Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 5 – Section 6
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
As for the other part of the obiection whilk he alledges to be ours: that is, that our religion was neuer ſaide againſt, we ſay not ſo: Matth. 13.4for why all heretickes and others infected with falſe doctrine hes euer ſaide againſt the ſame, almoſt at all times. a)A d therefore wonder not M. Gilbert ſuppoſe your myſterie of iniquitie ſo ſone began.For how ſoone that Chriſt our Sauiour planted the trueth: the Diuell immediatly ſewe Popple in the ſame, according to the parable ſet down in S. Matthew.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche, his Reply.
I come now to that part whilk ye ſay is vntruly alledged of you, whilk moued you to ſay that either I knew not your proofes, or if I knew them that I altered the ſame, that I might the better oppugne my owne inuention. Of my knowledge of your proofes I will ſpeak nothing. But let vsus ſee whether this be my inuention or not, or rather your own proofe. You, for the confirmation of the trueth of your Kirk and religion brought in this as a proofe, that I, nor no Miniſter in Scotland was able to aſsigne the trewe Kirk that ſpake againſt it. Either then yee proue nothing, or els this muſt be one of your proofes, becauſe it was neuer ſpoken againſt by a true Kirk. Now compare theſe words with mine, and ſee whether I ſpeake ignorantlie or vntrulie of your proofes. I ſaid, that ye affirmed your religion to be trew, becauſe it was neuer ſpoken againſt. Here our words are one, except this that ye ad (be a true Kirk) I vnderſtād the ſame, and therefore I gaue the inſtances, firſt of Chriſt and his Apoſtles next of the primitiue Kirk, thirdly of theſe that liued in Poperie whilk ſpake againſt your religion; all whilk I appeale your conſcience whether think ye that I iudg them a true Kirk or not. Now in that ye expound it otherwiſe of heretickes, this is neither my words nor meaning, but your owne inuention. So that by this it may appear that either ye hauehave not vnderſtood my words alledging your obiection, or els ye hauehave altered the meaning of the ſame, that ye might the more eaſily anſwere to your owne inuentions, & gaine ſay my words.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his anſwer to the obiection.
Your religion of the Romane Kirk was neuer inſtituted nor preached neither by Chriſt nor by his Apoſtles, as I offer me to proue by their writings: whilk is the only touchſtone whereby all religion ſhould be and muſt be tried.
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
I think in this Maiſter Iohn takes vponupon him an impoſſibilitie, for it is ſaid that it is impoſsible to proue a M. Robert ſaie you is contrarie to this, that the word except it be preached is but a ſlaying letter, therefore ſay you t cannot be iudge to the chriſtian religion. Sermon vponupon Eſai 1 & 6. Anſwe c. You belie M. Robert Bruce, for there is not ſik a word of his in theſe ſermons: this is twiſe that you hauehave falſelie forged our teſtimonies. Ergo, it is impoſſible to proue your Popes not to be the Antichriſt by your reſonnegatiue propoſitiō, except it be ſet downe in the word of God, whilk is of authoritie: and that I am ſure he cannot finde, becauſe Papiſtrie by him is not ſo olde as the word of God is. But in the mean time Maiſter Iohn proues nothing He off rs very faire, and when euer he proues any thing contrary to vsus, w th Gods grace he ſhall get an anſwer. And note here that Maiſter Iohn can ſay nothing to our argument, for to it he giues no anſwer.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
In your anſwere to this ſection, firſt ye thinke it impoſsible becauſe of the forme of it. Next, ye ſay it is but an offer & I proue nothing. Thirdly that I anſwere nothing to your argumēt, nor can anſwere nothing. Now, of al theſe in order. And firſt to the forme: ye thinke it impoſſible to proue becauſe it is a negatiue propoſition. Is not this a negatiue propoſition that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichriſt; you can not deny it. Againe, I ask is this ſentence to be found in the vvhole Scripture; I trovv ye vvil neuer be able to finde it. Then I ſay if it bee true that ye ſay, Bellarm lib. 3 de Rom. Pontif. Sanders 40 demonſtrations.then ye your ſelfe in your booke and this your anſvver, and Bellarmine and Sanderus and all the reſt of you that takes in hand to proue the Pope not to be the Antichriſt, takes in hand in your iudgement an impoſſibilitie (and ſo doe ye indeede, not becauſe it is a negatiue propoſition, but becauſe he is the Antichriſt in verie trueth.) What vvould the Pope your head thinke of you, if he heard you ſay ſo? Certainly I think he would not inroll your name among the defenders of his catholick faith vvhereof this is the foundation. Secondly, is there not many formall ſyllogiſmes that hes the propoſition or aſſumption negatiues, and wil you ſay they cannot be proued if the matter be true, becauſe they are negatiues? What is this but to raiſe the foundation of Logick and Reaſon? Logick is not Rhethorick, & Phyſick is not Logick: both theſe are negatiue propoſitions, & I trow neither of thē are ſo found in the Scripture, and vvill you ſay that it is impoſſible to proue them, becauſe they are negatiues? What you meane by this I vnderſtand not, Tim. 2.14.vnleſſe you doe foreign ſtriue about words, proue & improue, forbidden by the Apoſtle. Thirdly, ye except theſe negatiue propoſitiōs, whilk are ſet downe in the word of God, whilk hes authoritie as ye ſay, I aſſume. But your religion in ſubſtance is condemned in the word of God: Therefore by your owne confeſſion it may be proued, ſuppoſe it be negatiue: For Nazianzene ſaies, that theſe ſentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a neceſſarie conſequence are of the ſame trueth and authoritie with theſe ſentences that are expreſly ſet downe in the Scripture. Lib. 5. de Theologia.And wheras ye ſay Papiſtrie by me is not ſo olde as the Scripture, I grant that. What then? Therefore it is not condemned in the Scripture; I deny that: for Antichriſt and his kingdome are not ſo olde as the Scripture, and yet the Scripture condemned it. For not only condemns it preſent hereſies, but alſo the hereſies that was to come. And ſeing Papiſtrie is that Antichriſtian religion, as ſhall be made manifeſt by Gods grace: therefore it hes the expreſſe condemnation of it in the word of God. The forme therefore of it, no wayes will make it impoſſible to be proued. As for the next thing, that I proue nothing, but offers verie faire. I anſwer it was not my purpoſe then, but I hope ye ſhall hauehave a proofe now of that whilk I offered then. As to the third then, that I can ſay nothing to your argument whilk ye would hauehave the reader to marke: vvhen I red this, I marked this, that ye would earneſtly hauehave the reader perſwaded of the inuinciblenes of your argument and my inabilitie to anſwere. But what bring ye with you to perſwade him of the ſame? Your reaſon is, becauſe I hauehave not anſwered it. Will this follow, I hauehave not (ſuppoſe it were ſo as yee ſay) therefore I cannot? It will not follow (M. Gilbert) I hauehave not anſwered, I cannot anſwere to it. But as ye hauehave a new Theologie, ſo hauehave ye a newe Logick. But ſaid I nothing to your argument? What is not anſvvered ſufficiently in the ſame? Your argument vvas the antiquitie of your religion and continuance of it from Chriſt by a lineall ſucceſſion neuer interrupted, &c. And the noueltie of ours. My anſwer vvas: yours vvas not inſtitute by Chriſt nor his Apoſtles in his Scripture as ours vvas, and yours vvas gaineſaide in the cheif poynts by the teſtimonies of the fathers the firſt 600. yeares, and the principall points of our religion confirmed by ſundrie of their teſtimonies. Thirdly yours vvas that Antichriſtian apoſtacie that the Scripture fore-tolde ſhould come, and in the height of your tyrannie and Idolatrie vvas gainſayed by many before Martine Luther, and ours vvas profeſſed by ſundry before him vvhoſe names I ſet dovvne, all vvhilk I offered to proue, and novve ſhall doe by Gods grace. Novv you ſay this is no anſvvere. But is that no anſvver that cuts the verie throte of your religion if it be verefied, & hoghs your argument, that it doe neuer ſtand vp to vnderunder-propp your religion againe? For that religion vvhilk is not inſtituted by Chriſt in the Scripture, vvhoſe maine foundations is gainſaide by the teſtimonies of ſundrie of the fathers of the firſt 600. yeare whilk is Antichriſtian, and whilk was gaineſaid by the Saints that they perſecuted and ſlew, hes not the continuance from Chriſt by a lineal ſucceſſion neuer interrupted nor ſpoken againſt by a true Kirk till Martine Luthers dayes. This I am ſure ye will not deny. But your religion is ſik as I offered then to proue, and now hes in ſome poynts, and ſhall in other ſome poynts by Gods grace. The whilk if it be verifyed, then I hope ye will not deny, but that your religion hes neither antiquitie, continuance nor ſucceſſion from Chriſt til Martine Luthers dayes. And that religion cannot be newly forged and inuented ſince Martine Luthers dayes, whilk hes the warrant and inſtitution of it in the Scripture &c. This you cannot deny. But our religion is ſik, as then I offered to proue and now hes done in ſome poynts and ſhall doe in other ſome poynts by Gods grace. Therefore our religion cannot be newly forged and inuented &c. but is the only true religion. So that this anſwere if it be proued, doth ſufficiently vindicat our religion frō noueltie. Now if this be no anſwere to your argumēt, thē I ſay no more, but ye will anſwer it the ſooner. And becauſe ye formed your owne argument your ſelfe in your anſwer to me, & I hauehave anſwered to it els; therefore I wil now inſiſt no further vponupon it. And as for your lineall ſucceſſion of Biſhops it will come in queſtion afterward, therefore I omit it now.