Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 4
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
Of this we collect that our Kirk muſt be the only trew Kirk, and not theirs, a)Proue this by the Scripture M. Gilbert, and take it to you. But this you are not able to doe, for your Kirk hes failed in the ſubſtantial points of religion therefore it is not the onlie true Kirk. It onlie ſuffices to proue this by the Scripture Falſe, M. Gilbertbecauſe ours hes neuer bene interrupted, nor hes failed in anie ſubſtantiall poynt of faith & religion ſince Chriſt & his Apoſtles dayes, and theirs hes done. To confirme this, I ſay, that Maiſter Iohn, nor no miniſter in Scotland can be able to aſsigne to vsus the circumſtances of all mutations and changes in Religion: That is to ſay,
1. The authour who firſt began out Religion.
2. The time when it was begun.
3. The place where it began.
4. The true Kirk who ſaid againſt the ſame.
5. The matter it ſelf whilk was changed or begun.
6. Nor the faithfull nomber from whome they departed.
All theſe things we ſhall aſſigne to their Religion, and that ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtle,.
1. The firſt authour of their Religion, albeit not in all things, Falſe, he neither inuented it, nor firſt preached it.was Martine Luther an Auguſtine Frier.
2. He began his Religion in the yeare of God 1517.
3. He began the ſame in Saxonie in the countrie of Almanie.
4. The Kirk of Rome, Italie, France, Spaine, Scotland, England, not the true kir… but thoſe who was drunken with your abhominations. And iuſtlie.Denmark, Swaden, Pole, an great part of Almanie, with the eaſt and weſt Indies whilks were the trew Kirk, ſaid againſt him.
5. The heades of Religion whilk he firſt ſaid againſt were Pardons. He affirmed that man was onlie iuſtified by Faith. He denied the Supper of our Lord to be an ſacrifice, &c.
6. He departed himſelfe from all the Chriſtian Kirks in Europe, Fal…in the Indies and other places, and therefore he had no predeceſſors of his owne Religion, as we a)Ther is a darknes faln vponupon your eies, for there is no ſik thing there.read in the Apologie of the Engliſh Proteſtants, that he and Zuinglius were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Euangell, & therefore none immediatlie before them.
Falſe, for he had all theſe who profeſſed the true religion to be his predeceſſors. Matth. 28.20.Then ſeing that there was none of his profeſſion in the earth before him immediatlie, neither viſible nor inuiſible, he and his could not be the Kirk of Chriſt: for it hes euer ſtood, and neuer failed, no not the ſpace of one day vniuerſallie, becauſe our Sauiour ſayes, I ſhall be with you eueryevery day to the conſummation of the world.
M. Iohn Welſche his Reply.
As to your collection, the forme of it muſt be this. That Kirk onlie muſt be the trew Kirk that hes neuer bene interrupted, nor failed in any ſubſtantiall head of faith and religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles. But ſay ye, yours is ſuch, and ours not: Therefore your Kirk is the true Kirk, and ours not. The propoſition I graunt. But all the controuerſie lies in the probation of your aſſumptiō. Yea, in ſtead of prouing ye ſay it is not poſsible to mee, nor to na Miniſter in Scotland to aſsigne to you the circumſtances of all mutations & changes in your religion, as the perſon, time, place, &c. And then ye attempt to aſsigne al theſe circumſtances of our religion, vponupon the whilk ye conclude the falſet of it. So we wil firſt ſee how ye proue your owne, and then ſee howe ye diſproue ours. Indeed this argument of yours is of ſik accompt with you, that there are not manie of your writers, but they hauehave ſet it, as it were, in the vaunt-guarde of their hoſte, and amongſt the greateſt of their ſtrengthes and bulwarks, for to vp-holde their ruinous Babel. So Hammilton and Hay, in their demands to the Miniſters of Scotland, ſo Campion, ſo Duraus Scotus againſt Whitaker in his defence: VponUpon the 28. of the Acts. and on 1. Ioh 1. Bellarm lib. 4 de Eccleſ cap 5ſo your Rhemiſts: and ſo Bellarmine. Whereby it may be ſeene of what accompt this argument of yours is in the iudgement of your Kirk. But to anſwere to your argument: firſt, I ſay, If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion ſince Chriſt & his Apoſtles, then your religion and doctrine will be one with that quhilk is ſet downe in the Scripture of God. For you will not deny, I hope, but the Scripture doth ſufficiently teſtifie, what doctrine and religion was in Chriſts and his Apoſtles dayes. And ſo let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture, and tryed thereby, and then I hope it wil ſone be made manifeſt how far it is changed. So, and you dare, M. Gilbert let once your Religion be ſet vponupon the Pannel, and let it once hauehave an aſſyſe of the Scripture, and then the plea will end, I hope. Next I ſay, it will not follow, We cannot aſsigne all the circumſtances of changes in your Religion: Therefore your Religion is vncorrupted. For it ſufficeth if we can proue the firſt onlie, that is, the matter or doctrine it ſelfe whilk is changed, and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God, ſuppoſe we could not aſsigne all the reſt of the circumſtances of the mutation: as the time, place, author, and ſo forth: for the changes of manie things are moſte notorious, and yet all the circumſtances of the change therof not knowne. We ſay then it is not needfull to ſeeke the beginnings and circumſtances of the decayes and corruptions in your Kirk, when the corruption and change it ſelfe is ſo manifeſt, by comparing your doctrine with the written worde of God, that it cannot be denied. For will you ſay, that he who is deadlie diſeaſed, is whole and ſound, becauſe I cannot tell you the firſt article of time, the place, and firſt occaſion of the diſeaſe? When it is manifeſt that a citty is full of miſorder and confuſion, wil ye ſay that ye wil not beleeue it to be ſo, vnleſſe you knowe the firſt beginnings and progreſſe of theſe miſorders. If you ſawe a ruinous houſe, would ye ſay, Proue me and tell me all the circumſtances of the change of it, otherwiſe I will not beleeue it? Will ye denie that a ſhip could be drowned, vnleſſe it were tolde you all the circumſtāces of the change of the lecke where-throw it drowned. If any found a man faln in a pit, ſhall he not beleeue that he is faln, whome neuertheleſſe he ſees to be ther, vnleſſe it were tolde him, when and by whome he was caſte into the ſame: Euen ſo, will ye not beleeue, or wil ye hinder al others to beleeue that your Kirk and Religion is ruinous, conſumed, rotten, dead, drowned, & full of miſorder, hereſy, and confuſion, vnleſſe the firſt beginnings of theſe changes can be tolde you? We ſay therefore it is ſufficient to proue the ruine and conſumption of your Kirk and Religion, if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the ſcripture, we make euident the direct oppoſition betwixt them, ſuppoſe wee coulde not aſsigne all the circumſtances of the change of it out of the hiſtories, leauing it free to Hiſtoriographers to write what they pleaſe, and omitte what they pleaſe. Thirdlie, it is manifeſt, that the Kirk of the Iewes in the time of Chriſt was changed both in doctrine & manners from that eſtate that it was in the time of Aaron, Eleazar, and ſundrie others: and alſo the Kirks of Galatia and Corinthe that they were changed from the eſtate wherein they were. And yet I trow that neither ye, nor any Papiſt in the earth is able to aſsigne to me all the circumſtances of the mutations and changes in the ſame, as the firſt authours, time, place, &c. & yet there was a great change in Doctrine and Religion in al theſe Kirks, as hath bene proued before. And we read that our Sauiour and the Apoſtles, conuicted them of a change, and yet they deſigned not the firſt authours, time, and place and ſo forth. The like I ſay of the Kirk of Greece, Aſia and Africk, which in nomber exceedes yours. That there is a wonderfull change in their Kirk and Religion ye will not deny, or els your Religion is hereſie: for (as ſaid is) they acknowledge not your Popes ſupremacie, Tranſubſtantiation, &c. And yet I trowe ye, nor na Papiſt in the earth is able to aſſigne al the circumſtances of changes in their Kirk, and Religion which they hauehave preſentlie: yea, more vnable to doe this, nor we are able to doe the ſame in yours. I meane not the hereſies of Arrius, Samoſatenus, Neſtorius, Eutyches, Sergius, and the reſt, whilk long ago were damned by the Councels of the Greek Kirks. (For I trow ye ſhal not be able to proue that they now maintain theſe hereſies, whilk they condemned and refuted long agoe.) But I meane of the preſent errors and corruptions in their worſhip and Religion, whilk now they maintaine and profeſſe. If then ye iudge the kirks of the eaſt heretical, becauſe they are not aggreable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome, and yet not be able to aſſigne the circumſtances of the changes and mutations of the ſame? Will ye not grant the ſame libertie to vsus to accompt and iudge your kirk and Religion failed, becauſe it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Ieſus Chriſt, ſet downe in the Scripture, ſuppoſe we could not aſsigne to you the circumſtances of the changes of the ſame.
Fourthlie I ſay, if you hauehave read Epiphanius, there ye ſhall finde many hereſies, whilk I omit for ſhortneſſe, whilks he accompts hereſies, whoſe beginnings and authours are vnknowne.
Fifthlie, there is ſik ane vniuerſall complaint of the monſtrous abhominations and decaies in your Religion, diſcipline, & manners, & that by your owne (a)Concil. Conſtant. leſ 4 5. Trident. ſeſ 6 Baſil ſeſ. 2. 3councels, (b)Bernard. in Cant. 3…Fathers, Popes, Cardinals, & Fryars, that I would hauehave thoght it vncredible vnleſſe I had read them, that either your owne mouthes ſhould hauehave ſo condemned your ſelues, or elſe that the poſteritie afterward ſhoulde hauehave bene ſo ſhameleſſe as to hauehave boaſted of the puritie of their Kirk and Religion. Therefore the Councel of Trent hes proclaimed it to the world in write, that the Kirk hes need to be reformed in the head and members. Nowe, I aske that of you concerning theſe abuſes in diſcipline and manners, whilk ye aske of vsus concerning your doctrine. Show me all the circumſtances of mutation and change diſtinctlie, if yee can, what tyme, what place, by what authour &c. ſik monſtrous abhominations firſt brake in in your Kirk & religion. Now ſeing there is no man who hes a ſparke of iudgement, that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and diſcipline in your Kirk, and yet the circumſtances of the changes vnknowne: thinke ye then that ye ſhall aſſure men that no changes culd fall in your doctrine, vnleſſe we knew the circumſtances of the changes of the ſame?
Sixtly, Matth. 13.27.2….the Scripture teſtifies that euē the tares whilk is the euill ſeede doth not appeare ſo ſoone as they are ſowne, and that neither the times, nor the firſt author of them was knowne, no not to the moſt diligent laborers of the Lordes ground at the firſt: and yet it was enough to know them to be euill ſeede, by the difference that was ſeene betwixt them and the good ſeede, ſuppoſe the time, place, & author was vnknowen at the firſt. So it is proofe enough againſt your doctrine, that it is but tares, if the difference be made manifeſt betwene it and the Lordes trueth in the Scripture, ſuppoſe the circumſtances of the changes of it, can not be aſſigned.
Seuenthly, theirs is likened to leauen and a canker, whilk doth not all at once infect the whole maſſe, and feiſter the whole bodie; but peece and peece: ſo your corruption came not in all at once, but peece and peece infected your Kirk & feiſtered your religion. And therefore it is no wonder ſuppoſe the beginnings of infection and circumſtances of it, hes not bene marked: for if they had broken in all at once, and in a ſuddentie ouerthrowne the whole Kirk, it had bene no difficultie to hauehave aſſigned the circumſtances of the ouerthrow of it. For if any hauing a whole conſtitution with an ſtroke were ſlaine, if an ſhip with an waue were drowned: it were no difficultie to aſſigne the circumſtances of the ſudden changes. But in a conſumption, and in a leck that hes come in peece and peece in the body & in the ſhip, the beginnings thereof cannot be ſo eaſily perceiued: for a little leck in proces of time will ſink a great ſhip. And if it be ſo hard to diſcerne the beginnings of theſe things whilk our ſenſes may grope, how much more hard is it to perceiue the beginnings of theſe ſpirituall corruptions whilk cannot bee perceiued by the natural man, but only by the light of Gods ſpirit by the ſpirituall man.
Eightly, if now it be ſo in other hereſies as the Scripture teſtifies of them that their begining are oft-times vnknowne, euen vntounto the moſte diligent labourers of the Lordes huſbandrie and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once, how much more is this true in your Antichriſtian religion, whilk (as it was fore-tolde) ſhould deceiue all nations and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication. 2. Theſ.And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture an iniquitie, but an ſecret iniquitie: an vnrighteouſnes, but yet an deceiuable vnrighteouſnes: a deluſion, but yet a ſtrong deluſion; Reuel. 17.an abhomination and ſpirituall fornication, but yet put in a golden cup, that is, hauing the ſhewe of godlineſſe and religion, and your Kirk is called a harlot: but yet finelie decked in purple, &c. not like a harlot, but a Queene. Your kingdome is called a beaſt that ſpeakes like the dragon, but yet like the lambe in his hornes, reſembling the power & authority of the Lord Ieſus. Seeing then your Kirk, kingdome & doctrine is ſuch a myſterie of iniquitie, hes ſuch a ſhew of godlines, hes ſuch a reſemblance with the lambe, hes ſuch cloakes of ſtyles is ſo deceiuable, and is ſuch a ſtrong deluſion, as the Scripture teſtifies of it: is it any wonder, ſuppoſe the beginnings of this myſterie, & of the whoredomes of this queene be not diſtinctly marked and ſet downe?
Ninthly, it is likely ynough that the great credite wherein the firſt Biſhopes of Rome was for their pietie and godlines, and the loftie eſtate of their ſucceſſors after them, together with their crueltie & tyrannie did ſo dazell on the one ſide the eyes of the godly, that they were not inquiſitiue in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions, and ſo brideled the mouthes of other ſome that they durſt not write the thing they ſaw, and if they write any thing, they write it but barely & corruptly, for the tyranny of your kirk was ſuch, that none durſt mutter againſt your Kirk and religion, but he was taken without further as an hereticke and condemned and executed where euer your tyrannie reached.
Laſt of al, ſuppoſe they had bene written by the hiſtories of euerie age, and that diſtinctly; yet conſidering the vniuerſal power, craft and pollicie of your Kirk and kingdome, is it any wonder ſuppoſe they be not now extant at all, but either burnt, or els ſo falſifyed and corrupted that the beginnings thereof ſhould not hauehave bene perceiued. For ſeing in the purer times when the power and dominion of your Kirk was not yet come to the height, Concilii Carthag 6 The …o…es one after another Zozimus, Bonifacius, Cael…ſti…us, anno. 430.ſuch was the ambition & falſhood of your Popes that in the preſence of a council of 217. Biſhops in Carthage, wher Auguſtine was preſent, they did alledge a falſe canon of the councill of Nice, for to hauehave eſtabliſhed their ſupremacie, and vnderunder one of their handes ſent it to the councell by their legates: the whilk was eſpied … and found out by the whole councell, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that councell he ſhould hauehave no prerogatiue ouer the Kirkes of Aſrik, and that none ſhould appeale to him vnderunder the paine of depoſition and excommunication: but alſo he was rebuked by the fathers of that councel in their letters to him. If he was ſo bould then, what maruell ſuppoſe ſince he hes falſifyed and corrupted eueryevery hiſtorie & writing, that he ſaw might beare anie wayes witnes of the corruptions, tyrannies & abhominations of that Kirk and religion of his. And hence it is, I am ſure, that we finde ſo little written of the beginnings of their corruptions, & of them that reſiſted it. And your Index expurgatorius deuiſed in the councel of Trent for blotting out euerie thing in the writing is of men that might teſtifie of your corruptions, doth alſo ſufficiently witnes vntounto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclude this, ſuppoſe we could not aſſigne to you the circumſtances of the changes of your religion, yet it followes not but your religion and Kirk may be corrupted and decayed.
But to ſatiſfie your demand, (ſuppoſe I hope the thinges alreadie ſaid, will ſatiſfie the conſciences of the godly) what craue you? That all the circumſtances of changes in your religion may be aſſigned to you? Firſt then, I ſay, there is nothing that may ſerue either to make the man of God wiſe vntounto ſaluation, or yet that may make him perfyte in euerie good work, but the Scripture teſtifies: for it is able to do both theſe. If theſe circumſtances then ſerue either for ſaluation or perfection, I ſay they are ſet down in the Scripture, ſo that we neede not to goe to hyſtories to ſearch the ſame.
The firſt then ye craue, is the time when the change began. The Scripture tells you that the myſtery of iniquitie began to work euen then in the Apoſtles dayes, and that it doth alreadie worke, and ſo grew on from degree to degree till he that with-held it was remoued, that is till the Empire of Rome began to decay, and the ſeat of it remoued from thence, as the fathers expounded it, Auguſtine, Chryſoſt. Hiero. & ſo the citie left to the Pope the man of ſinne for him to ſet his th… …ne there: for Rome that ſeuen hilled citie behoued to be the ſeat of the Antichriſt, as it was foretolde by the Scripture. So, Reuel 17.if you wil beleeue the Scripture, you hauehave the time. What craue you next? The place? Lib. 2. de Romano Pontiſi cap. 2 Reuelat. 17.I ſay the Scripture teſtifies of the ſame that that myſtical Babylon, whilk Bellarmine your chiefe campion grants to be Rome, that ſittes vponupon ſeuen hilles, that had the dominion ouer the Kinges of the earth, that is the place where firſt your Kirk and religion began to decay. So there the place if ye will beleeue the Scripture. What craue you next? Reuel 11. & 17 Reuel. 13. & 1…The author? The Scripture alſo hes foretolde that the beaſt that came out of the bottomles pit, and ſlew the witneſſes of God and made warre with the Saintes, and ouercame them, & made all to worſhip the image of the beaſt, and the harlot Babell, (the citie of Rome) the mother of whordomes, who made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that is your head and Kirk, they are the authors and mothers of this decay and corruption. What is the fourth thing ye require? The Kirk that ſaid againſt the ſame? The Scripture will tell you that too: Reuel. 11. & 10 & 13. & 14the two witneſſes of God whom ſhe killed, the woman that fled in the wildernes, the Saintes with whom ſhe made warre, & who would not worſhip the beaſt nor receiue his image, the hundreth fortie and foure thouſand that Iohn ſaw ſtanding with the Lambe in mount Sion, who was not defyled with your idolatrie, but followed the Lambe whitherſoeuer he went. Theſe then are the true kirk whilk ſpak againſt your corruptions, who are like vntounto Eliahs ſeuen thouſand that had not bowed their knees to Baall. What craue you more? The matter it ſelf they ſaid againſt? The Scripture and ye will beleeue will ſatiſfie you in this poynt alſo. The doctrine then that was ſaid againſt was that myſterie of iniquity, 2. Theſſal. … Reuel. 13. Reuel. 17.18 1. Timoth. …that deceiuablenes of vnrighteouſnes, that ſtrong deluſion, that doctrine of the Dragon, that ſpirituall idolatrie and abhomination, that doctrine of Diuels in forbidding mariage and commanding abſtinence of meate, & ſo forth of the reſt. What craue you laſt? The number from whom they departed? The Scripture will alſo beare witnes of this, ſeing your religion is a departure from the faith, 2. Theſſal. …then all theſe that euer profeſſed the faith of Ieſus ſet dovvne in his written word, euen the Lord Ieſus the head, the Apoſtles, the layers of the foundation, the primitiue Kirk, the woman that fled in the wildernes, the Saintes with whom ye made warre, and all the elect and choſen of God that abhorred your idolatrie: Theſe are the true Kirks from whome you departed. What now craue you more? Will not the abundance of the riuers of the Scriptures of God quench and ſatisfie this your deſire, but that you muſt goe vntounto the vnpure fountaines of mens writings, as though the Scripture were not ſufficient not only to make a man wiſe vntounto ſaluation, but to make him perfite in euerie thing? Theſe thinges I am ſure will ſatisfie the ſoules of them that loues the trueth. But becauſe you giuegive no credite to the Scriptures, but counts them as a noſe of wax, Leo. 10.and as one of your Popes ſpeaking to Bembus a Cardinall called them a fable of Chriſt, and yet ſuch a fable as hes inriched your treaſures. And Sylueſter Prierias writing againſt Luther, ſaies that the Roman Kirk & Pope is of greater authoritie then the Scriptures. O horrible blaſphemies of the holy trueth of God. Therefore we will goe to the hiſtories, and ſe what they hauehave teſtified of theſe circumſtances. And although all things heere be not expreſſed to the full, yet there is ſo much left vncorrupted and vnſcraped out (by the gracious prouidence of God, that would not want his witnes in all ages) out of the fathers and your own writers, that I hope wil ſatisfie the conſciences of al the modeſt & godly. a)Lib. 1. …om.Clemēs Alexandrinus ſaies that the Apoſtles ſucceſſors receiued the doctrine from them, as the ſonnes from their fathers. But he ſubioynes that there was verie few children that was like their fathers. bLib. 3. cap. 16.Aegeſippus as Nicephorus reportes, ſaies that the Kirk remained a pure virgine as long as the Apoſtles liued vntounto Traians time, but they being dead, he writes that it was ſpedily corrupted. So if ye credite the teſtimonies of theſe men, ye ſe the Kirk remaineth not long in her integritie. And if you would heare ought of your Rom. Kirk, c)Lib. 7. cap. 11.Socrates ſayes that Celeſtinus your Pope paſt the boūds of his preiſthood. Read d)cap. vlt.Baſilius de ſpiritu ſancto, & there ye may ſe what change of religion was in his time. e)epiſt. 1.9 c. 19Auguſtine teſtifies that the multitude of ceremonies grew ſo in his time, that the condition of the Iewes ſeemed to be more tollerable, nor the condition of the Kirk. Now did not this ſickneſſe trow ye, grow be time? And to come to your owne wryters. f)in Canti 33.Bernard ſayes, that ye Miniſters of Chriſt (meaning of the Romane Kirk) ſerues Antichriſt. And to the Pope himſelfe, Eugenius 3. he ſayes g)Lib. 4.And thou the ſhepheard goes forth being clothed with a glorious attyre, if I durſt ſay it: theſe are the feeding places of Deuils rather then of ſheep: thy court is accuſtomed rather to receiue good men, nor to make them good: not the euil profites, but the good decayes there. And in another place he ſayes, From the ſole of the foote (ſpeaking of the Kirk of Rome) to the crowne of the head there is no health, nor ſoundneſſe. And in another place he ſayes, De c…n Pauli. Pſal. 91 ſer. 6.What remaynes now (ſpeaking of the corruptions of that Kirk of Rome) but that the mā of ſinne be reuealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modò diurnum, ſed & meridianum, that is, a deuilrie not only in the day tyde, but in the very noone-tyde. And to Fugenius the Pope he ſayes, Lib. 4.In theſe ſecular attyres and powers thou hes not ſucceeded to Peter, but to Conſtantine. The day would ſooner faile mee, nor the wryting of his complaints againſt the Kirk of Rome.
Pope Hadrianus the 6. in his inſtructions to his Legates whilk were ſent to the councel of Noremberg, he graunts and bids them ſay to the councel, that We know that in this chaire, (meaning Peters Sea in Rome,) for certaine years many abhominable thinges hes bene in it: the abuſe in ſpirituall things, the exceſſe in commandements, and in a word, all things are changed in a worſe. And the councill of the Cardinals to Paule the third: they ſay, Out of this fountaine (holy father) as from the Troian horſe, Dele… card.hes broken ſo many abuſes in the Kirk of God, ſik heauie diſeaſes, whereby we ſee now that ſhe is dispaired almoſt of health. Aeneas Syluius a Cardinall, who alſo was Pope afterward, ſayes of your Kirk, That al faith hes periſhed in her, & louelove is growne yee-colde. Ex epiſtola. 54. ad Caſpar. Schlicke. Oratio. Cornelii epi. Bitóti 3 dom aduent, whilk was ſpoken in the councel of trent.And Cornelius Bitontinus Biſhop, who was preſent at the councell of Trent ſayes, Would to God (ſpeaking of your Kirk) that vnanimes velut prorſus &c. all with one heart alluterlie they had not declyned from Religion to ſuperſtition, from Faith to infidelity, from Chriſt to Antichriſt. (What would ye hauehave more? will ye yet be ſo ſhamleſſe as to boaſt of the puritie of your Kirk?) and from God to Epicuriſme. I leaue the reſt, as Platin, Genebrand, Frier Mantuā, Nicolaus Clemangis, Franciſcus Petrarcha, Auentinus, and a nomber of others who are full of complaints of the abhominations of your Kirk of Rome, that certainlie I cānot but wonder at your ſhameleſneſſe in opening of your mouth, and ſaying, that your Kirk had the trueth in all things, and neuer failed nor was interrupted, againſt ſik a cloude of witneſſes, whoſe teſtimonies ye dare not refuſe. But I leaue you to the Lord. The lippes of a lyar is abhomination to the Lord. Prouerb. 20.So your owne mouthes ſhall riſe vp in the day of the Lord, and condemne you that ſaies, Your kirk hes not failed in any ſubſtantial point of Religion. But you craue more diſtinctly the time, place, and perſons, and ſo forth, that hes brought in this mutation and change. If theſe are to be accounted authours of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders thereof: then I ſay the Popes of Rome (for the moſte part) are the authours of the ſame, for they were the chief defenders thereof, ſuppoſe they had not bene the firſt teachers thereof. For, otherwiſe Luther cannot be ſaide to be the authour of our Religion, as ye ſay, becauſe he was not the firſt that taught the ſame, and that by your owne confeſsion. For ye ſay, that ſundrie other heretickes before Luther taught the ſame heades of doctrine whilk he taught, & whilk we profeſſe now. As, that Faſting ſhould be free, that onelyonly Faith iuſtifieth, that man hes not free wil, &c. Next, becauſe it were too longſom to go throw the whole heads of your Religion, therefore I wil onlie bring a fewe examples, and that in ſome of the ſubſtantiall points thereof. As for the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and the ceremonies thereof, I hauehave ſhowne the authors thereof in another place therefore I omit that now. The firſt that euer tooke vppon him to exerciſe iuriſdiction ouer the Kirks of the Eaſt, was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who tooke vponupon him to excō municate the Biſhops of the Eaſt, becauſe they would not followe his faſhion in the celebration of Eaſter. There the perſon, Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. …5.26time, and place, reſiſted by Irenaeus biſhop of Lions in France, & the Biſhops of the Eaſt, & the brethren there, Polycarpus and ſundrie others. The firſt that took vponupon him the ſtyle to be called vniuerſall Biſhop, was the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, anno 581. Reſiſted by Pelagius, and after him a)Lib. 4. epiſtola 3….38.39Gregorius Biſhops of Rome. And yet for al this, Boniface b)Platina, Sabellicus, Manarus Scotus. Platina in vita Bonif.the 3. anno 607. obtained this ſtyle of Phocas the Emperour, the murtherer of his predeceſſor, complained of by the Kirk of Rauenna in Italie, and reſiſted by ſundrie as ſhalbe prooued afterwards. The firſt that c)Euſeb. lib. 5. cap 17appointed lawes of Faſting, was Montanus the heretick, anno 145. accounted hereſie by Apolonius and Auguſtine, againſt the faſting of the Manicheans The Manicheans were the firſt we read of that miniſtred the Communion vnderunder one kinde, as the Papiſts does now: and ſo forth of many other olde condemned hereſies whilk your Kirk hes renewed, as ſhall be proued afterward. The firſte that gaue inckling of Tranſubſtantiation, was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his inchantment hauing firſt cauſed a cup of white wine to beare the coullour of blood, made his followers beleeue that by his inuocation ouer it, that grace whilk is aboue all things, had powred his blood into the cup, refuted by d)Hereſ. 34Epiphanius and Irenaeus. The firſt that decreed Tranſubſtantiation in effect, e)Lib. 1. cap. 8.was Pope f)De conſecrat. Diſtinct. 2. cap. Ego BerengariusNicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in cauſing Berengarius to recant, but yet it was not decreed as an vniuerſall doctrine, before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a councel of Lateran anno 1215. as g)de Sacrament.Tonſtall witneſſes. The Greeke Kirk neuer conſented to it, Bertramus, Berengarius, Waldenſis withſtoode it. The firſte that decreed the worſhipping of Images was Hadrian in the 2. councell of Nice, againſt the expreſſe Scripture, after the example of Marcellina an heretick, who worſhipped the Image of Ieſus, reſiſted by ſundrie Fathers and h)Concil. Elibez. Concil. Conſtant Conc. Francof.councels, The firſt i)Diſtinct 82. cap Propoſniſtithat impoſed ſingle life and condemned mariage in their Cleargie was Pope Syricius anno 390. as the Manichees did before him, reſiſted by k)Sigebert & …. Mutiusſundrie. Let theſe examples ſerue as a taiſt to the reader.
How ſtronglie nowe yee hauehave manned and fortified your own Kirk & Religion by your proofes, let the reader iudge. Now let vsus ſee, how ye diſproue ours. The queſtion nowe comes in of the truth of our Kirk and Religion, whether it be from Ieſus Chriſt, or not. You ſay, it is not from him, but from others ſince his time. If ye had gone the ſtraight way to hauehave proued this and to hauehave ſatisfied the conſciences of men, you would at the neareſt hauehave runne to the Scripture, and by the ſame hauehave diſproued it. But you inſteede of this goe a farre by-way, and would father our religion on fleſhe and bloode, duſt and aſhes: in poynting vsus out Martine Luther to be the father and author of the ſame, as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon vntounto, nor had not the beginning & foundation of it, from the roote of Ieſſe, the bud of the Lord from whome it hes ſprung. And for to get your ſelf the better credite you buſie your ſelf in marking the circumſtances of his preaching, as time, place, matter, oppoſition, &c. Now that ye are ſo skilled and acquainted with that hiſtory of Martine Luther, that you can aſſigne al theſe circumſtances, it is no wonder, for that was the moſt notable and markable period of the decaying of your Babell, and of the erecting vp againe of the kingdome of Ieſus Chriſt, whilk your head & clergie had ſtampt it vnderunder foote for ſo many yeares, whilk ſuppoſe the beginning of it was but like a little leauen, and as a graine of muſtard-ſeed whilk of all ſeedes is the leaſt. Yet now ſince it hes ſo ſowred almoſt the whole maſſe, euen the moſt part of the kingdomes of Europe, whilk once was vnderunder your ſpirituall bondage, and hes growen vp into ſik a high tree hauing faire and great branches, vnderunder the whilk the Lords ſheepe may get reſte and warmneſſe, and in the whilk his ſoules that mounts vp-wardes to that kingdome, doth builde their neſts, ſo that neither can all your purgations, nor yet all your axes of fire and ſworde, of buls and pardons of preachings and writtings, ſtay the ſpreading of the one▪ nor cut downe the branches & roote of the other. That M. Luther began at that time, and in that place, and preached againſt theſe doctrines, we do not deny, and that is not controuerted: But heere lyes al the queſtiō, whether if that doctrine that he preached againſt, was antichriſtian or not, & whether that religion whilk hee neither invented, nor yet firſt preached (for ſundrie before him did preach that ſame doctrine, whoſe names I ſet downe in my anſwere to your obiection) but only raiſed it out of the graue of darknes wherein ye had buried the trueth of God. Heere then (I ſay) is the queſtion whether that religion whilk he preached hes the warrant from Ieſus Chriſt in his Teſtament or not? the whilk if ye euer diſproue by the written word of God, then ſhall we grant you all that ye ſay, the whilk is as impoſſible to you to doe, no not ſuppoſe your King would call all your wiſemen & cleargie together, Daniel 2as it was to all the wiſemen of Babell to tell and interprete Nebuchadnezar his dreame: yea, ſuppoſe your King would reward yow gloriouſly with honor and riches yf ye could do it, yet are ye not able to win your wages. Yea, ſuppoſe he would riue you in peices and make your houſe a iakes vnles ye did it, as the wiſemen of Babell was, becauſe they could not tell and interprete the Kings dreame. This is therefore the poynt whilk lies in queſtion betwixt vsus, whilk ye ſhuld hauehave proued if ye could. But know ye for a trueth, that ſuppoſe he raiſed out of the graue the trueth of God whilk ye had buried, yet was he neither the inuenter nor the firſt preacher of it, but it hes for ye beginning & author of it, Ieſus Chriſt the Son of God, and the foundation of it in the new Teſtament of his holy Scripture. This for the author, time, and place whilks ye aſsigne.
Now, to the Kirks that ſpake againſt him. I anſwere: they were but ſik as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication, and deluded by your ſtrong deluſions, being deceiued by the golden cup, Reuel. 17.4wherin you propyned them to be drunken out, as it was prophecied of you. But the meaſure of your iniquitie being full, and the time of the lurking of the trueth of God being runn out, God of his infinite mercy by his miniſtry, and the reſt that followed ſince, hes opened the eyes of a great part of theſe kingdomes who firſt ſayd againſt him, to ſe your Kirk to be the whore: Reuel. 17.1. & 13 11.2. Theſ. 2.3.4 11. Reuel. 18.4your kingdome to be the beaſt: and your head to be the Antichriſt: your doctrine to be deluſions, and your Rome to be that myſticall Babilon. And ſo the Lord hes made them beleeue and giuegive obedience to that commandement of his, goe out of her my people &c. That ye call theſe the true Kirk that ſpake againſt him, that lies in the weights and ballance yet betwixt vsus, for or ye proue them to be the true Kirk, ye muſt fi…ſt proue your doctrine whilk they then profeſſed, to hauehave the warrant out of the word of God. So, let them hauehave the name of a Kirk, but of an impure and corrupted Kirk: of a Kirk infected by the peſt of your doctrine, oppreſſed by the tyrannie of your Pope and cleargie, and conſumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatrie. So then it was not the true Kirk, that is, the called ones by the light of the Goſpell (for they are the true Kirk) that ſpake againſt him, but only theſe that were infected and poiſoned with your abhominations, the whilk I grant did ouer-ſpread theſe nations as it was fore-told of her. Reuel. 17.2. &. …. 3. &. 13.14.And as for theſe firſt heads of religion whilk he oppugned: Of your pardons, iuſtification by works, and the ſacrifice of the maſſe, there condemnation is ſet downe in the great regiſter and Teſtament of Ieſus Chriſt the Lord of life as ſhall be proued hereafter. So that he was not the firſt that oppugned them. Now as to the laſt the Kirks from whome he departed, he departed not from their bodie, but from the conſumption of your hereſie, that conſumed the body: not from the Kirk, but from the corruptions of your Idolatrie and abhominations in the Kirk. Not from the common-weale of Iſraell, but from your tyrānie & oppreſſion of the cōmon-weale. Not from the citie of God, but from the peſt of your doctrine, that infected the citie. And laſt of al not from the ſpiritual communion & ſocietie of the Saints of God in theſe partes, but from the cōmunion with Babel with Antichriſt, with the beaſt, & with ye Dragon, & that at the a)1. Tim. 6.3 4.5. Matth 7.15. Act. 19. & 8 v. 1. Cor. 10.14. 2. Cor. 5.14.15 16.17.18. Hoſea 4, 15. Reuel, 18 4,cōmandemēt of the Lord flie from Idolatrie; goe out of Babell my people. Nowe after you hauehave aſsigned the mutations of our religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles (as you think) you gather the whole force of it together & makes the ſtreame of your argument to runn as ſtrongly as it can vponupon our Kirk and religion, that the face and forme of it might be ſo waſhen away that it be not knowen to be a true Kirk. Your reaſon then is this. The true Kirk of Chriſt hes neuerfailed vniuerſally for the ſpace of one day, becauſe our Sauiour hes promiſed to be with it to the end of the world. But our Kirk was neuer before Martine Luthers daies, therefore it is not the true Kirk of Chriſt. As to your propoſition, if ye sake failing for erring in matters of doctrine, then I denie your propoſition for I hope I hauehave proued ſufficiently before that the Kirk both may erre and hes erred in all ages. But if you take failling to be vtterly aboliſhed and rooted out of the face of the earth, then I grant your propoſition, that God hes euer a Kirk, the Kirk of his elect, with whom he will be to the end of the world. And as to your aſſumption, that our Kirk was neuer before Martine Luthers dayes, I deny it. Let vsus ſee howe ye proue it. There was none (ſay yee) before his daies neither viſible nor inuiſible that profeſſed his religion. But howe doe ye proue that, for that is ſtill denied to you? For if our religion hes the olde and new Teſtament to beare witnes to it, and Ieſus Chriſt to be the author of it in euerie poynt, as ſhall be made manifeſt by the grace of God, then I ſay whoſoeuer they were from the beginning of the world to this day viſible or inuiſible that profeſſed the true Ieſus, the true Sauiour, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherin religion ſtands, they are our predeceſſors, and are of our profeſſion and religion: ſo then ye ſhould firſt (if ye had gone ſquarely to work) hauehave diſproued the heads of our religion not to hauehave their warrand from the tables of Chriſts Teſtament, or ye had concluded that we had none of our profeſſion and Religion before Martine Luther. And this is the point you ſhould hauehave begun at, for it is not the Kirk that makes the religion, but the religion that makes the Kirk. HaueHave we a warrant out of the word of God for our religion, then are we the true Kirk, and the ſucceſſors of all them who euer from the beginning of the vvorld hes profeſſed the ſame. HaueHave vve not this vvarrant then I graunt you vve hauehave no true Kirk. So there is the point of our controuerſie, vvhether our doctrine be from God, out of his vvord or not. But hovve proue ye that Martine Luther had none of his profeſſiō before him? Firſt you gathered vponupon the former things that all the true Kirks ſaide againſt him, and that he departed from them, vntounto the vvhilk I anſvvered before that theſe was not the trew Kirk, but only ſo many of eueryevery natiō who was deceiued by your doctrine, & whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his miniſtry, & by the miniſtrie of others whome the Lord did ſtirre vp ſince, ſo that neither did the trew Kirk who ſaw the trueth, ſpeak againſt nor yet did he depart from their ſocietie. …. Reg 19.10.18Next as the lord had a true kirk in Iſrael in the time of Elias, euen theſe 7000. whilk did not bowe their knee to Baal, who was neither known to Elias the Prophet nor yet to the perſecuters: ſo did the Lord in the midſt of your darkneſſe and Idolatry reſerue to himſelf a true Kirk, euen theſe hundreth fortie and foure thouſand whilk Ihon ſaw ſtanding with the Lamb on mount Sion, Reuelat. 14.1who did not defile themſelues with your Idolatrie and did not worſhip the beaſt and receiue his mark: whilk ſuppoſe neither ye nor we had knowen, yet the Lord did reſerue them as he promiſed.
Thirdly, I ſay Martine Luther had ſundry who profeſſed his religion immediately before him, who was euen knowen to the world, as I ſhall proue afterward.
Your next proofe is taken from an teſtimonie of one of our owne writers where ye alledge that it is written of Martine Luther and Zuinglius, that they were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Goſpell. I ſay ye are not faithfull in citing of this teſtimonie, for it ſaies not that they were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Goſpell, but theſe are the wordes that it was an eaſie thing to them (meaning of your Kirk) to deuiſe againſt vsus (meaning the Engliſh Proteſtants as yee call them) theſe curſed ſpeaches, when Martine Luther and Zuinglius firſt came to the Goſpell. The Latine wordes are, cum Martinus Luther et Zuinglius primum acceſſiſſent ad Euangelium. So it ſaies not that they were the firſt that came to the Goſpell, but that it was eaſie to you to ſpew out curſed ſpeaches when they came firſt to the Goſpell. So that this worde primum that is, firſt, is not in compariſon with them that knew the Goſpell before, but in compariſon with that time in the whilk they themſelues knew not the Goſpell. It is an aduerb of time, and you take it for an adiectiue noune. But there is a vaile ouer your eyes Maiſter Gilbert that yee can neither ſee vvhat vve or your ſelues writes: So then to conclude, ſeing the religion whilk Martine Luther taught, hes the warrant from Chriſts Teſtament; and ſeing all that euer profeſſed the trew religion, that hes Chriſt to be the author of it in his Scripture, viſible or inuiſible, are his predeceſſors: Therefore the religion whilk Martine Luther taught was the trew religion. And ſeing your religion hes not Chriſt to be the author of it in his latter Teſtament, but is that apoſtaſie & defection, that Antichriſtian kingdome that was foreſpoken of in the Scripture: Therefore I conclude that your Kirk and religion whilk he oppugned is not the true Kirk & religion, but that Antichriſtian kingdome. And this for the firſt part of your obiection. Nowe we come to the ſecond.