being an adversary to God, that if there were no more, it is enough to convict your Popes and your Kirk, that they are adversaries to God. For he is an adversary to God, who robs God of any portion of his glory, and gives it to his creatures: My glory, says the Lord, I will not give to another. But the Pope & his Kirk does so, in giving invocation or prayers (whilk is a part of God's glory and worship) unto the Saints departed. For the Lord says, Call upon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me: therefore your Popes and your Kirk are adversaries to God in this point. For we ought to call upon them only, in whom only we ought to believe. But we ought only to believe in God: therefore we should only pray to him through Jesus Christ. And he only should be incalled upon, who knows our necessities, & is able to hear our prayers, and to grant them. But only God in Christ, the searcher of the heart doth these things: Therefore he only ought to be incalled upon. Heir therefore ye give out a sufficient evidence against your Popes & your Kirk, that you are Antichristian, and adversaries unto God: For that whilk ye bring heir to cleanse him, does fyle him.

Indeed, I will neither deny the hypocrisy nor idolatry of your Popes, for they both aggree unto them: and that whilk Origen says of the Antichrist, is true of them: for they hold nothing of Christ, but his name: they neither do his works, nor teaches his truth. And yet for all their hypocrisy and pretence of godliness and humility, these notes and marks of the Antichrist, as the word of God hes descriued him, doth every way aggree to them. So that if the word of God be true in setting down the marks of the Antichrist, your Popes who bears these marks, of necessity must be the same. You wish me in the end to read Saint Augustine de Antichristo, tom. 9. It would appear that you think, that the reading of that work would have altered my mind somewhat concerning your Popes, that they are not the Antichrist: and it appears to me, by that your earnest desire, that the doctrine set down in that treatise is worthy of all credit and authority, and that yourself is of that self same judgment concerning the Antichrist with the author of that treatise: for I think you would not have wished me to read that thing, whilk ye yourself believes not to be true. I therefore read it, and read it over again. And beside many other things, I find this in it: that the Antichrist should be borne of a Virgin, by the help of the Devil, as Christ was borne of the Virgin by the work of the holy Ghost. I wondered that you should have wished me to read that book, in the whilk there was so manifest an error, and that contrary the doctrine of your own Kirk. You should beware of this (M. Gilbert: ) for if your head and Kirk get wit of it, they will not only count you a bad defender of the Catholic Faith, as you say you are: but also it may be they suspect you of heresy, who does wish your adversaries to read that book, wherein so manifest an error is, and that against the doctrine of your own Kirk. For who will think of you, but that ye are of that same opinion yourself, seeing ye are so earnest with others to read the same. Bellarmine that great defender of your Catholic faith, was more wise then you in this point. For first he says, there is a manifest error in that treatise: next he says, It is certain that that treatise cannot be Augugustines, but it is probable, says he, that it is Rabanus his work. So to conclude this, I assure you M. Gilbert, I am of the same mind that I was concerning your Popes, for all the reading of that work: But I am not of the same mind towards you that I was before the reading of the same: for either I think ye have been very foolish in vishing me to read that whilk ye believed not yourself to be true: or else, that ye defend a manifest error, not only against the truth, but also against the doctrine of your own Kirk. And let your Pope who is the bond of unity amongst you, see to this: howe to reconcile you and Bellarmine, two defenders of his Catholic faith; you saying that that work is Augustine's, and Bellarmine flatly denying it, and affirming that it cannot be his: you wishing your adversaries to read it, and Bellarmine confuting a manifest error in it. But betwixt you be it. Now this is all that you have said for the defense of your Pope, whilk are but as fig leaves, whilk cannot hide his nakedness.

Now I will let thee see (Christian reader) what we have for us wherefore we affirm and teach, and is ready also (as thousands hes done before us) to seal it with our blood that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist, whilk the Scripture hes fore-told should come, time hes made manifest, and the Lord his mouth hes in a part consumed. And first, I will lay this ground whilk (Master Gilbert ) cannot gainsay, and the conscience of all men will subscriue to. That as the true Christ is sufficiently descriued in the old and New Testament, so the Antichrist is sufficiently descriued there also: and as he is to be believed, under the pain of the endless damnation of their souls to be the true Christ, to whom the prophecies of the old Testament concerning the Savior to come, doth aggre; and of whom the New Testament testifieth that they are accomplished: So he must be that Antichrist whilk the Scripture fore-told was to come, to whom everyone of the marks and properties of the Antichrist set down in the same, doth aggree, and in whom they are found to be accomplished. Let us therefore out of the Scripture search the marks of the Antichrist, and then let us see whether their Popes of Rome be stamped with these marks or not. I speak not now of the many Antichrists whereof John speaks, whilk were fore-runners of that great defection, whilk was fore-told should come in the Kirk of God: but of that chief and great Antichrist, who not in one or two things only, but almost in all the points of his Religion, should be contrary to Jesus Christ, whom the places of Scripture noted on the margent, does descriue. And while as I affirm, that the Popes of Rome are this great Antichrist, I understand it thus: that they are the Prince & head of that defection and apostasy, whilk the Scripture fore-show and fore-told was to come in the Kirk. For I do not think, that all the strength and force of the Antichrist, is included in the Pope: but the Pope & his kingdom whilk is contrary to the kingdom of Christ, is moste truly called the Antichrist: whereof, because the Pope is the Prince and head: therefore by that figure, taking the part for the whole, I call him the Antichrist. And in this we follow the scripture: for the Scripture speaking of the Antichrist, sometime calls it a defection, and a mystery of iniquity, and the second beast that hes the horns like the Lamb, and the harlote: and sometimes points out the principal and chief in this kingdom, on whom the whole body of iniquity doeth hang: as when he writes heir, the man of sin, and son of perdition, whilk is an adversary, who extolles himself above all &c. whilk is most properly spoken, not of the body, but of the head. Having shown now in what sense we take the Antichrist, we will go to the matter. And first to that 2. Thessa •• . where he is descriued, and that by no dark prophecies, as you say, but by plain sayings. First therefore the Scripture calls him there, A man of sin, and son of perdition. The whilk to be accomplished in your Popes, your own histories, Cardinals, Councils, favorers, Friars, friends, and themselves, does sufficiently testify. So that if they speak true of themselves (whilk you cannot deny) then of all the monsters that ever the earth hes borne, some of your Popes hes been the greatest monsters. For in this point (Master Gilbert ) we deal not with you, as ye deal with us: for ye cite our enemies as witnesses of us, whilk should have no credit and we cite your own friends, and these of your own religion. So that they shall be fetched out as witnesses against you in this point, whether your Popes be the men of sin, & sons of perdition, or not. What commandment is there of the first or second Table, whilk they have not violated in the highest degree. 1. Whoremongers. 2. Adulterers. 3. Sodomites. 4. Incestuous. 5. Fosterers and maintainers of harlots. 6. Tyrants. 7. Diuelish, and Sorcerers. 8. In pride passing all creatures under heaven. 9. Atheists without God. 10. Periured. 11. Burreaus 12. Baudes, and merchants of whores. 13. Sacrilegious. 14. Traitors. 15. Seditious. 16. Blasphemous. 17. Parricides. 18. Poisoners of Emperors, Senators, Cardinals, yea of their own Parents and Sisters. 19. Helpers of the Turks. 20. Drunkards. 21. Simoniaks. 22. Monsters. 23. Bastards. 24. Arians. 25. Idolaters. 26. and so contentious, that sometimes there was two, sometimes three, and sometimes four, all Popes striving for the Popedom together. It were longsome and tedious to bring in their monstrous lives, as their own flatterers, Friars, Cardinals, and others of their own religion, hes written the same I will therefore only set down a few for example, for the probation of this first point.

Leo the third, he by his authority allowed, and by his Bulls confirmed a false and adulterous blood, whilk some lying deceauers affirmed to spring out of a certain wooden Crucifix, to be the true blood of the son of God, and caused a solemn festival day to be made to the honor of 〈◊〉 What horrible both blasphemy and idolatry was this? The Devil himself could not have done that whilk the Diuelish Pope did. The Serpent whilk deceived Eve, could not have persuaded men that Christ Jesus, who (as the Apostle says) but once shed his blood, and is now in glory at the right hand of his Father) did shed his blood again, whilk this Pope confirmed and allowed.

John the 8. a Woman, or rather Joan alone of that name, before called Gilberta, a harlote: who in the time of her Procession, brought forth a child, and died thereof: sat in the Papal seat of Rome, two year, and six months, that all might understand, that that prophecy of the great whore that sat upon many waters, whilk is spoken in the Revelation. 17. was fulfilled in the Idolatrous Kirk of Rome. And because some of you denies this, therefore I have cited these authors, testifying the same.

Stephen the 6. he caused take out of the grave, the carcase of Formosus, who had mansworne himself: and spoils it of the Pontifical habit, and commands it to be buried again in the burial of the Laics, cuts off two of his fingers, & casts them into Tiber, and abrogates his decreets: and decreed that the ordinances of Formosus should be void, whilk is a point of Donatism, as Sigebert a Monk noteth. But Romanus the first, and Theodorus the second, Popes, his successors, they allow Formosus, and abrogates the acts of Stephanus, and so did John the 10. by a council of 74. Bishops, restored the acts of Formosus to the full, and abrogated the acts of Stephanus, and condemned them. Yet for all this, Sergius the 3. having casten down Christopher the first out of his Papal seat: and afterward did cast him in prison, where he died: and so obtained this Satanical seat by the help of Marozia his harlote; he causes take out the body of Formosus, whilk had lain eight years in the grave, degrades it from the Pontifical honor, cuts off the three fingers whilk Stephanus the 6. had left, and with them casts his carcase in the river Tiber, & abrogates his acts, and ordained anewe them whilk was ordained by Formosus, whilk is a point of Donatism. And this most filthy adulterer, begets John the 12. an adulterous bastard, who was Pope afterward, with Marozia his harlote.

Pope Lando he begets in adultery John the 11. before he was Pope: who afterward was Pope.

John the 11. or 10. Lando his adulterous son, he by the means of Theodora his impudent harlote, being then ruler of Rome, was first made Bishop of Bononia, and then archbishop of Rauenna, and then last of all, Bishop of Rome, with whom he wallowed himself in whoredom. But he by the means of Marosia his harlots daughter, is cast in prison, and there smoared. And her bastard son, whom some calls John the 12. whom Pope Sergius the third begat with her in adultery, is set up in the Popedom: and he governs the same in that accustomed filthiness. So the Kirk of Rome was governed by harlots, as noteth Luitprandus lib. 3. cap. 12. and was made a harlote, as it was prophesied of her, Ap. 17.

John, whom some calls the 13. of that name, he is such a monster, that I know not if ever the earth did bear a greter, who had sold himself to all sorts of licentiousness, adulteries, incests, and most horrible cruelties. Of his Cardinals, of some he cuts out their tongues, of some he cuts off their hands, of some their noses, of some their privy members. He is accused in a Synod of his own Bishops, before the Emperor Otho, that he did not communicate, that he ordained Deacons in stables, that for money he made bairnes Bishops: that he defiled Virgines & strangers: that he made the palace of Lateran a bordel-house, that be drāk wine to the Devil: that in his gaming at the dice, he sought the Devils help, that he committed a threefold incest: one with two sisters, another with his father his concubine, the third with his Niece: therefore he was deposed from his Popedom. But afterward by the help of his harlots was restored to it again, having dejected Leo the 8. who was placed in his room by the Emperor. And last of all in the very act of adultery, he is stricken through, (as some says) by the Devil, God giving out that sentence against him, and so dies without repentance. These are evil, but yet worse (if worse can be) did follow. For from John the 8. who was a woman Pope and a harlote, for the space of 156. years, as some reckons to Sylvester the second, who gote the Popedom in the 1000. year of our Lord. For that space, I say, the Popes suppose they vowed holy chastity, yet they were sold to all lusts, and lived in all licentiousness, harlotry, adulteries, incests, and in great contentions, cruelty, tyranny, and bribery: so that they might rather be called the Princes of Sodom and Gomorrhah, then the Vicars of Christ. Genebrard a Papist says, that for the space almost of 150. years, from John the 8. who died 884. anno, after Genebrards account: unto Leo the 9. anno 1048. about a fifty Popes did revolte wholly from the virtue of their antecessors, and were Apostaticall rather then Apostolical, and obtained the Popedom, some by money, some by force and bryberie: and so no marvel, says he, suppose they were monstrous, and entered not in by the door, but by the Postern gate. Chronol. lib. 4. seculo 10. But from Sylvester it appears that the Devil was then loosed in his full strength and liberty: and the Antichrist reigned then as a Dragon in the Kirk of Rome. For from him till Gregory the seventh, including them both, being 18. or 19. Popes, their own Cardinal Benno writes, that they were all enchanters or Sorcerers.

Sylvester the second, a teacher of these devilish arts: he by a solemn bargane with the Devil, that if he would promote him to the Popedom, he would give him both soul and body afterward, obtains the same. He had a copper-head in secret, whilk always gave him answer of that whilk he demanded of the Devil. He asked of the devil how long he should live? who doubtfully answering him, that he should not die whill he said Mass in Jerusalem: he rejoicing at that, and never being purposed to go to Jerusalem, yet not being ware of the Devil his subteltye, on a certain day went to a certain place in Rome, whilke was called Jerusalem, and there saying his Mass in that Tēple, is suddenly taken with a fever, and knowing by the noise of the Devils, his death to be at hand, in the anguish of his soul confessed his Diuelry, and as Benno a Cardinal writes, he desires his hands and tongue, & (as some other writes) his priuye members also, to be cut off, with the whilk he sacrificed to the Devil, and blasphemed God. Now judge thou (Christian reader) whether this seat and throne, and office of the Popedom, be of God, or not: whilk the Devil can give, and hes given to men, and whilk men can obtain by Diuelrie. And judge whether these men whom they call the head, light, and foundation of their Kirk, be Christ's Vicars, or the Devils Vicars, or not. Yea, judge whether they are the very men of sin, and sons of perdition, and the Antichrists whilk the Scripture foretold should come in the Kirk, or not.) But yet this did not fear his successors: for they followed his foot-steppes in these Diuelish arts.

Benedictus the 9. he was so skilled in these Diuelish arts of Magic, that before he was made Pope, in the woods he called upon these evil spirits, and by his Diuelry caused women to follow him, for to satisfy his filthiness. He by these his devilish arts obtains the Popedom, and makes his former companions Magicians, his most familiar counselors. But he fearing himself, sold the Popedom unto his fellow Magician, called Johannes Gratianus, who was afterward called Gregory the 6. for 1500. pound. Platine says, that by the judgment of God he is damned for the selling of his Popedom. So after he is deposed, he is suffocate by a Devil in the woods, & so he perishes. Of whom it is reported, that after his death, he was seen monstrously to appear to a certain Eremite, in his body like a Bear, in his head and tail like an Ass: and being asked howe he was so monstrously transformed: he answered, I wander in this shape, because I lived in the Popedom without reason, without a Law, and without God, (out of thy own mouth thou art condemned.) There was such tumults, contentions, and great slaughters for that throne, betwixt Sylvester the 3. and Benedict his faction, that Benno a Cardinal says, the Kirk was rent in pieces; and by heresies, under the culour of sweet honey, was suffocate. And Platine a Papist says, that the good was oppressed and rejected: and they that might do most by pride and ambition clam up to that throne. But Gregory the 6. buys the Popedom (as hes been said) & so at one time there are three Popes, whilk hes three sundry seats in Rome, whom Platin calls, Teterrima monstra most ugly monsters.

Gregory the 7. called otherwise Hildebrand that most ugly monster, he having by the means of Brazutus poisoned six Popes his predecessors, to make a way to himself unto the Popedom: he climes up to that devilish throne that same night, without consent either of people or Clergy. Of whom Benno a Cardinal writes, that he was a notable Magician: that when it pleased him he would shake his sleeve, and sparks of fire would come out, whereby he deceived the minds of the simple. Of whom the said Cardinal reports also, that coming to Rome at a time, he left his book of his Magical and devilish arts behind him through forgetfulness: and remembering himself, he sends two of his most faithful seruands about it, charging them straitly that they opened not the book: but they the more they were forbidden, they were the more curious: and so opening the book, and reading it, behold the Angels of Satan appeared to them in such a multitude, that skarcely did the two young men remain in their wits: and the Devils said unto them, Wherefore have ye called us? why do ye weary us? Tell us what we shall do, otherwise we will fall upon you? Unto whom one of them answered, Pull down these high Walls whilk are neir Rome, who went and did it quickly, and so the young men came to Rome exceedingly terrified. This same Cardinal reports of him that he seeking by many deceatfull means to put down the Emperor, he hearing that the Emperor resorted often to a certain Kirk to his prayers, and having searched the place where he used to bow himself: he hired a Villaine to lay great stones over the beams of the Temple where the Emperor prayed: that they falling on the Emperor, might crushe him in pieces: and so it might be reckoned for a miracle of God's judgments. But it fell not out so: for the stone being so heavy, fell backward upon him: & breaking a table that was amongst the beams, the stone and the miserable man fell down upon the floor of the Kirk: and so the miserable Villaine is crushed in pieces, with the same stone whilk he had prepared for the destruction of the Emperor. The same Cardinal also reports, that he sought a response of the sacrament of the lords body against the Emperor (as the Pagans wont to do at their Idols:) but whē he gote none, he cast it in the fire. For the whilk cause the Bishop of Porteous in open Pulpite says, that Hildebrand and we should be burnt quick. He excommunicates Henry the 4. deposed him from his empire, and set up Rodolphus Duke of Sueuia in the Empire, and sent him a crown with this verse, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Rodolpho.

He loused all his subjects from their oath of obedience to him, and forbade his Bishops and Clergy under the pain of Excommunication, to acknowledge him. This Emperor with his wife, and son, came in the Winter, and stood before his Palace bare-footed, three days, in linning clothes: and all that time could not get access to this proud Antichrist: who answered that his holiness was not at leisure. Antoninus and Vincentius says, that he granted to a Cardinal in the time of his death, that by the instigation of the Devil he stirred up hatred, enmity, and wars amongst many. Of whom also Cardinal Benno writes, that seeing the Devil could not get Christ subverted by the Pagans: he labored to subvert his name under the shape of a Monk, and pretence of Religion.

The most cruel, arrogant, and treasonable tyrant Pope Alexander the 3. He continewes a debate for that Satanical seat 20. year: first with Victor, then with Paschalis, Calixtus and Innocentius, who were elected Popes, and succeeded one after another. He excommunicates the Emperor Frederick, and Pope Victor. He betrays the Emperor to the Souldane, sends his picture to him, and writes to him to cut him off, if he would live in peace. He caused him to fall down on the ground, and to seek mercy, and then stramped upon his neck, (the Monarch of the world) repeating that sentence of the Psalm, Super aspidem & basiliscū, &c. Thou shalt walk upon the serpent, & the cokatrice & thou shalt tramp down the lion & y ^e Dragon. (O blasphemous mouth, for this is spoken only of Christ.) And when the Emperor answered, Not to thee, but to Peter: he replied, Both to me, & to Peter.

Boniface the 8. that threeformed beast, of whom the common Proverb is, that he entered in like a Fox, rang like a Lyon, and died like a Dog: he moste craftily deceived his Predecessor Celestine, by causing one to speak to him for many nights through an whistle, as though it had been the voice of an Angel: Celestine, Celestine renounce, for the burden is greater then thou art able to bear. The whilk the simple man believing, renounced the Popedom, and so he entered in his room, and having inprisoned the simple man his Predecessor, he was such a cruel tyrant that he persecuted some of his Cardinals everywhere, spoiling them both of their livings, offices, and their heritages. He wasted and spoiled the places where they were reset, so that they were compelled some of them to dwell in the woods, flying his cruelty. Some did venture upon the cruel hearted Pirates, thinking to find greater humanity with them, nor with their holy Father the Pope. He was also without all Religion: for when the archbishop in Genua upon Ashwednesday, upon his knees, bare headed, doing his service in the Temple before the people: this holy Father looking on him, took a great many of ashes and cast in his eyes, saying these words, Remember man because thou art a Gibelline, and with the Gibellins thou shall return to ashe. He nourished Harlots, he begat bastards, he affirmed that no man should judge him, though he carried a number of souls with him to Hell.

John the 23. taught, that the souls separated from the bodies, did not see God's face while after the resurrection, and sent Friars to preach it. He was declared by the people of Rome (as Marius says) to be an heretic, a tyrant in the Kirk, and a perturber of the public peace of Christians.

Benedict the 12. he bought from her other brother Gerardus with great gifts, a sister of Franciscus Petrarcha, to commit villainy with. He nourished many harlots, of whom it is written, Iste fuit vero laicis mors, vipera clero, deuins à vero, he was a death to the people, a viper to the Clergy, a wanderer from the truth.

One part of Christendom, to wit, the Romans, makes Urbanus the sext Pope: another sort makes Clement the seventh Pope, whereby was such a schism, that it went to their successors, and continued forty years. These Popes did mutually by their bulls excommunicate one another: they sent infamous libels one to another: wherein they called other mutually heretics, schismatics, Antichrists, tyrants, thieves, traitors, sowers of evil seed, and the sons of Belial, and that worthily. Now because the Kirk of Rome says that the Popes cannot err, and that their judgment is infallible, and their decreetes moste sure: therefore, if this be true, by their own testimonies they are heretics, schismatics, and Antichrists. &c. Illyricus testifies, that Theodoricus Niem the Pope his most inward Scribe, faithfully set down the history of the schism of these Popes in three books: wherein he says, that he fand the devilish craft of the Popes and their wickedness whereby they horribly mocked God and Religion, vexed & tyrannized over the Kirk of Christ, to be such, that suppose he had red, heard, and seen meikle of their wickedness before: yet having red that book, he saw their wickedness was ten-fold more then ever he would have suspected. And therefore he says, Truly now I assent unto the Canonists, who affirms that the Pope is neither God nor man: for, says he, they are incarnate Devils, and in malice and wickedness is worse then Satan himself.

John the 24. after his Predecessor was poisoned, threatened the Cardinals to choose whom he would: for this cause named they many, but with none of them was he pleased: then they prayed to name whom he would Pope: he answered, Give me S. Peters mantle, & I will put it upon him, who shall be Pope: and when they had given it him, he put it on himself, and said, I am Pope. He is accused before the Council of Constance, of forty weighty and grave crimes, whilk were sufficiently proved against him. And Bellarmine says, there was 35. articles proved against him: that he poisoned his predecessor Alexander, that he was an heretic, a Symonaick, a liar, an hypocrite, a murderer, a dicer, an adulterer a Sodomite, and what not? This also was laid to his charge, that he denied life everlasting, and therefore is deposed, and another set in his room. In his Epitaph it is written of him Pestis auaritiae me caecum reddidit, aurū Plus iusto sitiens munera sacra cradedi: that is, the pest of avarice made me blind, and thirsting over meikle for gold, I fold holy things too dear.

Sixtus the fourth that vile and beastly monster. Wesselus Groningensis in his treatise of the Popes pardons, writes of him that he permitted to the whole family of Cardinal Luciae, at the request of Petrus Ruerius Cardinal, and his brother to use Sodomitry, (O horrible abomination!) the three months of the year, June, July, & August. Agrippa says, that among y ^e Bawds, or maintainer of bordels of these latter times, Sixtus the fourth was famous: for he built a meikle bordel-house in Rome, both for whoredom & Sodomitry: he fed troops of harlots, gaining thereby great sommes of money: for every harlote of Rome, every week paid to the Pope, an Julian penny, whilk would amount in the year to twenty thousand Ducats. But they say it is now augmented, that it comes to forty thousand. In his Epitaph it is written, Riserat vt viuens coelestia numina Sixtus, &c. that is, While he was living, he mocked God, and dying, he believed there was no God. Ane adulterer, the destruction of the town, who past Nero in wickedness, who was all wickedness and vice together.

Alexander the 6. he made a covenant with the Devil, and gave himself over to the Devil, that by his help he might obtain the Popedom: the whilk when he had obtained, he so holily led his life, that he preased to do nothing without first he had asked the advise of the Devil. A Simoniack an Atheist also: of whom it is written, Vendit Alexander cruces, altaria, Christum: Emerat ill prius, vendere iure potest. That is, He selled the croce, altars, and Christ himself: he bought thē first, and therefore he might sell them again. A traitor also for two hundredth thousand Ducats, whilk he received from the Turk: he poisons the Turks brother, Gemen Baiazetes, being then captive in Rome. Who also called for the Turks to assist him against the french King. He committed vile incest with his own daughter Lucretia, of whom it is written her Epitaph, Alexandri filia; sponsa, nurus. He made one of his sons Prince of S • cile, and another a Cardinal. He gave liberty to Petrus Mendoza a Spaniard, a Cardinal, whose lust could not be satisfied, neither with a troop of harlots, neither with the Queen her self, to commit Sodomitry with his own bastard son Zanathensis. (O horrible impiety!) He commanded to poison some of the Senators of Rome, and of his own Cardinals, who were at a banket together with him self. But in the righteous judgment of God, the Flagon being changed at unawares by him that filled the Cups, he himself was poisoned, and so perishes. His Epitaph says, Famae contemptor honestae, &c. contemner of honesty, and all wickedness it self. And in another of his Epitaphs it is written, that he destroyed cieties and kingdoms, and wasted the world with sword, fire, and robbery, to enrich his bastard children: and that he took away the laws both of God and men, and the God's themselves, that he might more licenciouslie sin.

Julius the 2. committed Sodomitry with two youthes of an honorable linage, whilk the Queen of France sent to a Cardinal to be informed. He was such a cruel tyrant that by his tyranny in the space of 7. year, there was two hundredth thousand Christian men slain. Of whom it is written that when he went to the wars, he cast Peter his keys in Tybris with this voice, Saint Peters keys helps not, let Paul's sword defend us. Of whose pardons it is written, Vendit emm coelos, non habet ipse tamen, he selles heaven, but hes not heaven himself.

Leo the 10. a beastly man, borne to all licentiousness, a drunkard and Atheist without God, when one of his Cardinals Petrus Bembus was repeating a sentence out of the Gospel he answered blasphemously, What profit that fable of Christ hes brought to us and our Kirk, it is sufficiently known to all ages. Whereby, though all the world should deny it, this horrible monster sufficiently declares, that he is that man of sin, & son of perdition.

Clemens the 8. and after some the 7. it is written of him that he was a bastard, a Venefician, a Sodomite, a murderer, a bawde, a Simoniack a harlote, perjured, a sacrilegious man, a Diuiner, and a craftesman of all wickedness. Of whom Pasquillus writes in his Epitaph, Hic est perquem tot prostant in vrbe puellae, &c. that is, a defiler of maidens, a banisher of honesty and chastity, a honorer of all unclean persons, the infamy of the world, the decay of the Empire, a contemner of God, a man of wickedness, a public enemy, a false and vngrate man, a tyrant, and such a man as there was never a worsein the world.

Paul the 3. a vile beastly monster as ever the earth bure: he sold his sister to be a harlote to Pope Alexander the 6. that he might be made a Cardinal. He deceived a certain maid of honorable parentage, and deflowered her under the hope of marriage, of whom he begat Petrus Aloysius that vile Sodomite. He poisoned his mother and sister that he might enjoy all the heritage himself. He committed incest with another of his sisters, and afterward poisoned her, because she loved others more then him. He committed vile incest and adultery both, with his Niece Nicolaus Quercaus his wife, who being deprehended in the very act by her husband, was so wounded by him, that he kept the mark thereof to his very end. He committed also incest and adultery with his own daughter Constantia. And that he might the more licenciously enjoy his beastly lust with her, he poisoned her husband, named, Bosius Sforsia. He exceeded Heliogabalus and Commodus in filthiness, defiling his own sister, niece, and daughter He had 45. thousand harlots in a row, of whom he received tribute and toll every month, who was familiar with him day and night.

Julius the third, what better was he, who against the wills of all his Cardinals made one Innocent with whom he had done villainy, Cardinal: and admitted him to his domestic familiarity. Vergerius writes, he abstained not from his own Cardinals and that he used such horrible blasphemies, as the most vilest bands, and the most filthy villanes uses in the contempt of God. When he missed his dish of Bacon whilk was not set at the table, at the command of his Physician, he brast forth in this blasphemy: bring me my dish all dispetto de Dio, that is, in despite of God. Again, when he missed a dishe of a could peacock, whilk he had commanded to keep to him, having other new roasted peakocks, he vomit out moste horrible blasphemy against God. And when one of his Cardinals answered, let not your holiness be offended at so light a matter: he replied, if God was so angry for the eating of one apple, that he caste out our first parents out of Paradise, wherefore shall it not be Iesum to me who is his vicar, to be angry for a peacock, seeing it is far greater nor an apple. Now let men judge, whether the Popes of Rome bears this mark of the Antichrist or not, that is, whether they be men of sin and sons of perdition or not. Much more might I have brought for the manifesting of this point, as the threttie schisms amongst their Kirk, whilk never Kirk had so many, their mutual contentions, strifes, cruelties, exercised one towards another. But I hope this will suffice to satisfy the conscience of all men, that the Popes are that man of sin, and son of perdition. And certainlye if others had written their abominations, then men of their own Religion, their own flatterers and friends; it would have seemed incredible. But their own writers hes by God's providence, so discovered their abominations, that I think the consciences of all men may be at a point in this. This for the first mark.

The second property of the Antichrist, as he is descriued in that same place, is to be an adversary to God. For as the Devil is called Satan, that is, an adversary to God: so his chief Lieutennant Antichrist, is called an adversary, that is, opposed and contrary to God, and that not in life only, but in doctrine, religion, and government: and that not in one point only, but almost in all the substantial points thereof. The whilk mark the Popes of Rome bears, and that not only in their lives, but also in the whole substantial pointes of Religion. And to make this clear, beside that whilk hes been spoken, we shall compare the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the government of his Kingdom set down in the scripture, with the doctrine of the Popes, and the manner of their government, that the contrariety of them may be known: so that it shall be seen, that cold is no more contrary to heat, and black to white, nor Papism to Christianity and the religion of the Kirk of Kome, to the Religion of Christ Jesus. The doctrine of Christ stands especially in these two things: in the knowledge of his person, & in the knowledge of his offices. And therefore the Apostle says, I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. And Christ himself says, It is life eternal to know thee to be the true God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Popes of Rome overthrows both. And first to prove this concerning his person, the Scripture testifies that Jesus Christ is cōceaued of the substance of the Virgin Mary, & that he hes but one true body made of the seed of David, and of the seed of the woman, and not many: and that he is like unto us in all things except sin. The doctrine of the Kirk of Rome is, that Christ Jesus his body is made of the bread and wine in the sacrament: and their doctrine makes him to have as many bodies as there is bits of bread in the sacrament: and not to be like his brethren in all things except sin: for his brethren can be but in one place at once, with their own due proportion visibly: But their doctrine of Transubstantiation makes him to be both in heaven and earth, at once: in heaven visibly, in earth invisibly: in heaven with his own quantity and proportion, in earth without his natural proportion: & not in one place of the earth only, but in innumerable places thereof at once: so that this main foundation of man's saluatiō, (without the whilk there is no eternal life) concerning the truth of Christ's manhood made of the woman, is alluterlie defaced and overthrown by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome, in making him to have infinite bodies, not made of the seed of the woman, but of bread & wine: or at the least, made of two diverse substances. And as they ourthrow the doctrine of his person, so they overthrow the doctrine of his offices. His offices are three: a Prophet, a Priest and a King, whilk are all overthrown by them. As he is a Prophet, he hes revealed his Fathers whole will unto his seruands, and hes left it in register in his latter Testament, and hes forbidden to eike, impair, or to alter the same: and hes pronounced a woe and a curse unto them that eikes, empaires, or alters the same: & that because it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation, & to make the man of God perfect unto every good work: & because it is pure & perfect and easy to all them that will understand it. But they have many ways corrupted this Testament of Christ, by mingling and adulterating the same: first in that they give divine authority to the books called Apocrypha, whilk are human. Next, in receiving, and commanding others to receive Traditions with equal reverence and affection with the Scripture. Thirdly, in their corrupt latin translation, whilk they have made authentical, whilk some of themselves confesses hes missed sometimes the meaning of the holy Ghost. Fourthly, in joining with the commandments of God their own commandments, and that not as things indifferent, but as necessary to salvation. Fifthly, in condemning all sense & meaning of the holy Scripture, but that whilk they hold themselves. Last of all, in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection, obscurity and ambiguity, calling it dead & dumb like a nose of wax. They therefore who hes altered, eiked, and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his death, whilk he hes left in write, for to instruct his Kirk in all things, and to make her wise to salvation, and perfect to every good work, doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his prophetical office: But the doctrine of the Kirk of Rome hes done so, Ergo they spoil Jesus Christ of his prophetical office.

Thirdly, they are no less sacrilegious and injurious to his Priest-hoode. His Priest-hoode stands in two things. First, in purchasing unto us, by the virtue of that one sacrifice once offered up upon the Cross, an everlasting redemption Next, in making continual intercession for us with his Father: the whilks both are overthrown by the doctrine of the Kirk of Rome. As to the first, it is overthrown many ways: as first, our savior says, that his soul was sorrowful unto the death: and the Scripture testifies that for the fear of that Cupe be swate drops of blood: and he send up strong cries and supplications with tears, in the days of his flesh: and therefore he thrice upon his knees prays that if it had been possible that Cupe might be removed from him: and upon the Cross through the sense and feeling of that wrath, he breaks forth in that complaint, My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? Al whilk does testify that he suffered more then a common death: to wit, the terrors of the wrath of God, whilk was due to the sins of all the elect. But the doctrine of the Kirk of Rome ranuerses this doctrine of our salvation, and teaches that Christ suffered not the wrath of God upon his soul: whilk if it be true, then Christ hes not paid our debt sufficiently: for our debt was not only the natural death of the body, but the wrath of God upon the soul: and therefore the Scripture says, the soul that sins shall die the death. Secondly, the Scripture testifies, that Christ his death and blood is a sufficient ransom for our sins, & a sufficient satisfaction unto the justice of God: they by the contrary joins to his satisfaction, the satisfactions of men, both in this life, and in the life to come: in Purgatory, and that not only for their own sins, but for the sins of others. What is this else, but to make themselves in a parte Saviors of themselves, & saviors of others also. Yea, what is this else, but to make themselves God? for who can satisfy the justice of God, but God himself? Thirdly, as it hes been proved before, Christ offered up himself once, by shedding of his blood upon the Cross, never to be offered up again, whilk hes purchased a everlasting redemption: the whilk is the only ground of man's salvation. Howe they have overturned this by their abhominable sacrifice of the Mass, and their sacrilegious Mass priests, I hope hes been proved sufficiently before: So that they have both euacuat the virtue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in setting up another sacrifice for the dignity of his royal priest-hoode, in joining unto him Collegues and fellow-priests to offer up himself daily in their pretended sacrifice. Fourthly, as they spoil him of his priesthood, so do they spoil men of that redemption, righteousness, and salvation, whilk his death hes purchased, both in the fountain, matter, and form thereof. The Scripture testifies, that the only fountain and efficient cause of our salvation is gods free love and grace. They teach that a infidel by the works of preparation (as they call them) even done without Faith, may procure and merit God's favor. And also they join with the grace of God, man his free will, as a party worker with it, as though God did not renew it being corrupted, or repair it being perished, but only relieve it, being waike and raise it up being faint: by the whilk they abolish (if the Apostle speak true) the grace of Christ: for if our salvation be of grace, it is not of works, & if it be not of works thē it is not of grace, and so not at all. As to thē matter of our justification, the Scriptures ascriues it only to Christ his obedience and his death. They by the contrary, suppose they grant that Christ hes fulfilled the Law, and perfitely satisfy God, yet they teach that this righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness by the whilk we must be justified, but they place it in our own works and in our own merits. And of this comes the third, that whereas the Scripture testifies, that this righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us by faith, they acknowledge not this imputation, but places the form of our justification in the merit of our works. And so they spoil man of righteousness and salvation.

And as they have spoiled Christ, of the first parte of his office of his priest-hoode, so do they spoil him of the seconde parte thereof, whilk consists in his intercession: in joining with him innumerable intercessors and mediators, as well of Angels as of Saints departed, at whose hands they seek all manner of grace, whilk is only proper to Jesus Christ to give: & that not only for the virtue of y ^e merits of Christ, but for their own merits & intercessiō. Every Parish almost among them had their own patron: & every malady disease or calamity their own Saint or Angel to run to.

And as their doctrine hes robbed the Lord Jesus of his priestly dignity, and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same: So have they robbed him of that glory and worship that is due unto him, in plucking away his glory frō him, & giving it unto creatures 1. as unto Angels, & 2. unto Saints departed, & especially unto the virgins Marie, 3. unto their relicts, 4. unto images of the Trinity, of the Saints, of the Cross, 5. unto things consecrated, as water, oil, &c. 6. and unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unto whom they give that worship whilk is only due unto God, as prayer, worship, vows, sacrifices, &c. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist, whose doctrine spoils Christ of the office of his mediation, & man of his salvation purchased thereby; and God of his due glory: whilk man is bound to give him, for his creation, and redemption: and sets up other Saviors and mediators, other priests and intercessors beside him, and teaches another way of man's salvation nor he hes taught, and worshipes other God's, nor the God that made heaven and earth, and after another manner nor he hes commanded: Then I say the Popes of Rome, may justly be called and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God: For they are guilty of all this abomination. And because I know that the poor and ignorant people, and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin, will not believe these things of him, and of his Kirk, but as Thomas said of Christ, unless I see the print of the nails, and put my finger in the print of the nails, & put my hand into his side, I will not believe. Even so, unless they see their idolatry and grope it as it were with their hands, they will not believe it: therefore I am compelled for their conviction and information (that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish) to let them se their idolatries, and to make them to grope their abominations, and that by their own books. For I shall not speak heir begesse, for that were great foolishness to allege heir any other thing, nor that whilk is written in their own books, seeing he hes promised to give an answer least he should challenge me of lying of them. I protest therefore (Christian Reader) that I shall forge nor fain nothing of them but shall only set down those things whilk ar to be found in their own writings. And first, they pray to the Archangels and Angels to defend them in battle, to defend them that none condemn them to keep both their body and soul from godless desires and from unclean cogitations, to keep their mind from pollution, to confirm them in the fear and love of Christ. Secondly, they pray to the Saints departed, that by their merits and intercession, they may be defended from all evils, obtain all gifts, and get eternal life. Yea, they seek of them, defense in this world from all evils, and everlasting life. And they pray to God the Father that by their merits & intercession, they may be delivered both soul and body from hell fire, & may obtain through their merits, faith, patience, and everlasting life. So not only they make them intercessors, but mediators: at whom, and for whose merits, they seek salvation. And upon this ground came that Paganism whilk they have brought in the Kirk of God, whereby every nation, village, family, every estate, and every malady or affliction hes their own Saint to be a patron for them. Upon the whilk also hes proceeded this canonizing of Saints, that is, to make men God's. For they say that this canonizing of them is to let men understand that they should be adored and called upon, as one of their own Archbishopes Antoninus says. For he says that 7. things appertain to the canonizing of Saints. 1. To be reputed publicly to be a Saint. 2. To be prayed to by the kirk. 3. To have temples & altars. 4. To have offerings & sacrifices offered to their honor. 5. To have a feastiuall day. 6. To have an Image with a candle in sign of their glory. 7. To have their relicts. And they say that they may be directly prayed unto with the Lord's prayer, whilk our Savior formed only to be said to God the Father. Now how shall they be excused from vile idolatry in this? Pope Innocent says, that to the worship whilk is only proper to god appertains, temples, altars, sacrifices, feasts. And Durand a Papist says the same. If this then be true, whilk this Pope and this Papist says, how then can they be cleared from idolatry, that gives unto Saints that service, whilk by their own confession is only proper to God, as Temples, Altars, Feastiuall days, &c? And what shall we say to Franciscus and Dominicus, two of their canonized Saints, in whose persons they have done that lay in them to have abolished the merit and the name of Christ? Of this Franciscus they say in their book of conformities, that he is greater nor John the Baptist. And preferring him in many things to him, they say that John received the word of repentance of Christ, But Franciscus say they received it of Christ, and of the Pope, quod plus est, whilk is more. Of John it was revealed by an Angel to his Father, what he should be: but of Franciscus it was revealed to his Mother, and his Seruands by Jesus Christ. John was like the friend of the bridegroom: but Franciscus was like the bridegroom himself. They say, he is better nor all the Apostles: For they left but their boates, but he left all to his very hose. They cal him Typicus Jesus, a typical Savior, a singular crucified one, who received in vision the same wounds whilk Christ hes, & suffered the same dollors: who is the way of life, who is the image of Christ, as Christ is the image of the Father. Yea whilk is more they prefer him to Christ Jesus. They say, Christ did but pray, but Franciscus by prayer obtained. They say, the Baptism of Christ forgives original sin, but Franciscus hoode much more. It is written also upon the porte of the Cordiliers of Bloyes, of this Franciscus, that his sin shall be sought for, but it shall not be found, whilk is only proper to Christ. Now these are not particular opinions but approved by the Kirk of Rome: For Pope Gregory the 9. Alexander the 4. and Nicolas the 3. ordained all the faithful under the pain of heresy to believe all Franciscus marks. And their books are set forth by their privileges.

As for Dominicus, Antoninus who was of that order compares him with Christ, & in a manner prefers him to him, Christ, says he, did raise in all but three from the dead. Dominicus raised three in Rome, and by his prayer restored forty to life. Christ after the resurrection being immortal, went twice to his disciples, the door being shoot: But Dominicus (says he) having as yet but a mortal body, whilk (says he) is more marvelous, went in to the Kirk in the night the doors being shut, that he should not walken his brethren. And so forth of the rest of the miracles wherein he not only compares, but in a manner prefers him to Christ. Christ (says he) said after his death, all power is given to me in heaven & earth, This power (says he) is not in a little communicate to Dominicus, above all heavenly, earthly, & infernal things, (and that in this same life) for he had the Angels to serve him, the elements obeyed him. And in the end he applies that whilk is only spoken of Christ in the 45. Psalm, He is more beautiful nor the sons of men: Also he says, that there was two images, the one of Paul, the other of Dominicus. At the foot of Paul's Image, it was written, per istum itur ad Christum: By this man is the way to Christ. At the foot of the Image of Franciscus it was written, by this man the way is made easy to Christ. And marvel not (says he) at this: for the doctrine of Paul and the rest of the Apostles, induces men to believe and to obey the precepts of Christ: but the doctrine of Dominicus induces men to keep the councils of Christ, and therefore the way to Christ by him is easier. So he prefers him to Christ in miracles, and to the Apostles. But what shall we say to that that follows? He is called (says he) Dominicus because he is like our Lord, and he hes possessiue and in possession that whilk Christ hes absolutely and by authority. Christ says, I am the light of the world: The Kirk (says he) sings of Dominicus, ye are the light of the world. The Prophets testified of Christ, and so did they also (says he) of Dominicus and of his order, as in the 11. chapter of Zechariah, Where it is spoken of Christ. I have taken unto me two rods, & I called one the staff of beauty, and the other the staff of bands. The staff of beauty (says he) is the order of Dominicus: The staff of bands is the order of Franciscus. So they abuse the Scripture. He compares him also with Christ, and in a manner, prefers him to him. Christ (says he) was borne upon the bare earth, but least he had been over much hurt by cold, he was put in to the cribe by his Mother: But Dominicus (says he) being in the custody of his nurse, even then abhorring the pleasures of the flesh, was found oft times lying upon the bare earth. When Christ was borne a star appeared, signifying, that he should illuminate the whole world: But (says he) when Dominicus was borne his godmother saw a star in his foreheade, a prognostication of a new light of the world. The prayer of the Lord was ever hard whē it pleased • im, but yet did not ever obtain that whilk he prayed for, as when in the garden he prayed that the cup might be trāsferred from him: But (says he) Dominicus desired nothing of God, but that whilk he obtained perfitely according to his desire. Christ loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood: But Dominicus (says he) not being void of that perfection of love, he took a threefold correction out of his own hand every day, not with a cord, but with an iron rod, even to the effusion of his blood, and for his own faults whilk were very few, another for them that were in purgatory: the third for them that were in the world. And so deduces this comparison through all the partes of Christ his life. And in the end he says, that being to depart from this world, he comforts his disciples, saying: let not this trouble you, for in the place where I go to, I shall be more comfortable to you, nor if I were with you: For after death ye shall have me a better advocate nor ye could have in this life. What blasphemies these are judge thou (Christian Reader) and yet they are authorized by the Kirk of Rome, because they serve to establish the Popes supremacy: For Gregory the 9. canonized him as a Saint, and appointed a festival day to be keeped to his honor: And he that writes these things is an Arch-bishop of Florence, a man famous among them. To him that will join him self to this ordor of Frāciscus & Dominicus, for to merit the kingdom of heavē, & to redeem their own souls, or the souls of their friends (as their bul of Fraternitie says) the Prouincial gives him the bulls of Fraternitie, by the whilk he is made capable of all the merits of the Conuent, and of the merits of all the Friars of that Province, of their Masses, prayers, fastings, abstinence, devotions, watchings, disciplines, &c. Whereby (as though it were to little for them to be Saviors of them selves) they teache that they have such abundance of merits, as also may serve for others. They have a prayer to Thomas Becket, who was made a Saint by Alexander the third in these words, Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, fac nos (Christ) ascendere quo ill ascendit. That is, make us (O Christ) to ascend to heavē by the blood of Thomas, whilk he shed for thee. (Mocking as it were the blood of Jesus.)

Now as for the Virgin Marie, what tittle is proper to Jesus Christ, whilk they have not ascriued unto her? What honor or worship is given to Jesus Christ, whilk is not given to her? Damascene says, praying to the Virgin Marie, I shall be saved by hoping in thee. Thou is the salvation of mankind. Antoninus says, That all they upon whom the Virgin Marie turns her eyes are necessarily justified and saved: and that Christ because he is both advocate and judge together, is too rigorous: for this cause, says he, God hes provided an Advocate, meaning of the Virgin Marie, in whom nothing is to be found but sweitnesse. And he says, The Seraphims willing to have retained Marie as she mounted to heaven: Not (says she) for it is not meet that man should live his alone, (speaking of the everlasting son of God, who sits at the right hand of his Father) I am given to him for to be a help to that work of redemption by my compassion, and to that work of glorificatiō by my intercession: to the intent, that if he threaten to destroy the earth as in the time of the Deluge, I may appear before him as the Rainbow, to the intent that he may remember his covenant. And whilk is yet worse, (if worse can be) another Papist says, applying that whilk is only spoken of Christ to her, God (says he) said to her in her birth, I have given thee to be a light to the Gentiles, to the intent that thou may be our salvation, (applying it blasphemously to Marie) to the end of the world, and a light to be revealed to the Gentiles. And again he says, that all graces whilk runs down from the Father and the Son, comes by her, who (says he) is a mediatrix between God and men: and no grace comes from heaven, but through her hands, and all grace enters in her, and comes out of her. And he says, She is a mediatrix of salvation, of conjunction, of justification, of reconciliation, of intercession, of communication. And to be short, he says, the Father hes given to her the half of his kingdom, the whilk was signified in the persons of Ahasuerus and Hesther: and that he hes retained to himself justice, & hes left to her to exercise mercy. So that we may appeal from the Courte of the justice of God, to the Court of the mercy of the virgins Marie. Whereby they most blasphemously prefer and lift her up above the Lord: for that Judge unto whom appellation is made, must be superior unto to these Judges from whom the appellation is made: therefore they blasphemously prefer the tribunal of Marie, to the tribunal of the God of heaven.

And what shall I speak of her Litanies, Psalteries, and hours? Of her hours where she is called the Queen of mercy, who hes bruised the Serpents head, whilk thing is spoken only to the first Parents of the son of God, and the restorer and savior of mankind: the most godly, & most holy, the yet of heaven, the shining port of life, the mother of grace and mercy: our life, our hope, who makes the world to shine by the light of the brightness of her peace, who only hes deserved to be next in honor to the Trinity, by whom the whole world lives next God. She is called the comfort of the desolate the salvation and hope of all them that puts their trust in her, the fountain of salvation, grace, godliness, joy, confort: the Queen of heaven, and star of the sea, whom the Sun honors: the promise of the Prophets, the Queen of the Evangelists, the teacher of the Apostles, the comforter of the Martyrs, the salvation and consolation of the quick & the dead, the bottomless fountain of all grace, the port of Paradise, the Lady of glory, the queen of joy, the Lady of Angels, the joy of the Saints, the only hope of the miserable, the Empresse of the Angels, the comforter of sinners, the keeper of the heart, the praise of all the Saints. And of her is sought in her hours and Litanies all these graces generally whilk are only proper to God through Jesus Christ to give: as protection, receiving in the time of death, refuge in the time of misery, remission of sins, the keeping of soul and body, holiness of life, staying of the pest, calming of the seas, perseverance in grace, the eschewing of sin salvation and eternal life: and that by her merits and prayers their sins may be forgiven, and that being redeemed by her they may climb up to heaven. And they pray to Marie and John the Baptist, by the Redeemer, making Christ a mediator between them and them. And they pray to Christ to defend them from his anger, and from the anger of his mother: & they pray her to give herself and her son unto them. What horrible blasphemy is this? Who can give Christ but only God the Father. They say, God will give them that worships her a reward heir, and heaven after. Howe shall I praise the redeemed by thee? (speaking of Marie.) And in the Prose of the Mass they have this Prayer, lure matris impera a Redemptori: that is, By thy motherly authority command the Redeemer. And as concerning her Psalteries, how horrible is it to see all that David spake of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to be transferred and applied to her, without exception, from the beginning to the end? changing only the style of the eternal Lord, in the style of our Lady, blaspheming, Blessed is he who loves Mary, fears her, and praises her name, who hopes in her. The heavens declares thy glory, and the earth, and the fullness thereof. Blessed are all they who loves thee, because thou hast washen their sins in thy mercies. Have mercy on me, ô mother of mercy, and according to the bowels of thy compassions wash me from all mine iniquities: Save me for thy names sake: Let Mary be lifted up, & all her enemies will be seattered. Lord give thy judgment to thy Son, and thy mercy to the Queen his mother. Lady, salvation and life is in thy hand. O how good is God to them that worships his mother. God is the God of vengeance, but thou art the Queen of mercy. Come let us worship the Lady, let us praise the Virgin who hes saved us: let us confess our sins unto her: The Lord said unto our Lady, Sit heir my mother on my right hand: O mankind rejoice, because God hes given to thee such a mediatrix and at the name of Marie let all knees bow in heaven, in earth, and in Hell. This Lady Psalter was compiled by a Cardinal of Rome Bonaventure, who was canonized for a Saint, by Pope Sixtus the fourth. After the same manner have they corrupted the songs of the Prophets, of Simeon, and of the Virgin, blaspheming after this manner, My soul reioyces in my Lady, My soul magnifies my Lady, &c. Now lets thou, ô Lord, the seruand of Marie depart in peace, because my eyes hes seen the salvation of Mary. And to put an end to these abominations, they ascriue unto the Virgin that whilk the holy Ghost hes spoken only of Jesus Christ, the everlasting wisdom of his Father, The lord hes possessed me in the beginning of his way: before he made anything, I was ordained from everlasting. And Pope Leo the 10. calls her Deem, a goddess. In the general council of Lateran, instead of praying to God through Christ for the assistance of his spirit, they crave the help and assistance of Marie. And Pope Pius the fifth acknowledges her for the victory of the Christians against the Turk, in their combat whilk was stricken in the sea: and for that victory hes ordained a yearly remembrance of her to be kept. And Antoninus one of their Archbishops says, that Christ sitting at the right hand of God the Father rose up angry to have slain all the sinners in the earth: and when none was able to resist, his mother came to him and pacified him, till two of her seruands Franciscus and Dominicus might be sent to them: & that Christ answered, Behold I am pacified and have accepted thy face I appeal your conscience, Master Gilbert, before the Lord Jesus Christ, as ye must appear before him in that great day whether these speeches, be not the speeches & blasphemies of the Dragon, or not: & whether this doctrine & religion of yours, be not idolatrous, blasphemous, & antichristiā, or not.

Not only have they spoiled the Lord Jesus of his mediation, intercession, and of his glory due to him, and mankind of their salvation purchased by his blood, in ascriuing it to Saints, Angels, and to the Virgin Marie: but also in ascriuing them unto their consecrate things, as their holy water, the tree of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, their golden, silver, and stony Croces. For unto the Cross they give the worship of Latria, as themselves testifies, whilk by their own confession is only proper to God. And their prayer to the Cross, and the sign of the Cross, is to help them, defend them, and save them: and they adore it & worship it. They pray siklike that the holy water may be salvation unto them, and that by the sparging of the same: the health of their soul, the strengthening of their Faith, the security of their hope may be given them.

Unto the Images and relics of the Saints, they offer sacrifice, in burning incense unto them, whilk the Scripture calls an oblation only proper to the living God. Therefore Hezekiah brake the brazen serpent, because they burnt incēse unto it. And the burning of incense to Baal is counted idolatry. They pray for their golden, silver, & stony croces, that as the world was purged from the gyltinesse of sin by the Cross of Christ, so by the merit of this Cross, these who offers it up, may be forgiven of all their actual sins. Is not this to set up their stony &c. Croces, in the room of the blood of Jesus Christ? They ascriue to the tree of the Cross, that whilk is only proper to God, saying, Salua caeteruam: that is, Give salvation to the assembly gathered together in thy praises. They worship their images after the same manner, as the Ethnics did their idols. And as the Ethnics bure their golden, silver, & timber Idols upon 〈…〉 shoulders, so do the Papists. The Ethnics worshipped their idols, the Papists does the same, in falling down before the images of Saints. The Ethnics decked their idols with vestments, as though they had been men: so does the Papists with their images, whilk some of themselves thinks to be an abuse, and would have it abolished. They lighted candles before their idols, whilk their idols saw not, so does the Papists. There the faces of their God's were made black through the smoke of their incense whilk was brunt in their worship, as it is exponed by some: so does the Papists burn incense to their golden, silver, and copper idols. And to be short in this, as their Priests had their heads and their beardes shaven: howe like are the Papists Priests in this? They worship also the image of Christ, with the worship of Latria, whilk themselves confesses to be proper only to God, confessed by one of their own number, a learned Jesuit. And therefore he defends that some kind of idolatry is leesome. And Bellarmine says, that the worship of Latria is given truly to the image of the Cross, and the Crucifix suppose he says, he thinks it not saif to preach this to the people. They style the image of the Crucifix, with the stiles only proper to God, The King of glory, the Lord that is strong and mighty in battle the Lord of strength. Siklike, when the image of the Dove at the Pentecoste, is let down in the Temple with fire and water, then the Priest says, Receaue the holy Ghost. So do the Popes give the style of the immaculate Lamb, to the images of wax. The second council of Nice, says of the image of Christ, This is Christ: and the council of Trent. And in their consecration of their Images of wax, they pray to God the Father, Let these immaculate Lambes, (speaking of the images) receive that self same virtue against all the crafts and deceats of the Devil, wherewith that innocent Lamb his own Son Jesus Christ, delivered from the power of the Devil our first Parents. And they sing of everyone of these wax images, whilk they call their Agnus Dei, Omne malignum, that is, these wax images breaks and annulles every sin, as Christ's blood does. And to fill up the heap of their iniquities, not only do they worship the thing signified by the images, but the images themselves, as themselves testifies. And Pius secundus says, that in the Kirk of Saint Mary &c. there is an image of the Virgin, whilk the people worships mira religione, with a marvelous Religion, as the giver of rain and fair weather. And Bellarmine says, that the images of Christ and the Saints, ought to be worshipped properly & by themselves, as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they represent another thing. And he says that the image itself should be worshipped with that same kind of worship properly, with the whilk the thing itself represented thereby should be worshipped. The second general council of Nice is of the same mind. Marinaeus Siculus testifies that in Spain in a certain Temple, the Crucifix of Christ is adored: and he says, Cuius imaginis inuocato numine: at the invocation of the Godhead of the whilk image, sundry received their health. Pope John the 22. formed a prayer to be said to the image of Christ his face, kept in a sarke whilk they cal Veronica, and hes granted ten thousand days pardō to them, that says this prayer deuoutlie, Salue sancta facies redemptoris nostri. &c. In the whilk prayer first these stiles are given to this image, as the face of our redeemer, wherein shynes the brightness of the Godhead, the beauty of the world, the glass of the Saints, wherein the heavenly spirits desires to look in, the strength of our Christian faith, the destroyer of heretics, our joy in this life. Secondly, they pray to this image, to purge us frō all the spots of our sins, to join us to the company of the blessed, to pour in light in our hearts by that virtue whilk is given to it, to increase our merit, and to lead us to heaven. When shall we tumble our selves out of the gulf of these abominations and idolatries? Blind now must they be that sees not their doctrine to be the doctrine of the Dragon. Therefore do I strive with you (says the Lord) and with your posterity. For go through all the regions of the earth, and see if there be the like abominations, as is amongst them. For they have changed the glory of God into unprofitable idols: O ye heavens be astonished at this, and be confounded and be ye desolat. For two evils have they done: they have forsaken the Lord, and Christ his son the fountain of living waters, and have made unto themselves broken pits, whilk can hold no water: that is, they have made unto themselves false God's and false Christ's, whilk cannot bring salvation unto them. They have given his glory unto others, so that of all Idolaters that ever hes been, they are the greatest. It is no wonder therefore suppose the Lord hes caused it to be proclaimed by an Angel, That he that worships the beast and his image, shall be tormented in fire and brimstone, day and night, and the smoke of their torment shall ascend for evermore, and they shall have no rest. I hope now the second point is sufficiently cleared, that they have spoiled Christ of his Priest-hoode, and of that glory and honor that is due unto him.

Now as they have spoiled him of his Priestly office, so have they robbed him of his Kingly office. His Kingly office stands in two things: The one is, in the inward operation of his spirit: The other is, in the exercise and ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline, whilk he hes ordained for that end. As for the first. He by his Spirit prepares the heart by bringing us to a sight and sense of our misery, that we may run to him to seek for mercy: And then he by his Spirit works that living faith, whilk makes us fully assured of salvation, whilk works by love, and brings forth the fruits of holiness and righteousness, whereof prayer is one special. All whilk is taken away by their doctrine. As to the first: No sufficient knowledge of their misery among them. For first their doctrine is, that we are not dead in sin, but man hes free-will: and then that concupiscence after Baptism is not sin, & that the adoring and worshipping of Images, is not the breaking of the second command: And that the reward of every sin is not everlasting death. And that men even without faith may merit the favor of God, and that after they have obtained faith, they may not only fulfill the law perfitely, but also do more: yea, love God with a greater love nor he hes commanded, and lead a more strait and heavenly life nor either the law of God or man prescriues, as Bellarmine says: and that men may not only satisfy God for their own sins, and merit everlasting life to themselves, but also may communicate of the superabundance of their merits unto others.

Now, is it possible that these men who so liftes up themselves, in the conceate of their own righteousness, can have the knowledge and sense of their misery? And as for this full assurance of faith, without doubting they call it Presumption: And as for the fruits of holiness, without the whilk no man can se God, let their fruits of their vow of single life among their Clergy, & forbidding of marriage, whilk the Scripture says, is the doctrine of devils, bear witness: whereby innumerable abominations, murders, adulteries, whooredomes, hes been committed in their Cloisters, & Nunneries, as their visitation doth testify. And in a fish ponde their was found 6000. bairnes heads, whilk moved Gregory to revoke that determination of his upon this reason, that it was better to let them marry, then to give such occasion of murder, as appeareth by an epistle of Hulderick Bishop of Ausburgh written to Pope Nicolas the first. And Pope Pius the 2. says, that marriage was taken away for some reasons, but it should be restored again for greater. This is ascriued unto him. And as for true prayers whilk should be in the Spirit, with sighs and sobbes that cannot be expressed, in a known language, with words of understanding, that men may say Amen, to them; in steed of this they teach vain repetition and babbling in prayers, as though God were served by reckoning up their muttrings, so many Auees, so many Pater nosters upon a pair of beedes. They teache to pray in a strange language, whilk is a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, whilk cannot edify nor build up, no not the tower of Babel it self, suppose it be a tower of confusion. So by their doctrine they have spoiled Christ of hi • spiritual government in the harts of his own by the work of his Spirit.

And as for the outward government by the word, sacraments, and discipline: they have both spoiled him of it, and also hes deprived the people of God of these means whereby their faith may be wrought, nourished, and confirmed in their harts: For as for the word, beside their corrupting of it what by Apocrypha, what by Traditions, what by the commandments of the Kirk, what by their corrupted translation and their false interpretations, they have starved the people of God for the want of them, in keeping them up in a strange language, and reading them out so in their assemblies in a strange language: so that the people may have eyes and not read them; ears and not hear them, minds and not understand them, because they are keeped up in a strange language. And therefore sundry of our predecessors have been accused and burnt by them, for reading parcels of them being translated in the vulgare language. And as for y ^e sacraments, they have increased the number of thē, by adding other five unto them: they have impaired them of their virtue, corrupted them with errors, polluted thē with ceremonies, & have spoiled the people of the fruit of them by reason they are ministered in a strange tongue, and they have turned the Sacrament of the Supper, in a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. They have taken away the sign of the Sacrament. They have abolished the humanity of Christ by their monstrous transubstantiation. They have taken away the Communion whilk should be in the Sacrament, by their private Masses: & they have spoiled the people of a sweet pledge of their salvation, in taking away the cupe from them by their lamed communion under one kind.

And as for the discipline of Christ, they have renuersed it also, the order whereof according to the scripture, is that the Kirk of Christ be governed by his own ministers, & his own laws, set down in the word, for the salvation of his people, all whilk they have taken away. And first concerning the Ministers of Christ, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons, whilk is given of God for the work of the Ministry and building up of the body of Christ, they have removed them from the government of the same, and hes set up other office bearers, as Legates, Cardinals, Primats, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Lord Bishops, Canones, Persones, Vicares, Arch-deacons, Priests, Abbots, Prouincials, Popes inquisitors, Commissioners, Officers, Procutors, Promoters, & the innumerable route of their Monks, Friers, Jesuits, whose sects and ordours as they have been reckoned by some, extends to an hundredth and one, all different in ceremonies and ordours one from another, all unknown in the Scriptures of God: And transformed the government of the Kirk of Christ, into an visible Monarchy and kingdom of the Romans, as it is named by Turrian a Jesuit: And the popes having set themselves in the room of Jesus Christ the King of his Kirk, hes not only tumbled out Christ his officers and set in their own, of whom they exact an oath of obedience to them: but hes lifted up themselves above the hyer powers kings and magistrates, as shall be spoken hereafter. Clayming to themselves both the swords, and authority, to give and to take kingdoms at their pleasure, exacting an oath of obedience of them, making them their vassals and tyranizing over the Kirk of God. And as they have shot out the ministers who should rule the Kirk of God, so have they shot out his laws whereby it should be ruled. For this new prince the Pope, hes shot out the canon of the scripture, from being a rule to govern his kingdom; and in steed thereof hes set down his Canon law, Decrees, Decreetals, and so forth: whilks decretal epistles Gratian the gatherer of the canon-law, would have reckoned in the number of the canonical Scriptures. And to what end doth he use these laws? Not to further the salvation of God's people, but to satisfy his own, (if yet a horse-leiche might be satisfied) and his courteours insatiable covetousness, ambition, and lust. For this cause he hes taken in his own hand, the election of Bishops from them to whom it belonged. For this cause he hes not permitted the causes of the Kirk to be debaited where they rose, as equity, reason, & peace would he should have done: But he hes removed them thence to be hard at Rome, what by reserving of causes to himself, what by appellations, what by exemptions: And for the same cause hes he committed the feeding and guiding of the flock of Christ to brute and beastly creatures, in giving the charge and commodities of the Kirk to whom he would: by presentations, preventions, reservations, translations, provisions, permutations, and commendations. Howe hes he wasted and seized upon the Kirks goods, with his pensions and first fruits and appropriations, so that he hes been cried out upon of riot, pride, extortion, and simony.

And as for excommunication he hath used it not against y ^e wicked, of whom a sink hath flowed at all times in Rome, not against thieves, of whom Rome is made a den, not against murderers, for whom there is a sanctuary in the houses of Cardinals at Rome: not against adulterers, not against whores, whereof the Pope received such tribute, as hes been spoken: but against Emperors, estates, nations, who would not serve him at a beck, against any man that denied his parish priest a little teinds: against whole assemblies of the faithful, whom he by most villanous cruelty & treachery, (as if they had been sheep appointed for the slaughter) hes red away by fire, by torment, by sword.

And to ende this, what shall I speak of his tyrannical Laws? whereby he hes oppressed the Kirk of God, as of single life, auricular confession, choice of meats, apparel & days, of new and strange canonizing of Saints, of Pilgrimage to the holy land, of the vows of Monks and Nuns, of the estates and rites of marriage, and of innumerable ceremonies, partly unfruitful, partly foolish, partly impious. And what shall I speak of his dispensations against the Old Testament, against the Epistles of Paul, against all right and equity? That a brother may marry his own brothers wife, and an uncle his sisters daughter. And Pope Martin the fifth approved the marriage of one with his sister germaine. That Kirk offices, and livings, may be given to boys, to Simonicall merchants, and unlearned persons: that one may have plurality of benefices: that he who hes the benefice needs not to attend the office: that promise may be broken with God and man: that subjects may be discharged of their oath to their Princes. And last of all, what shall I speak of his Indulgences and Pardons? in granting so many hundredth & thousand years pardon of their sins to them that will devoutly say their idolatrous prayers. Some giving three hundredth days pardon, as Pope Celestine: some seven hundredth years pardon, as Pope Boniface: some ten thousand years pardon, as Boniface the 6. some thirty two thousand, seven hundredth, and fifty five years pardon: and Sixtus the fourth hes doubled the time of this foresaid pardon: and some ten hundredth thousand years pardon for deadly sins, as Pope John 22. Heir is pardon for all sins, so that there be money. And as the Revelation says, The very souls of men are made merchandise of. And one of their own friends says, Venalia Romae Templa, sacerdotes, altaria sacra, coronae, ignes, thura, preces, coelum est venale, Deus{que}. That is, Kirks, Priests, altars, crowns, fire, incense, prayers, heaven and God ar to be sold in the Kirk of Rome. To conclude this then: he is the Antichrist, whose doctrine and religion, ministry and discipline, is directly contrary to the doctrine, religion, ministry and discipline of Jesus Christ. Again, he is the undoubted Antichrist, whose doctrine spoils Jesus Christ of the truth of his humanity, of his Prophetical, Kingly, & Priestly offices, and sets himself and others up in the same offices: & whose doctrine spoils him of the glory whilk is due to him only, for our creation and redemption, and gives it to creatures: and last of all, he whose doctrine spoils men of their salvation, must be that undoubted Antichrist. But the doctrine and religion of the Popes of Rome and his Clergy (as hes been proved sufficiently) are such: Therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist, whilk the Scripture foretold was to come. And this for the second mark.

The third mark of the Antichrist, is that he exalts himself above all that is called God, and is worshipped: that is, above all powers and majesties, both heavenly and earthly. He says not, Above God himself, but above all that is called God: that is, above all powers heavenly and earthly, as hes been said. He then is the undoubted Antichrist whom the Scripture foretold should come, who lifts up himself above all powers as well heavenly, as earthly: (this you cannot deny because the Scripture so affirms) But the Popes of Rome hes lifted up themselves above all powers, both heavenly and earthly: the whilk if it shall be proved, then of necessity it must follow, that the Popes of Rome are that undoubted Antichrist Now for proof heirof, we shall set none other upon their assise, to file or cleanse them in this point, but their own canon Law, their own writers, their own Bishops, & them selves. Antoninus archbishop of Florence says, That his power is greater, then any created power: and that it extends the self to heavenly, earthly, and infernal things. Of whom, says he, that is true whilk is spoken of Christ in the 8. Psalm, Thou hes subjected all things under his feet, that are in heaven, in earth, or in hell, applying it to the Pope. What needs more? this is conviction enough. But yet we will proceed and see how far he hes lifted up himself above all these. As for them in the earth, there are two special powers, the temporal power and the spiritual power. He claims superiority over both, as is manifest by their own doctrine. The Pope is over the world in stead of Christ. I am Caesar, all the power in the heaven and in the earth is mine. We affirm and defines that it stands all creatures upon the necessity of their salvation to be subject to the Pope. The Pope should judge all, and be judged of none, unless he be found an heretic. And suppose he should draw after him innumerable souls by heaps unto Hell, yet no mortal man should be so bold as to say to him, Lord why doest thou this? How far he hes lifted up himself above the temporal power, Kings, Princes, & Emperors, let both their doctrine, and practice bear witness. The Pope is as the Sun to rule over the day: that is, the spiritualty: and the Emperor as the Moon, to rule over the night: that is, the temporalty. And as the earth is seven times greater then the Moon, and the Son eight times greater then the earth; so is the Pope forty seven times greater then the Emperor. (p) And as the Emperor or Roman Princes takes of me their approbation unction, and imperial crown: so they must not disdain to submit their heads to me, and to swear to me their oath of allegiance and fidelity. The Pope may depose Kings from their kingdoms, and absolve their subjects from their oath of allegiance, and interdyte their kingdoms, and set up others in their room. Achilderik King of France, was deposed; and Pipine set in his room. Pope Zacharias. Causa 15. quest. 6. cap. Alius. Henry the fourth, Henry the fifth, Frederick the first, Otho the fourth, Frederick the second, and Conradus his son all Emperors, were excommunicate and deposed by the Popes. Iustinianus, Otho the first, Frederick the first, Henry the fifth, Sigismundus, Carolus the fifth, all Emperors and Monarchs, admitted by the Popes of Rome to kiss their feet. And if this had been their practice only, and not their doctrine: this Pride and arrogancy might have been imputed to the persons, and not to the seat. But his doctrine is so: The Pope of Rome does reverence to no mortal man. All men of whatsomeuer dignity or preeminence they are of, so soon as they come in the presence of the Pope, ought to kneill thrice down, and to kiss his feet. The Emperor as soon as he sees the Pope with his bare head, kneiling to the ground, he worships him, and kisses his feet The Emperor holds the stirroppe, whill the Pope leap on. So did Constantine the great, says their canon law. The Emperor at the banket holds the water to the Pope to wash his hands, & brings the first dishe to the Popes Table. And if the Pope be to be carried in a chair, he, or the King, if they be present, ought to carry the Pope in the chair on their shoulders. So this is clear both by their doctrine, and practice, howe far they have lifted up themselves above the Kings and Monarchs of the world: so that Pope Gelasius says, that Emperors are more inferior to Popes then lead is to gold.

Their superiority over the spiritual power of the Kirk of Christ, hes been shown in parte before. But for the further proof of it, they say That the Pope is above all general Councils, and that they take their force and confirmation only by him. And that he is supreme Judge in all controversy of Religion, whose judgment is also infallible. And where God hes ordained all causes amongst men to be judged by men, he hes only reserved the Pope to be judged by himself, and that he cannot be judged by any, neither of Kings, nor of the Emperor, nor of the whole Clergy, nor of the people. And that he is Judge over all the Kirks: and that without a Council, both to absolve and condemn: and none to iugde of his judgment: and all to appeal to him, and none from him, whose judgment must stand, as given out of heaven by the mouth of Peter himself, whilk no man must break or retraite, no man must dispute or doubt of. And that in omni re dubia, that is, in all controversies of Religion, be must obediently of all the faithful be heard, whether he can err or not And that be may make laws to bind the consciences of men, and that he may creat new Religions.

His power over them that are in Purgatory and Hell. According to his absolute jurisdiction, he hes power to spoil all Purgatory, by the communication of his Indulgences and Pardons, except only them who hes only the Baptism of the Spirit, and infants who ar in Limbo Patrum, and these who hes not friends to do for them The Pope may absolve from an infinite pain: to wit, from the pain of Hell, as Gregory did who by his prayer absolved the soul of Trajan from the infinite pain of Hell. The Pope hes as great power in Purgatory and Hell, as that he may deliver as many souls as are tormented there, by his Pardons, and with all speed place them in heaven, & seats of the blessed, as he pleases.

4. His power over heaven and all the powers therein.

All power in heaven and earth is given to me says Boniface the 8. The Pope hes so great power in heaven, that he may canonize any dead man, and place him among the God's: and that against the judgment of his Bishops and all his Cardinals. He commands the Angels to take souls out of Purgatory, and to carry them to heaven. His power is greater nor the power of all the Saints. God hes subjected the Angels in heaven to the Pope, and he is greater nor they in four respects: and no less honor is due unto the Pope, nor to the Angels: and then greater (says he) for the Pope receives from the faithful adoration, and kissing of his feet, whilk the Angel would not permit to be done to him by John. What needs more now for the proof of this mark? Doth not he lift up him self above all that is called God, who claims power over heaven & earth and hell? This they cannot deny: But I assume, their own Clerks, Doctors, Popes, and Bullets testify this, whilk they cannot choose but confess also: Therefore of necessity the Popes of Rome hes exalted themselves above all that is called God, and therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist whilk was to come, and now is come.

And as they have exalted themselves above all heavenly powers, so have they matched them selves with Jesus Christ: for these things are only proper to Jesus Christ, To have all power given him, to have all things subject to him under heaven, to be greater nor all the Angels, to receive that worship whilk the Angels refuses, to command the Angels, to make laws to bind the consciences of men, to create and institute new religions. And yet the Pope hes arrogated all these things to himself, as hes been proved: Therefore he is that undoubted Antichrist: for he that makes himself equal to the Son of God, lifts up himself above all that is called God: (this cannot be denied,) But the Popes of Rome have done so, in challenging to them selves these things whilk are only proper to the Son of God: therefore they must be the Antichrist. Further, these things are proper to Jesus Christ only, to the head, the spouse, and foundation of his Kirk, to be that corner stone, that precious stone, and that proved stone, to be that rock of offense, to be the son that gives light to 2his Kirk, to be the Prince of Pastors, and to have all treasures of wisdom and understanding hid in him, and to have all power in heaven and earth given him, and to have the fullness of power. But all these things the Popes of Rome hes arrogated to themselves, as is manifest by these places quoted in the margent. Bellarmine in prefat. de sum. pontif. lib. 1. ceremo. tit 7. de maiorita. cap. Vnam sanctam de constitut. cap. licet. In sexto. de translat. cap. Quanto. In glossa. Yea, he hes not left so much unto Christ as his style, but it is ascriued to him: For Bernard writing to him says, Tu es vnctione Christus, that is. Thou art Christ, &c. yea he hes claimed a greater power to himself, nor ever we read that Jesus Christ the Prince of glory and the Lord of life used, as to deliver damned souls out of hell, & make thē Saints in heaven, & that as many as pleases him. So not only hes he made himself equal in authority, in office, in styles with the Prince of glory the Lord Jesus: but also hes lifted up him self above him: And that there may be nothing wanting to make it manifest that he is this Antichrist, as though it had been too little to him, to have lifted up him self above all powers in heaven, in earth, & in hell: & to have matched him self with the eternal Son of God, both in works, styles, and offices and to arrogate a greater power nor ever he did exercise. He hes matched him self with the majesty of the God-head, claiming to himself these things whilk are only proper to the God-head, as the Papists will is for reason: He hes a heavenly at bitriment, he changes the nature of things: Of nothing he makes something: He may depose & set up in kingdoms whom he will: He hes an absolute jurisdiction that no man may say to him, wherefore does thou this: He may liberare ex toto sicut ipse deus, that is, absolve a man from the whole as GOD may do: Yea that he may do all that God may do except sin, the key not erring. All whilk things are only proper to the Majesty of God. And as he hes matched himself with the majesty of God himself in his judgment, will, and power: so doth he claim to him the self same worship and adoration whilk is only proper to God: This worship is only proper to God To fall down before his feet and to adore him, and therefore Satan craved it of Christ, and he refused to give him it: And John would have given it to the Angel, but the Angel refused it. Wherefore did Christ refuse to give it, and the Angel refuse to receive it, but because it was writ̄? The Lord thy God thau shalt worship, and him only shalt thou serve? But that worship whilk the devil craved to be given to him, and whilk the Angel refused as proper only to God, that doth the Pope claim to him and receive from others, as his own Archbishops and canon law, and men of his own religion do testify. Antoninus says, he receives adorations, prostrations that is worship & falling down before his feet, whilk (says he) the Angel refused to receive of John. Steuchus says, Constantine the Empetour worshipped the Pope as God, and gave unto him divine honors, & worshipped him as the lively image of Christ. And Blondus says, that all the princes of the world worships the pope, vt summum Deum, as the most high God. And Johannes Faeber says, the pope calls himself by words, the seruand of seruands, but yet he permits himself to be worshiped whilk the Angel in the Revelation refused. And Friar Mantua says, Cuius vestigia adorat Caesar; et aurato vestiti murice regis. Whose feet (meaning the Popes) or footestepes Caesar and the Kings of the earth adores or worshipes. And yet least any should doubt whether he be the Antichrist or not, he is not only made equal with the Majesty of God, in power, arbitriment, and adoration, but also the very god-head it self, & the very style of the Majesty of God is ascriued to him. Au • ntinus says, the Popes of Rom: earnestly desires domination et Diuinitatem, divinity or God-head. And de electione: It is said: That he is take n up in the fellowship of the invisible trinity. And Baldus says: The Pope is a God in the earth: And the common voice of the Canonists is Domînus Deus noster papa, that is, the Lord our god the Pope. And he is called by his Doctors Optimus Maximus, most good in grace, most great in power. And Auentinus says that it is written in his forehead, Deus sum, I am God. And Gomesius, says the Pope est quoddam numen; a certain God-head showing himself to be a visible God in the earth. And in the council of Lateran, one says to the Pope, Tu es alter Deus in terris: Thou art ane other God upon the earth. And the Tridentine chapter calls him, Terrenū Deum an earthly God: And his canon Law says, It is manifest that the Pope was called God by Constantine.

What needs more? He must be blinded by God that sees not the Popes to have lifted up themselves above all that is called God & is worshipped. But yet I say further. He hes lifted up himself above the majesty of God: First in making y ^t to be God's word, y ^t is not God's word, in decreeing the Apocrypha to be canonical Scripture. And his canon Law reckons in the decretal Epistles among the canonical Scriptures of God. Now what is this but to prefer his authority to the authority of God? He denies forgiveness to them that breaks his law, but he selles the break of God's law for money. It is certain that there is no redemption out of Hell: and yet the Popes of Rome claims that authority to deliver souls out of Hell, and to make them Saints in heaven. It is impossible to God ex iniustitía facere iustitiam, to make wrong to be right, because the Scripture says, He cannot deny himself, and he cannot lie. But the Popes Canonists says, that he may ex iniustitia facere iustitiam, of wrong make right. His Canonistes also says, That the Pope may dispense supra ius de iure, above right. And that he may dispense against the law of nature, against the law of God, against the old Testament, against the Apostles, and that he may dispense against all the precepts of the old and new Testament. They say, he may dispense against the degrees forbidden in the Law of God. And that he may according to his absolute power dissolve the bond of marriage, upon the consent of both the 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 parties, without any lawful cause. And that he may dispense with oaths and promises made either to God or men. And some says, that he may dispense that one may have moe wives then one at once, in some cases. Now what is this else, but to exalt himself above the Lord? And in a sermon in the council of Lateran, it is there spoken of him by one of his own Bishops, That all power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope. And that whilk is more, That in him is omnis potestas supra omnes potestates caeli & terrae: all power above all powers, both of heaven and earth. And Auentinus says, that they desire to be feared more then God. To conclude this then, He that hes exalted himself above all powers in heaven, earth, and hell: he that hes equalled himself with the son of God, the Prince of glory, and with the majesty of God in stiles, authority, office, and power: & he who hes lifted up himself above the Lord Jesus, & above the majesty of God; he must be that undoubted Antichrist, whilk the Apostle Paul hes descriued: But the Popes of Rome hes done so, both by their practice, and by their doctrine, as hes been proved by their own testimonies: Therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist who was to come. This for the third mark.

The fourth mark of the Antichrist, set down by the Apostle is, That he sits in the Temple of God, as God. That is, in an eminent and high place in the Kirk of God. For least men should think that the Antichrist should be an open enemy to God, the Apostle says, he shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Kirk of God: as it is taken, 1. Corinth. 6. where the Saints in Corinth are called the temple of God. So the Antichrist is foretold to be a household enemy, and not a foreign foe: and he shall withstand Christ not openly, but covertly. And though he be a deadly enemy to Christ, yet shall he pretend that he is in the Temple of God: that is, a member of the Kirk: and that he hes a throne, that is, a high dominion within God's Kirk. And therefore in the Reuelatiō he is called a beast whilk hes two horns like the Lamb: that is, who in outward show is like the Lamb, pretending his power and authority. And as Primasius says exponing that same place, Those whom he seduces, he seduces them by hypocrisy of a dissimulate truth: for he says, he were not like the Lamb, if he spak openly as the Dragon. And Augustine says, Let us not take tent to the tongue, but to the deeds: let the tongue rest, and ask the life. Whereby it appears, that they also are Antichrists, who denies Jesus Christ in their life. And therefore (alluding to Judas ) he is called the son of perdition, who not by open warfare should oppugn Christ, but by a kiss, as it were, should betray him. And therefore he is descriued also under the form of a woman, a harlote: whereby is signified that he shall not be an open enemy in profession, but secreit and dissimulate. And therefore the Cupe wherein she reaches out her abomination, is discriued to be of gold: that is, having a show of godliness. And his unrighteousness, that is, his doctrine, is called deceaueable, because of the show of truth that it hes. And his iniquity is called a mystery: that is, not a plain and open impiety, but secreit: so coloured with shows of truth and godliness, that everyone cannot perceive it. And yet for all this hypocrisy of his, for all this dissimulation & show of godliness, he shall speak like the Dragon: that is, his doctrine shall be the doctrine of Devils. His drink shall be abomination and fornication: that is, abhominable idolatry. Now to whom can this aggree? and in whom hes this been fulfilled, except only in the Popes and Bishops of Rome. For doth he not call himself, the Vicare of Christ, the head of the Kirk and these that obeys him only the true Kirk, and true Catholics? Who hes horns like the Lamb, and yet speaks like the Dragon, but he? That is, who stiles themselves the seruande of seruands, the Vicare of Christ, the head of the Kirk, &c. but they? and yet for all this, who hes ever lived, taught, or spoken so blasphemously as they? In show of holiness most vaunting and yet for all this, of all the creatures under heaven, the most monstrous. Of all idolaters, under the show and pretence of Religion, the vilest and most abhominable: and of all creatures in the earth, they have lifted up themselves farthest above God, and that under the pretence of humility. And therefore the Scripture says, that the Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, not as a minister teaching & preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, in season, and out of season: but as God; that is, claiming to himself these things that are proper and peculiar to God. The whilk the Popes of Rome hes done, as hes been proved before. So to conclude this: He must be the undoubted Antichrist, who suppose he hes lifted up himself, above all that is called God; yet he sits in the Temple of God, as God: who hes two horns like the Lamb, and yet speaks like the Dragon: whose abominations are drunken out of a golden Cupe; whose doctrine is deceiveable: & a mystery that is, who under the pretence of Christ, overthrows Christ: But so it is, the Popes of Rome are such, (as hes been proved:) Therefore the Popes of Rome are the undoubted Antichrist. This for the 4. mark.

The fifth mark of the Antichrist, as he is descriued by the Apostle is in these words: Ye know (says the Apostle) what withholdeth: namely, that he might be revealed in his own time. This Tertullian, Jerome and Chrysostom vnderstandes of of the Roman impire: the whilk as long as it flourished, & was in the full strength, the Antichrist could not climb up to this his full hight & preeminence. So that it behooved that empire first to be translated, and piece & piece diminished before the Antichrist could come up to his hight, for that stayed him. Now it is manifest out of the 17. chapter of the Revel • t. that Rome should be the seat of the Antichrist: And Bellarmine and the Rhemists does not deny it: & Rome was the seat of the Roman empire before. So then it behooved the empire to translate his seat from Rome, that Rome whilk was first the seat of the empire, might be the seat of the Antichrist. Now the issue and event, is a sure and clear interpretation of this Prophecy: For Constantine the Emperor of Rome, translated his seat from Rome, to Byzantium called Constantinople in Greece. And piece and piece that empire of the Greek Emperor began to decay. And was translated from the Greeks to the French-men by the Popes: and then from them to the Germans, by the Popes also. So that both Rome and a great part of Italy, and at the last a great part of the Empire is fallen in the Popes hand. So that now he vaunts himself to be Monarch of the whole world, and all Kings and Princes gave him their oath of allengeance: & the Emperors and Kings held their empires and kingdoms of him, and are but his vassals. (as their Canon Law says) So that by the taking away of the Roman empire, the Popes did then climb up to their supremacy, & make themselves manifest, that they were the Antichrist. And so this doth also aggree to the Pope of Rome, and to none other. He is the Antichrist, whose climbing up was letted by the Roman empire, and who is built up upon the ruins of the same: But the Papacie is such: therefore the Papacie is that Antichristian kingdom.

It is said sextly, that this mystery began to work in the days of the Apostles: that is, the foundation of that apostasy was begun to be laid in these days and that he shall continue til the Lord's coming: for he shall not be abolished but by the brightness of his coming, suppose he shall be first consumed with the sword of his mouth: that is, discovered, and sore beaten by the Lord's word. All whilk aggrees unto Papistry, for the foundations of it was soon laid, both of that Hierachie & supremacy of the Pope, and also of his damnable and erroneous doctrine. For that superiority of the ministry one over another, of Bishops over Pastors forbidden by Jesus Christ, soon crape in, whilk was the foundation or rather stairs, by the whilk the Pope clambe up to his Popedom and supremacy: and the old condemned heresies whilk sprang up in the primitive Kirk, many of them were the foundation of these damnable doctrines, whilk the Popes brought in afterward, as is proved in the end of the first parte.

And as to his consuming by the Lord his mouth, the Lord hes accomplished that already in some measure, and shall assuredly fulfill it daily more and more: For since the time of the burning of John Hus and Jerome of Prague, and since the time the Lord stirred up Martin Luther, & sundry others his faithful seruands to preach the gospel of Christ, whilk was as it were buried in the darkness of Papistry, the supremacy of the Pope hes taken such a daily consumption, that many of the Kingdoms of Europe now hes forsaken her, & the Lord hes put in their harts to hate her: But yet we know the dregs of it shall not be abolished alluterlie, whill the bright coming of the Son of God.

It follows seauenthly, the manner how his kingdom and tyranny shall be promoued, upholden, and established: To wit, By the effectual working of Satan with all power and signs & lying wonders, and with all deceaueablenesse of unrighteousness amongst them that perishes: Whilk the Apostle calls strong delusions. And with this, that of the Revel. cap. 13. (in the description of the second beast, whereby it is meaned the Antichristian kingdom) does aggree that he did great wonders, and deceived them that dwelt upon the earth, by the signs whilk was permitted him to do. Now certainly nothing can be spoken more aptly of the Popes kingdom nor this: Fot unless the Pope had had an effectual power, strong and devilish also, by signs and lying wonders: and unless his unrighteousness, that is, his false doctrine had been exceeding deceaueable: that is, covered with a fair color of godliness: and unless his delusions had been strong, his kingdom had never been so far enlarged, and so firmly established, as we see it hes been: and his damnable doctrine and errors would never have deceived so many nations as they have done. For what is more common and usual in their mouths nor miracles? What is it they vaunte so much of, as of their miracles? So that they make it an infallible mark of the Kirk. And howe I pray you hes a great parte of their errors and superstitions, as the praying to Saints, and worshipping of Images, & pilgrimages, and other of their superstitions and idolatries, as purgatory, the real presence, their monstrous transubstantiation &c. how, I say, have they been so confirmed and so rooted in the hearts of ignorant people, but by their lying wonders and miracles, whilk they fain was done? Whereof their golden legend are full, and sundry yet lives who hes been eye witnesses of the falset of their miracles. I will only set down for example, some of the false miracles of two Nuns heir: the one of Magdalena de la cruz, Abbess of the monastery of the Franciscan Nuns, who was condemned by the Inquisitors of Cordoua for her enormous offenses and Covenant whilk she made with the devil, as they say in their sentence against her: she by the aide of the Devil with whom she made a covenant when she was nine year old, became a singular hypocrite, and by his help wrought many miracles, as that she appeared unto Mariners in a storm being invocated, and so the storm calmed: that she burned in flames like Seraphims, and was ravished in the spirit, and hard wonders whilk mortal man could not utter: (In this she was made another Saint Paul ) that she was lifted up in the air, and the Sacrament went visibly out of the hand of the Priest that said Mass, through the air, & entered into her mouth: And when the Sacrament went by she being in a garden, the wall of the garden opened the self, and then she worshiped it: Sik was the opinion of her holiness that many Ladies of Spain and the Empresse, seeing themselves at point of child-birth, sent their mantels wherein the creature should be wrapped, that she should bless them. She gave to her beloved friends drops of her monstrous blood, and made them believe it was the blood of Christ, she was condemned as a witch by the inquisitors of Spain about the year of God 1540. The other of a Dominican Nun Priores de la Anunciada of Lisbon in Portugale, about the 1586. year of God, that she had deserved to have Christ visible for her husband, that he appeared to her often times, & talked with her, as one friend would talk with another: that she had the impression of Christ's 5. wounds upon her. And as the history recordeth other infinite miracles did she. So that many became Nuns through the opinion whilk was conceived of her holiness and miracles. This story is written in french by one Stephen de Lusignan a Dominican Friar, and dedicated to the Queen of France, with this title, the great miracles and moste holy wonders whilk this present year 1586. hath happened to the right reverend mother Priores of the monastery &c. in Lisbon, approved by Friar Louis of Granada & by other persons worthy of credit in Paris, printed by John Bessant 1586. He alledgeth three letters sent from persons of great credit for his warrant: But she was discovered, and confessed her hypocrisy: and that she painted the wounds on her hands, and drew blood on her side, and feigned all the rest, that she might be esteemed holy, and therefore was condemned by the Arch-bishops of Lisbon & Brage, the Bishop of Guardia, the Inquisitors, & sundry others in the end of the 1588. year, as it is to be seen in a book printed at Siuill in Spain 1589. Let these examples suffice to prove this mark that by lying wonders they have established their damnable doctrine. So that certainly their is no one thing that doth more confirm this, that their Popes is the Antichrist, and their kingdom antichristian: nor the effectual working of Satan by lying wonders, whereby their devilish doctrine hes been promoued and established. And what seek we further? Is it not manifest by their own histories that their own Popes to the number of 20. or moe hes wrought by the effectual working of Satan? So then to conclude this point: If the Apostle Paul be a true Prophet, whilk I trust no man will call in question, and if he be the true Antichrist to whom all these marks does aggree: that is, who is the man of sin, and son of perdition; who hes lifted up himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped &c. whilk cannot be denied: then of necessity it must follow that the Popes of Rome are the self same Antichrist whilk was foretold to come, because they bear all these marks of that Antichrist whom the Apostle descriues, and no other.

And if we will come to the Revelation, where the Antichrist is most clearly foretold: What is there in that Reuela. spoken of the Antichrist whilk is not fulfilled in the Popes of Rome. In the 13. of the Revelation mention is made of two beasts, by the first is signified the Roman Empire by the whilk the Saints of god were persecuted the first 300. years: by the other is signified the Kingdom of the Antichrist, whilk rose up immediately after the diminishing and destruction of the Roman Empire: the whilk John calls another beast, distinguishing it from the former: whilk he discriues first from his outward form and shape, that he hes two horns like the lamb, but speaks like the dragon, whilk hes been accomplished in the Popes of Rome, as I have shown before. The second from his works that he doth. Firste, that he did all that the first beast could do before him. Secondly, that he shall cause all to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound w • s healed: Thirdly, that he should deceive them whilk dwell upon the earth by the wonders and signs whilk was permitted to him to do. Fourthlye, that he should restore the image of the first beast. Fifthly, that he should suffer none to buy or sell but such as received his marks on their fore-head and hands. And the last thing from the whilk that Antichristian kingdom (whilk is represented by the 2. beast) is descriued, is the number of his name Al the whilk are so clearly accomplished in that papistical Kingdom, these many hundredth years, that he must be blinded of God, that sees not that the Popes are the Antichrist, and their Kingdom Antichristian.

As to the first. Who hes exercised all the power of the former Emperors of Rome but they? Have not they claimed to themselves the Monarchy of the whole world? Ths authority of both the swords? Hes not Emperors & Kings sworn their oath of allegiance and fidelity unto them? taking their unction, consecration & crowns of thē? And paid tribute unto them? Have they not kissed their feet? holden the stirrups? Led their bridles? Set thē on their horse? Have not the Popes of Rome excommunicated Emperors and Kings? Deposed them from their Kingdoms? Stirred up their subjects against them? Set up others in their places? • nd finally what outward power or tyranny did ever the Roman Emperors exercise over Kingdoms and nations? Yea what cruelty, tyranny, avarice, blasphemy against God and his Saints, did they ever exercise, whilk the Popes of Rome hes not done? Yea, and hes overcome them in all these things The whilk are so clear and manifest, & that by their own practices, that they cannot be denied. Doth he not affirm in his canon law that Constantine gave the Pope all the kingdoms in the earth? And that all Kings reigns by the Pope? And that he transferres the Empire from nation to nation, and gives them to whom he will? And that all Kings are but the Popes vassals? And therefore says Blondus, Now the Princes of the world adores and worshipes the Pope as perpetual Dictator, not Caesar's successor, but Peter his successor, and the foresaid Emperors vicar. Yea, says he, all Europe sends greater, or at the lease as great tribute to Rome, as they did in the former times: (to wit, to the Romaine Empire. ) And Bernard says, they are the first in the persecution (speaking to the Kirk) whilk appears to love the primacy in the Kirk, and to be the princes thereof. As to the second, who is he that hes caused all to worship the first beast: that is, hes brought again that tyrannous cruelty and dominion over the poor Kirk of God, in setting up idolatry and abolishing the true worship of God, whilk the Ethnic Emperors did, but the Popes of Rome? For was not the Emperor of the East excommunicate, because he would not suffer images in the temples? Have not they filled the world with their Idolatry as hes been proved? Who hes made war with the Saints and oppressed them in all the partes where there dominion might reach, but they? France, Germany, England, Scotland, the Low countries, and all Europe bears witness unto this. As to the third, who by lying wonders hes deceived the world, but they? And as to the fourth, who hes healed the deadly wound of the first beast, in setting up an impire heir in the West in the person of Charles the great, whilk was more nor 300. years so deadly wounded through the incursion of other nations, that there was no impire in the West: Who (I say) did all this, but the Popes of Rome? giving unto them the style or bare name, but taking by little & little y ^e substance of the whole impire to thenselves, so that Theodorik à Niem says the Roman empyre is so little now in • lmany, that their is some Bishops or Archbishops that will spend twice as much, as they will do of all the lands that is under their subjection: And some princes hes more land nor the Emperor hes. And if ye will look to Rome (says he) and Italy, it was once the seat of the Empire, but now the Emperor hes nothing of it but the style. As to the fifth. Who is he who hes caused make the image of the beast, and given a spirit unto it that it should speak: That is, who hes set up a very image of the Roman monarchy and hierarchy, in the whole frame of their government in the Kirk of God, but the Popes of Rome? So that the whole frame of their government and hierarchy, is a lively pattern and image of the Roman impire. For as in the Roman impire, there was an Empeperour whom all did worship as God: unto whom there was joined a Senate, who was next in authority to him: so is the frame of the government of the Papistical kingdom There is a Monarch the Pope; whom all are compelled, when they come in his sight, to worship as an earthly God, to whose sentence all must stand to, who judgeth all, but can be judged of none, who hes joined with him a Senate of cardinals, who are next him in authority. Secondly, as in the Roman monarchy, the Emperor took upon him not only the highest Kingly authority in all matters civil, but also the Priestly authority, and power over religion: and not that only, but also to be Tribunes over the people, who had the power of forbidding and annulling of all decrees made by other Magistrates. Even so the Popes of Rome hes usurped all these three. First, the highest royal authority over all Kings and princes: next, to be lords over religion: so that as Antoninus one of his arch-bishops says, He may create new Religions: thirdly, to be tribunes; that is to disannul what someuer decree or judgment, of any Bishop or inferior judges: yea of synodall and general councils, if they be not ratified by him. Thirdly, as in Rome was the head of the empire, the Emperor and his Senate with him, and as the Emperors had their Magistrates under them, in all their provinces, and places of their dominions, from whom all their authority was, and who was at their beck and commandment: So in the Popes Kingdom, the Pope who is the head, and the Senate of Cardinals whilk is next him in authority, hes their seat in Rome: and they according to the old pattern of the romane impyre, hes their Bishops, arch-bishops, Abbots, Priors, Monks, Friars, &c. in all the places of their dominion under them: who hes their whole authority from him, and who all are his sworn men. So heir is then the lively image of the former beast.

And as to the sext, Who did kill all them that would not worship the image. And this frame of government of Popes, cardinals, Bishops, Arch-bishops, &c. and their Religion, but the Popes of Rome? The blood of infinite thousands does testify this. And wha hes brought all under their bondage, both one & other, that none might buy or sel: that is, neither brook Civil nor Ecclesiastical offices, but those who were marked with his mark: that is, took on them his profession, and was Catholics (as he terms them,) Is not this sufficiently known, that none might have offices nor benefices in the Kirk, but they that received his mark, and ordours from him? And none might brook their kingdoms and civil dignities, in so far as lay in his power, but these that were of his profession. Rex venit ante sores, iurans prius vrbis honores: Post homo fit Papae, recipit quo dante coronam. And Erasmus says in his Adagies, That neither Baptism nor marriage nor sacrifice, nor psalms, nor prayer, nor Sacrament, nor grave in the papistical Kingdom are given without money.

Now last of all: to what kingdom or Kirk under heaven, since this Revelation was written, does the number of the name of the beast, heir set down, aggree; but to the Latin Kingdom of the Popes, and their Latin Kirk: for heir is set down the name of the kingdom of Antichrist. The number of the name of the beast heir set down, is 666. and the letters of the name of this Antichristian kingdom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amounts to the same number of 666. For what is the name of the Popish kingdom and hierarchy? Is not the Kirk called the Latin Kirk? Is not all the exercises of their Religion, almost in Latin? And suppose the Old Testament be written in Hebrew, and the new in Greek: yet, have they not condemned the originals as corrupted, and have they not authorized the Latin interpretation as only authentical? So that Papacie, is the very kingdom of Latins. Now the letters of this Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whilk signifies Latin (for the Revelation. was written in greek) doeth amount to the same number 666. And what other kingdom or monarchy under heavē can they show whose name is such, that the letters thereof amounteth to this number? Irenaeus an ancient writer, yea so ancient, that he saw and heard Polycarpus who was one of John's Disciples, who received this Revelation, mentioneth, that the name of this beast in this prophecy, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And as the letters of this Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amounteth to this number 666: so does the letters of these Latin words, Ecclesia Italica, written in Greek letters, and of the Hebrew word ROMIITH, that signifieth Romam. Is not this meikle now that this number of 666. aggrees to the name of the Papistical kingdom, both in hebrew, Greek, and latin. In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is Latin: in He • rew, ROMIITH, that is Rome: in latin Ecclesia Italica, that is, the Italian Kirk. For Italy is called Latium, that is Latin. What more would any man require? Will not this suffice to make it manifest, that the Popes are the Antichrist, to whom everything prophesied of the Antichrist by the Apostle Paul, and this Revelation of the second beast, does so fitly aggree? So that there can be none under heaven unto whom they can be applied, but only to the Popes of Rome. But yet for the full manifestation of this point, we will go to the 17. of the Revelation. For, as his Kingdom was figured under a beast that had two horns like the Lamb, in the 13. chapter: so there is the principal throne and seat of his Kingdom, figured under a great harlote, with whom the Kings and nations of the earth hes committed fornication. The whilk harlote is moste gloriously decked and richelie appareled, Who hes a Cupe of gold in her hand, full of abominations: in whose fore-head a name is written: A mystery, that Babylon, that mother of whooredomes, who is drunken with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus, whilk is that great city, whilk reigneth over the kings of the earth, whilk sitteth upon seven mountains. For the maintenance of whose kingdom, ten Kings yielded up their power & authority, to fight against the Lamb, and to overcome him. That this great ciety is the ciety of Rome: it is so plain, that he is more then blind that sees it not. For what ciety did reign over the nations when this Revelation was received, but Rome? and what ciety, since the Pope clambe up to his Kingdom, hes done the same, but Rome And what ciety sitteth upon 7. hills, but Rome, whose names are yet known? And what ciety hes been the mother of all spiritual and bodily fornication, of all idolatry and abomination, but Rome. Yea, what ciety hes been so enriched with gold, purple, & precious stones, but Rome? And what ciety hes been drunken with the blood of the Martyrs and Saints, but Rome? All these things are so manifest, that not only some of the Fathers, as Jerome, & Tertullian saw it: but also some of themselves confesses it, that this Babylon is Rome. Both Bellar. grants it plainly, and also the Rhemists do not deny it. I or that great Jesuit Bellarmine says, that John in the Revelation everywhere calls Rome Babylon: and confirms this, first by the testimony of Tertullian, and then by the circumstances of the text For (says he) there was no other ciety at that time that did reign over the nations, but Rome. And it is most notorious (says he) that Rome sits on seven bills. What now would ye have more? And in another place, It appears, says he, that in the time of the Antichrist, Rome shall be made desolate, and shall be brunt, as it is gathered out of the 17. of the Revel. and this shall not be until the end of the world. These are plain speeches. And I say this great ciety of Rome, whilk is called heir mystical Babylon, is not descriued heir, as she was the seat of the heathen Emperors, when they reigned in her, as the Roman Kirk says, but as she is, and hes been the seat of the Antichrist. For in the time of the Emperors, she made not the Kings of the earth commit fornication with her: that is, she did not pollute them with her idolatry and religion, as it is foretold of this Rome: for she left every kingdom free to use their own Idolatry and superstition: But Rome since she began to be the throne and seat of the Antichrist, the Popes of Rome hes propagated her idolatry and worship to all nations, and hes made all nations drunken with the wine of her fornication: and hes obtruded her religion to all nations, against their will, with fire and sword. And from thence hes proceeded all the wars and blood-sheds, in many nations of Europe, because they did go out of her, and departed from her idolatry.

Further, all the partes of her description heir, aggrees to Rome, having the show of Christianity, and not as she was Ethnic under the Ethnic Emperors, as that purple and scarlet wherewith she was clade, that gilding with gold & precious stones, and pearls: whilk the Arch-bishop of Ratisbon, Albertus Magnus, and the gloss interprets of the simulation of piety and meekness, and the spiritual graces of God: as faith, hope, charity: all whilks (say they) she shall in hypocrisy pretend: but yet in truth have nothing such: but cruelty and ungodliness, the whilk can no ways aggree with Rome, as she was in her Gentilism: therefore of necessity Papistical Rome is heir descriued, and not Ethnic Rome. Thirdly, that Rome is heir descriued, whilk was upholden by the beast, unto whom the ten Kings yielded up their power, to fight against the Lamb, as is manifest by the 12. and 13. verses of that 17. chapter. But this beast is not the empire of Rome, but the Antichristian kingdom: for these ten Kings had not received their Kingdoms all that time that the Roman Emperors were Ethnic, and long after: Therefore Rome as it is the seat of the Antichrist, & not as it was the seat of the romane Empire, is heir descryued. And the Rhemists says, that some expones these ten Kings, of ten kingdoms, into whilk the Roman empire shall be divided, whilk shall all serve Antichrist: therefore Rome as it is heir descriued, must be the seat of the Antichrist.

Last of all, the Revelation speaks heir of that Rome that shall be brunt with fire, & be made desolate by the ten kingdoms, whilk God should stir up to hate her; & he speaks heir of that Rome whilk shall be casten in the middes of the sea: after the whilk shall follow the day of judgment: But this cannot be Rome as it was the seat of the Roman Empire, but as it is the seat of the Antichristian kingdom: for it is more then a thousand years, since Rome left off her Gentilism, & yet this prophecy is not accomplished in her. Unto these I join the testimonies of some of their own Monks, Bishops, Poets, Friars, historiographers, Emperors and Popes also, whereby it will be verified, that this harlote is Rome, and the Popes thereof the Antichrist. Bernard a Monk of Cluniak, who lived about 400. year ago, writing unto Peter the Abbote of that Monastery, speaking of the tyrannous behavior of the Clergy and Bishop of Rome, he accuses them of sacrilegious bryberie, of bying and selling of the Bishops Pall, the Ring, and of all Laws and equity. And he says in another place, Roma nocens nocet, at{que} viam docet ipsa nocendi, Iura relinquere, lucra requirere, pallida vendi: Non Deus est tibi Jesus Roma peristi.

That is

And John a Monk says, Curia vult marcas, bursas exhaurit, & arcas: &c.

That is,

The same Monk also saith,

That is,

The Archbishop of Colon and Traverse says to Pope Nicolaus the first, Thou pretends the person of he Pope, but thou plays the tyrant. We feill a Wolf under the weed of a Pastor: the style belies the parent. Thou by thy deeds makes show as if thou were God: while as thou art the seruand of seruands, thou contendes to be Lord of Lord's. According to the discipline of our Savior, thou art the least of all the ministers of the Temple of God. Thou through the desire of ruling, goes to perdition. Whatsomeuer thing pleaseth thee, is leesome to thee. And Gregory a Pope says, I affirm this boldly upon good assurance, that whosoever he be that calls himself, or is desirous to be called universal Priest, in that hautines of his, is a fore-runner of Antichrist, in that by swelling pride he preferreth himself before others. Arnulphus Aurelaensis unto the council of Reims, testifies this of the Pope, Whome (says he) reverend Fathers think ye this man so be? who sitting in a high throne, shynes in his purple and golden attire? to wit, if he want love, & be puffed up by knowl dge, he is the Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. Bernard 400. year ago, writing to Eugenius Pope of Rome, in conclusion he breaketh forth in these words. Thou hes more need (says he) to have a rake in thy hand, nor a scepter to perform the office of a Prophet. And in another place, after he hes descriued and detested the pride of the Bishops of Rome, at last he concludeth the matter in these words, saying to the Pope, Heirein (says he) thou shows thyself to have succeeded not to Peter, but to Constantine. Peter is he who never knew what belonged to such solemn showing himself abroad, in braveries of precious stones, or silks, or • old, or ryding upon a white Palfray, or being guarded with a troop of tall fellows, or environed wich a c • mpany of ruffling serving-men. Also in another place, speaking of the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, he maketh an exclamation in this sort. At the first indeed (says he) ye began to play the Lord's but over the Clergy, contrary to the counsel of Peter: and within a while contrary to the advise of Paul (Peters ftllowe Apostle) you will have dominion over the faith of all men. But ye stay not there: ye have taken upon you more: namely, to have a peremptory power in Religion it self. Now what remaineth whereon ye might further incroache, except ye will go about to bring the very Angels under your subjection. And in another place, speaking of the behaviors of the romish Prelates, Hence cometh (says he) that whoorish tricking, that stage-like attire, that prince-like pomp, whilk daily we see in them: Hence proceids the gold that they use in their brydles, sadles, and spurs: in so much that their spurs are more glittering then their altars. Hence came their stately Tables, their variety of dishes, and quaffing cups: hence issued their ionketting, banketting, their drunkenness and surfeits: hence followed their Viols, harps, and shalmes: hence flowed their sellers and pantries so stuffed with wines and viands of all sorts: hence gote they their lee-pots, and painting boxes: and hence had they their purses so well lyned with coin. Fy upon it. Sik men they will needs be, & yet they are our great masters in Israel, as Deans, arch-deanes, Bishops, and arch-bishops. These works of theirs are little inferior unto that filthiness whilk they committed in darkness. And lastly he adds these words, For he is the very Antichrist. Frederick the seconde, foretold the ruin of Rome, more then 300. years since in these wyrds, writing to Innocentius 4. Pope:

That is,

And in his verse written against the Pope, he affirms plainly that he was that son of perdition & that head of the wicked forespoken by Paul. And in his letters to the prelates of the world, he calls the Pope that great dragon, that hes deceived the whole world, that Antichrist, and that counterfite Vicare of Christ. Eberharbus Bishop of Salsburgh, speaking of the Bishops of Rome he says: they only desire to reign, they cannot abide peace: They will not cease till they have stamped all under their feet, that they may sit in the Temple of God, & be lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. He who is the seruād of seruāds, is the Lord of Lord's, and desires to be thought of, as if he were God: And he says, that man whom they use to call Antichrist, be speaketh great things as though he were God, in whose fore-head that name of blasphemy is written: I am God I cannot err. Franciscus Petrarcha a light of that age for his manifold learning, calls the court of Rome Babylon, and that harlote of Babel that sitteth upon many waters, the mother of Idolatry & whoordōe, the refuge of heresies & errors. And Petrus Johannes pronounced the Pope to be the Antichrist and the synagogue of Rome to be that great Babylon. And Matthias Parisiensis says, that Antichrist hes seduced all the universities and colleges of the learned, so that they teach nothing soundly now: & the edict of the empire, under Lodouick the fourth, speaking of Pope John the 22. says, Christians cannot keep the peace whilk is given them of God, for this Antichrist (meaning the Pope) And in another edict it is written, as he is a disaguised Pastor, so is he a mystical Antichrist: and we declare him being the author of that Antichristian Empire, to be damned of heresy, & deposed by our right by the council, sentence, and common consent of the princes and prelates of Germany, the Priests of Italy, and people of Rome so desiring. And Auentinus in the history of Hildebrand writes, that almost all the plain, just, simple, & upright hes written, that then (to wit when he was Pope) the Empire of the Antichrist began, because they saw that come to pass at that time, whilk our Savior fore-told so many years before. And to conclude this: Hadrian the 6. Pope, in his instructions of his legats to the conuention at Noremberge, he says: Thou shalt say, that we grant freely that God hes suffered this persecution to come upon the Kirk for the sins of men, and especially of the priests and prelates of the Kirk. And again he says, we know that in this seat (speaking of that Pontifical seat in Rome) many abhominable things hes been for some years, as abuse in spiritual things, excess in commandments, and last of all, all things changed in worse. And the Popes Cardinals (speaking to Paul the third) says. From this fountain (holy Father) as from the Troyan horse, so many abuses hes rushed into the Kirk, and so heavy diseases wherewith (as we may se) she is brought into a desperate estate, I omit the rest: Ye may se the truth is strong that hes made their own mouths to fyle themselves. To conclude this then: He must be the undoubted Antichrist, and his kingdom Antichristian, unto whom the whole marks of the Antichrist, as he is descriued in the scripture by the Apostle Paul, & John in the Revelation doth aggree: But they all aggree unto the Popes of Rome and his kingdom, as hes been proved. Therefore they must be that undoubted Antichrist who was to come. Secondly, he must be that undoubted Antichrist, whom his own Friars, Bishops, Cardinals, and some of themselves doth call Antichrist, and ascriue these things unto him that belongs properly to the Antithrist: But his own Friars, Bishops, Cardinals, & some of themselves hes so testified, as hes been proved also: Therefore out of their own mouths they are condemned to be that Antichrist, & their kingdom Antichristian.

Now to put an end to this my reply, that religion is false whilk hes neither unity, succession, nor antiquity: this you cannot deny, because you make them the marks of your Kirk: But your religion hes neither unity, for that is broken by your manifold contradictions and dissensions amongst yourselves, whereof I have marked some, and the diligent reader of your works may gather many moe: Chrachtouius in his book called Bellum Iesuiticum, hes gathered of two heads to wit the Mass and Antichrist 205. contradictions, let the Christian Reader judge then what may be gathered of the rest, no succession, neither personal, broken by their Popes who was Atheists, Schismatics, heretics, and by a woman Pope: neither in doctrine, being direct contrary to the doctrine of Christ: no antiquity, for the authors and origen of sundry main points of your religion is set down here, and all your Roman Clergy, hes not satisfied Master Jewels challenge this 30. year ago, concerning the novelty of 27. of your opinions. Therefore since it hes neither unity, successiō, nor antiquity, it is a false religion by your own doctrine. Secondly, that religion whilk is contrary the Scripture, contrary the practice of the primitive Kirk whilk opens a door to all licenciousnes, whilk can bring no true peace & consolation unto the consciences of men, whilk blusheth to be known and made manifest, whilk maintaineth many great absurdities, horrible blasphemies, abhominable idolatry that is the doctrine of Antichrist, & the doctrine of devils, whilk by their own mouths is condemned, must be erroneous and false: But the religion of the Kirk of Rome is such as hes been evidently proved before, therefore it must be false. Woe therefore belongs to their souls that professes it openly or secrectly.