A Retentive to Stay Good Christians, Chapter 18
The 18. Chapter.
NOT the Pope of Rome, but the Protestants them selues are the members of Antichriste, by forsaking the Catholike Sander.Church, by setting vppe a newe Church and by teaching salse doctrine against the Gospell of Iesus Christe. Heretikes departe from the Catholike Churche. Heretikes beeing once departed out of the Church, hauehave newe names. VVhy among the Catholikes some are called Franciscanes, Dominicanes, &c. Heretikes can neuer agree The short raigne of Heretikes. Heretikes preach without commission. Heretikes do preferre the temporall raigne or swoorde before the spirituall. They are the members of Antichrist, who withstande the externall and publke sacrifice of Christes Church. Heretikes depriue Christe of his glorious inheritaunce in many nations togither. The intollerable pride of Heretikes, in making them selues onelyonly Iudges of the righte sence of Gods word. The Protestants teach the same doctrine which the olde Heretikes did. The Protestants are the right members of Antichriste, in that they spo…le Godes Church of very many giftes & graces & articles of the faith.
HE maketh 11. markes of an Antichristian. The 1. is. Fulke,They departe from the church as all her…ti…s doe. I aunswere, the Protestantes hauehave not depart…d from the Church of Christ, but are gone out o… the Church of Antechrist, according as they are comm…unded by the holy Ghost …poc. 18. 4. & are returned to th… …h…ch of Christ, which by the Pope & the d…uill was driuen into the wildernes, Apoc. 22. 6. But M Sand would hauehave the place named, where they dwelt, from whom the Pope departed, as though the place were mate…iall, when his depa…ture from the doctrine of Christ, is manifest.
And Saint Paule prophes…ed of the greate Apostasie and departing from Christ, which Antechrist shoulde make. 2 …hess 2. to him selfe & his owne doctrine, as Irenaeus doeth expound it. …b. 5. & Basi. Ep. 71. which all nations peoples & tongues should embrace. Ap…. 18. 3. therefore it were no maruaile, if no place could be named, altogeather voide of the insection of Ant…christ, especially seeing the Church her selfe was driuen into the desert, that is out of the sight of men. yet there is no donbt, but God preserued his Church, though in small numbers, both in the East & in the West. And namely one parte of the Church of God was in Britaine, both in Wales and Scotland, not subiect to the Pope, nor acknowledging his auctority, at such time, as Augustine the monke came from Pope Gregory, & so con…nued longe after the reuelation of Antechrist. Bed. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 25. And no doubt but the like was in many corners of the world.
The 2. marke of an Antechristian he maketh, to hauehave newe names after they be gone out of the Church, as, Lutherans, Zwinglians, &c. whereas they hauehave none but Catholikes, yes verely, the name of the Popish Church & Papistes, is as auncient as the name of Luther & Luthe…ans, & more aunciente to. M. Sand. sayth we geue them these names of spight, eyght or nyne hundreth ye…res since the papacy Began. The lyke I say of them, who call vsus Lutherans &c. of mere malice, when we are nothing but Christians, wherefore the tryall must be in the doctrine, which either sorte professe, and not in names.
The Christians of the Arians were called Homousians, Athanasians. &c. but the doctrine of the Cathotholike Christians ag…eeing with the woordes of God proued them to be no s…ctaryes nor Hetetikes, so doth our doctrine iustifie vsus what names soeuer be deuised against vsus. But Ma…ster Sander woulde hauehave vsus to shewe a man, whose p…oper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretikes were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came, and not of proper names of men. Angelici, Apostolici, Barbarita, Cathari, Collyridiani, En…ratitae, Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresie, Cataphryges, Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were. Wherefore the name of Papistes and Romanistes agreeth …ith the example of olde heretikes. As for the longe tarying, large spreadinge, and straunge commng in of the Popishe heresie is therefore without example, in all poyntes lyke, because Ant…christ is not a common pettit heretike, but the greatest and most daungerous enemy that euer the Gospel had.
The names of Benedictines, Fraunciscanes &c. Maister Sander woulde excuse, because these sectes maintaine no doctrin, dissenting frō the Pope, but all seeke the perfectiou of the Gospell by diuerse wayes, as though there were any other way but Iesus Christ. Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter, of Paule, of Apollo, when the Doctrine was all one, and counteth them schismatikes, that so did. And the purer P…imatiue church, condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing, in abstayning from Marriage &c. for Heretikes, and called them Apostolicos, witnesse Epiphan. Cont. Aposto. haer, 61.
The thirde Marke of an Antichristian, is, dissagreement among Heretikes: and heere not content to charge vsus with the dissagreeing of Anabaptistes from vsus, he amplysieth the dissention betweene Luther and Zwinglius, about the presence of Christes body in the sacrament, for which contradiction, he thinketh it muste needes followe that one of them is an Antichriste.
I aunswere eueryevery errour stifely mayntayned, maketh not an Heretike, except it be in an article of fayth necessary to saluation.
Cyprian againste the Byshopps of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius, helde an errour in Baptisme, as greate as that same of Luther, dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lorde, yet is not Cypryan accoumpted for an Heretike. Maister Sander replyeth and sayeth, that Cyprian was not so stubborne, that he woulde excommunicate them that held the contrary.
Luther also and Zwinglius, althoughe they coulde not bee reconcyled in opinions, yet agreed to abstaine from contention, at Marpurge Anno domini. 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Maister Sander sayth, further, that in the contention of Cyprian, and Stephanus, the Catholike Faythe was not fully and vniuersally receiued in any generall Councell. But hee forgeteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one partie, whose iudgement should hauehave ended the striefe if his authoritie had beene such then, as he vsurped moste ambiciously afterward.
Nowe where as he defendeth the Papists for their vnitie, which he sayeth, could not bee with out the spirite of God, I aunsweare he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes, where is greater vnitie then euer there was amonge the Papistes: who to omit an hundreth small contentions of the schoolemen, are not yet agreed, of the greatest question of all, whether the Pope be aboue the councell or the councell aboue the Pope. For seeing some of the Papistes, make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth, other make the councell, there is no vnitie among the Papistes in truth, when they are not agreed what is the onelyonly rule of trueth: whereas we all agree, that the word of God is the only rule of truth, wherby we would hauehave all doctrine tried and examined.
The fourth marke of an Antichrist, is, to reigne but a short tyme, and here he woulde hauehave vsus to marke howe Luthers kingdome is come to an ende, whose doctrine Melancthon hath chaunged although Illyricus woulde defend it. What depe roote ye doctrine of God deliuered by Luther, hath taken, it is so well knowne, that it can not be dissembled. Neither hath Melancthon departed from him, except it were in his opinion of the reall presence. Wherefore this is a great impudency, to triūphe ouer the decay of Luthets doctrine, which dayly encreaseth, to the ouerthrow of the Popish kingdom.
The fall of Hosiander an heretike, no man either marueleth or pitieth. The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Caluine teacheth, as eueryevery wise man doth know, and their learned workes shall liue and be in honor, when the Popes decretalls and his Masse bookes &c. shall stoppe mustard pottes, and be put to viler vses.
Neither is Caluines doctrine failed, by our othe of supremacie, for Caluine in the right sence of it, taught the same supremacie of Christian Princes which we sweare to acknowledge, in our soueraigne.
Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell, then Caluine did, nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalme, cited in Actes the 2. then Caluine doth, as all men that wil read them both may see, notwithstanding the shamelesse cauill of M. Sander.
The long continuaunce of the Popish kingdome, is a small cause to bragge of, when it being sound enemie to the kingdome of Christ, is nowe entered so farre into destruction, out of which it shall neuer escape, although Maister Sander sayth it doth florish, when it is banished out of so many regions and dayly decreaseth in euerie place, Gods holy name be praised therefore.
The fift marke of Antichrist (he sayeth) is to preach without commission, as Luther did, who was sent of none. I aunswere in the state of the church, so miserablie deceaued, as it was in his time, God sendeth extraordinarily, immediatly from him selfe, as Helias & Helizaeus & the Prophetes were sent to the Iewes & Israelites, which were not of the Priests & ordinary teachers, so Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists. And so was Luther and such as he sent to repaire the ruines of the churche. And yet the Papistes hauehave small aduauntage against the calling of Luther, seeing he was a Doctor, authorised to preache in that church, where he first beganne, which after he had reformed the abuses therof, and restored true doctrine in many poyntes banished, by the false doctrine of Antichrist. The same reformed church hath euer since sent forth ordinarie pastors and teachers and shall doe to the end of the world.
The sixt marke of an Antichrist is, that heretikes preferre the temporall sword before the spirituall. And therefore Antichrist shall by force of armes compell men to a new faith, for he shall come as S. Paule sayeth in virtute, that is to say in power or strength. O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture, doth not Sainct Paule say that his comming shalbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power & signes and lying wonders, & in al deceitfulnes of vnrighteousnes, 2. Thes. 2. by which is shewed seduction by false doctrine, but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty, as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. & 17. &c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham, that the ciuil Magistrate, may visit, correct, reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme. Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche, then the power of a Bishop. And what inconuenience is this, in thinges perteining to his office, seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring &c. is confessed to be aboue the King? Hereby we make the body aboue the soule (saith M. Sander) the tē poral reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen. Not a whit, no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather, & Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome. OnelyOnly this we say, that M. Sander dissembleth. The cause must be iust, for which … King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor, for! thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop, & the poorest Priest from his benefice. This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vponupon iust cause. Now if the cause be iust, it must be either manifest or doubtfull. If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther, treason, adulterie, &c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe, as in all other mens causes, may proceede against a Bishop. If the cause be doubtfull, it is either for life or doctrine. The triall of the Bishops life, ought to be as all other mens are, with due cōsideration of his accusers. The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state, who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge, & to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling, if he be culpable, and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place & from his life also if his offence deserue it. But that in spiritual matters the King should rule ye Bishops, & pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde hauehave them ruled, none of vsus did euer affirme: for that were tyranny & not Christian gouernment. And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour, doth Athanasius complaine: In Episi. ad sol. vit. agent. and shew the iudgement & aunsweres of the Christian Bishops, Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, Dionysius, Liberius, Hosius, vntounto him, when he would hauehave enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius, for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ.
But yet the same Athanasius, appealed, him selfe, to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great, although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses, as any mortall mā may be, & deceiued, as Dauid was about Mephibosheth, gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before, threatned to depose him, if he were disobediēt, he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority. Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris, aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris, mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat. If I shall know (sayth the Emperour) that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche, I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement, & remoue thy place. Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image, in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth, obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth, & seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes, according to the truth: M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus, Martianus, & other godly Emperors, vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops, replieth, that it was only to kepe peace, wheras they did not only kepe peace, but also prescribe & commaūd the Bishops, to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell. Euangelici enim &c. The bookes of the Gospells & of the Apostles & the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vsus in the vnderstanding of God. Therfore setting all hateful discord aside, let vsus take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite, the explication of the questions. They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie, like as they called the councells together to make their decrees.
But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion, will be able to consider, what maner a Bishop he is, who layeth the Priestly right vnderunder the lay mens feete. By which (saith M. Sander) you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be, wc geue the most proude & intollerable title of supreame head & gouernor, to lay Princes. I answere in geuing this title, they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie, & cōfesse with Augustine, that there is no greater then a Priest in his office, although Moses after the distinction was no Priest, but a ciuil Magistrate & in his calling aboue Aaron, that was high Priest. And although M. Sander say, this is the diuinity of England only, to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor, he sayeth most vntruly, for all learned men of all countries, doe acknowledge the same, in such sorte as we do in England, and not as he in Flanders, either dreameth or slaundereth vsus to do. For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour, that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor, in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis &c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells, knowe to submit them selues to publike offices, according to the lawes, they speake not against the Emperors power, but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour, and the commaundementes of God, and are subiect to our lawes, but you are found disobedient. Finally we neuer ment, to geue the Prince by flatteriē, auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone, neither would we hauehave a confusion, of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop, wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius, nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes & would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius, doth any thing at all touch vsus, who limit the supremacie of Princes, within the compase of Gods worde, and Christian religion, against which, neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund.
The seuenth marke of Antichrist is, the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church, by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse. Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare & sacrifice propitiatorie, against the only propitiatory sacrifice of Christes death once offred, by which one oblation he hath made perfect for euer, them that are sanctified Heb. 10. The auctor of this sacrifice, which is the Pope, he is in deede Antichrist the sonne of perdition.
But Maister Sander for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse, alleageth the prophecie of Malachie cap. 1. with 16. fonde comparisons of the defectes of the Iewes, and the perfection of the Gentiles, which he affirmeth to be the vniforme interpretation of the auncient fathers, of whom no one denyeth the body and blood of Christ to be here ment, albeit some of them expoundeth this prophecy of prayers and inwarde righteousnes which are alwayes ioyned with the vnbloody sacrifice. I aunswer no one of the auncient fathers, vnderstandeth this prophecy of the sacrifice of Christes body and blood, otherwise then of a sacrifice of prayse and thankes giuing, for proofe whereof, I must referre the reader to myne aunswer to M. Heskins lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. 35. & 36. where he shall finde the places of the Doctors set downe, which are by M. Sander in place onelyonly quoted.
But one other straunge reason of M. Sander to proue the sacrament of the Lords supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory, I may not omit because I remember not that I hauehave reade it before. EueryEvery publike and externall facte which is made by Gods authoritie to put vsus in minde of that grea… sacrifice, once fulfilled on the crosse, m…s…e also be partaker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a remembraunce. As if the killing of a Calfe, which signifyed the death of Christe, was an externall sacrifice, how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ beeing made of bread and wine, to signifie his owne death be a publike and external sacrifice.
This reason M. Sander maketh no small account of. But how beastly an absurditie his principle is you shall easily perceiue, if you consider, that Baptisme is a publike and externall fact made by Gods authoritie, to put vsus in minde of the death and bloodshedding of Christ, yet no man was euer so mad, to say baptisme is a sacrifice. Againe the Calfe that was killed was by Gods appointment a sacrifice of the only & singular sacrifice of Christes death, & not by vertue of the signification, for the Iewes had other ceremonies then sacrifices, which did signifie the death of Christ: But the Lords supper is not by Gods appointment a sacrifice, therefore the signification cannot make it so.
The 8. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist, is to spoyle Christ of his inheritance, which God gaue him in all nations, as the Protestants doe, VVhichWhich for 8. or 9. hūdreth yeres, can not shew any nation, town or village, church or chappel in the wide worlde, where they had publike prayer. I answere, seeing the spirit speaketh expressely, of a generall Apostacy, and of the flying of the Church into the desert, it is no more derogation to the inheritaunce of Christ, that his Church among many nations was in persecution vnderunder Antichrist for 7. or 8. hūdreth yeeres, then that the same was in persecutiō vnderunder the heathen Emperors, for 300. yeeres and more. For the nations were then the inheritance of Christ, in as glorious wise as when the Church flourished in outward peace vnderunder the Christiā Emperours. Yet was there townes & countryes, not only in Fraunce, Italie, and Germany, but also in the east parte of the worlde, great nations, among wc Christ had a visible Church, which were neuer subiecte to the church of Rome. If M. S. reply that they held some errors which we deny, as prayer for the dead &c. I answere, holding the onelyonly foundation Iesus Christe, they might be true Christians, although they were infected with some such errors as these.
The 9. Mark of Antichrist is, intollerable pride, to make him selfe iudge of the sence of Gods word, and of the text also. I allowe this marke, & it agreeth to none that euer was so aptly, as to the Pope, whom the Papistes affirme, that he cā not erre in the sence of the Scripture, who affirme that he hath auctoritie to receaue & reiect what bookes of Scripture he wil. But M. Sāder saith this note agreeth to vsus, and that we make our selues iudges of the sense of Gods word, and of the text. But we vtterly deny that: for we make the spirit of God in his worde, iudge of the interpretation. No sayth M. Sander, & bringeth an exāple of these word's of S. Paul. He that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doth well, and he that ioyneth her not doth better. Here vponupon (saith he) we grounde this doctrine, Virginitie is a better state and more acceptable to God, then the state of mariage. This we graunt in some respect, as the Apostle speaketh, but not simpyl. The question is of these words, he doth better what is ment thereby: M. Sander chargeth vsus to say, that S. Paule meaneth he doth better in the sight of the worlde, which is an impudentlye, and therefore al his foolish dialogisme, is a fighting with his owne shadow. Beza expoūdeth he doth better that is more commodiously, not in respect of the worlde, but in respect of godlines, for the reasons before alleaged by S. Paul, & S. Paul him selfe is auctor of this interpretatiō verse 35. of that 7. chap. 1. Cor. This I say for your commodity, when he exhorteth to virginity. And that his purpose was not absolutely and simply, to preferr virginity aboue mariage, as a thing of it selfe more acceptable to God, it is plaine by these words. First he saith, of virgines, I hauehave no commaundement of the Lorde. But he hath a commaundement, to preferre those things that are most acceptable to the Lord. Secondly he sayth: I suppose this to be good for the present necessity, by which words he doth emply, that it is not alwaies & absolutly better, but at somtimes & in some respectes, for them that hauehave the gift of continence, and for none other. So we holde virginity to be better then mariage, according to the meaning of the best auncient writers, whereof some were too great extollers of virginitie, yet not like the Papistes.
But M. Sander sayeth the Protestantes make them selues Iudges, not only of the meaning of Gods worde, but also of the bookes them selues. For they reiect not only the book of wisdom, Tobie & the Machabees, with other such bookes, but also the Epistle of S. Iames. Nay rather the Pope is Antichrist, for receauing these books of Wisedom, Tobie, Machabees, wc were neuer receaued of the church of the Israelits, nor of the vniuersalchurch of Christ for Canonicall Scripture, as I hauehave often shewed. And as touching ye Epistle of S. Iames, it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say, that the Protestantes reiect it, but we must heare his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen Epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreame heade of the church, and the Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie, if Protestantes be charged to holde whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde, and after repented. But the confession of Zurich with the consent of the churches of Heluetia and Sabaudia, writeth thus, of it. Iacobus ille dixit &c. That Iames sayed, that workes doe iustifie, not speaking agaynst Sainct Paule, otherwise he were to be reiected. Here saith M. Sāder, they thinke it possible, that S. Iames might be contrarie to Sainct Paule, and so his Epistle to be no holy Scripture. A wise collectiō I promise you. S. Paule him selfe sayed. If I my selfe or an Angell from heauen, should preach any other Gospel then you hauehave already receaued, let him be accursed. Ergo S. Paul thought it was possible, yt him selfe or an Angell shoulde be auctor of a new Gospel, & so his preaching should not be ye Gospel. Who seeth not ye madnes of this cōsequēce.
But S. Iames his epistle (he sayth) hath alwayes bene clearely admitted among true Catholikes, & for witnes hereof he quoteth most impudenly Euseb. lib. 1. ca. 23. in which booke and chapter, Eusebius clearely affirmeth that it is a counterfet epistle. I say not this to allowe the iudgment of Eusebius, but to shewe the impudencie of M. Sander. But he saith we reiect S. Iames because he is contrary to our deuilesh doctrin of only faith. We teach only faith none otherwise, thē the apostle teacheth, that a man is iustified by faith, without workes. We teach not that a man is iustified by a dead faith, which is voide of good workes, but by a liuing faith which worketh by louelove. We say with Sainct Iames, if a man say he hauehave faith and hath not workes, his faith shall not saue him. For Abrahās faith, which was imputed to him for righteousnes by God, was not without good workes, as appeared by his obedience in offering his sonne, wherein God tried him, neither to know him, nor to iustifie him, whom he knew and iustified before, but to shewe his obedience & to iustifie him before men. So it is true that S. Iames sayeth a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onelyonly. For a solitarie srutles faith doth not iustifie before God, but a faith which is fruteful in good workes is the onelyonly instrument to apprehend iustification, and the workes as Augustine sayth follow and shewe a iustified man they goe not before to iustifie. Thus our doctrine agreeth verie well with the Epistle of S. Iames & Sainct Paules doctrine, wherefore we hauehave no neede to reiect the Epistle of Sainct Iames, as contrarie to our doctrine.
But the Protestantes do not onelyonly make them selues iudges of the whole bookes, but also ouer the very letter (saith he) of Christs Gospell finding fault with the construction of the Euangelists, and bring the text it selfe in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations vponupon Luk 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testamēt in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greke, is the datiue case, the other worde that followeth is the nominatiue case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloecophanes, which is appearaunce of incongruity, or else that the last worde which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margēt out of Mathew & Marke, be remoued into the text. Hereupon M. Sander out of all order & measure, raileth vponupon Beza & vponupon al Protestantes. But I pray you good Sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, & that but a doubtful opiniō, in dite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the worde of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth the Greeke text is contrary to his Sacramentary heresie. For thus he should translate it: This cuppe is the newe Testament in my blood which cuppe is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or siluer (saith he) but the liquor in that cuppe, which is not wine because wine was not shed for vsus, but the bloode of Christ. Why then the sence is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you is the newe Testament in my blood. What sence in the world cā these words hauehave? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you cā not be referred to the cup, but to his his blood. For the cup was the newe Testamēt in his blood, which was shed for vsus, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgare Latine translation geue any other sense, although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgare Latine text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamētum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would referre qui to calix and not rather to sanguine. Againe Erasmus translateth it euen as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis …ffundit…r. Now touching the coniecture of Beza, that those words by errour of the scriuener, might be remoued from the margent into the text, is a thing that somtime hath happened as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Mathew where the name of Ieremy is placed in ye text, for that wc is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Euangelist, as in most ancient recordes it is testified. The like hath bene in the first of Marke, where the name of Esay is sette in some Greeke copies, and followed in your vulgare translation, for that which is cited out of Malachie which name was not set downe by the Euangelist, but added by some vnskilfull writer, & is reproued by other Greke copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth ye second opinion, yt S. Luke in this place, vseth Soloe cophanes wc is an appearance of incōg…uity, and yet no incongruitie. Wherein I can not maruayle more at your malice (M. Sander) then at your ignorance, which put no difference betwene soloecismus & soloecophanes, but euen as spitefully as vnlearnedly, you affirme that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greeke, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hande, euen Cicero, Demosthenes, Greeke and Latine, prophane and diuine, and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other places, whereof for examples, I referre you to Budaeus vponupon the word Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that foreign, which is the nominatiue case, shold agre with foreign, which is the datiue case, wheras in deed foreign is vsed as a relatiue for foreign, as it is often, and the verbe foreign which wanteth, is vnderstoode, as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothinge els, but an impudent and vnskillfull quarelling, against Beza, wheras you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cuppe, & the practise of the primitiue Church, the communion in one kind of bread onelyonly Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21.
The tenth marke of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist, which are heretikes. To agree with them in heresie is a poynt of Antichristianisme, I confesse, but not to agree with them in any thing. For eueryevery heresy affirmeth things that are true. But let vsus see in what points of heresie he chargeth vsus to agree with the olde heretikes. First Eunomius sayde, that no sinne should hurt him, if he were partaker of the faith which he taught, so the Protestants saye of their faith. Yea sir, but their faith is not Eunomius faith, & yet they say not that no sinne shall hurt them, but no sinne shall condemne them: & so say you Papistes of your popish faith.
Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed, that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme, might not be forgiuē of the Priest, but of God alone. The Protestants deny the Priest to hauehave any right to forgiue sinnes. This is a lowd lye & false sclaunder, for we hold that the minister of God, hath authoritie to forgiue all sinnes, that God will forgiue, according to the power giuen to them Ioan. 20 But you Papistes agree with the heretike in this poynt, that you deny the Priest to forgiue all sinnes according to the power giuen, but hauehave your casus Episcopales & Papales, by which you abridge the power giuen by Christ.
Thirdly, the Messalians denyed that baptisme doth plucke vp the roote of sinnes, the same is the opiniō of the Protestāts. The Protestants hauehave none opinion common with the Messalians, who affirmed that our owne merits & satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking vp the roote of sinnes, whereas we affirme, that baptisme saueth vsus according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiuenes of our sinnes, whereby euen the roote of sinne is plucked vp, although cōcupiscense remayne after the acte of baptisme, which you Papistes also confesse to remayne & to be the roote of sinne, although you graunt it not to be sinne. But we limit not the effect of baptisme, to the time passed before ye acte of baptisme onelyonly, as you doe, but extend it to our aeternall saluation: he that beleueth & is baptised shall be saued. Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this & in your cōtinual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeyes, agree with the Messalians.
Fourthly, AErius taught, that we must not pray for the dead, nor keepe the accustomed fastings, & that there is no difference betwene a Priest & a Bishop. The superstition of praying for the dead, was iustly reproued by AErius, so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration, for the first that praied for the dead were heretikes, Montanists, as Tertullian & his sect, the first that made prescript lawes of fasting, was Montanus the heretike also, as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio, affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God.
Fifthly, Iouinian iudged virginitie equall with mariage, so doe the Protestants. I hauehave shewed before howe it is equall, and how it is superior.
Sixtly, S. Hierom reproueth Vigilantius of heresie, for denying prayer to Sainctes, and giuing honour to reliques. For praying to Sainctes, there is no mention in S Hierom, the immoderate honoring of reliques was iustly reproued, and yet it was not then the one halfe of that it hath bene since. Hieronym, although he rather rayle then reason against Vigilantius, as …rasmus hath noted: yet he desendeth not the adoratio… or worshipping, but the reuerent estimation of reliques.
Seuenthly, the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantiality of the same, because that word was not written in the Scripture. So do the Protestants deny many thinges vponupon the like pretence. This is a meere sclaunder. for we stande vponupon the sence of the Scripture, and not the wordes onelyonly.
Eightly, Eusebius noteth it for an haynous impietie in Nouatus, that he was not consummate with crisme, which the Protestants call greasing. In deede Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was baptised in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye. Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit, nec reliqua in eo qu… baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt: nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit: vnde nec spiritum sanctum vnquam potuerit promereri. Lying in his bed according to the necessitie he was baptised, nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptisme solemnly fullfilled, nether was he consummate with ye seale of Chrisme: wherby he could neuer obtayne the holy Ghost. First I saye this is noted as no impietie in Nouatus, but as a defect of necessitie. Secondly that the Chrisme which Cornelius speaketh of, was ether a seale of the extraordinarye gifts of the holy Ghost, which in some remayned in the Church vntill that tyme, or els he magnifieth that ceremony intollerably: to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not, being none of the institution of Christ, and contrary to that the Papistes them selues hold at this day.
Ninethly, Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monkes, so doe the Protestants. Nay they punish none but filthy, idle, Idolaters, and hypocrites.
Tenthly, the Montanists and Luciferians sayd there was a stewes made of the Church. They sayde so falsly when the Churche was chaste. but Esaye say de truely: how is the faithfull citie become an whore, when the Church of Israell was so in deede.
Eleuenthly, the Donatists sayd the Church was lost from all the world, & preserued only in Africa. So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world, and raysed vp againe in Germany. The Protestants say not so. For the Churche hath bene scattered ouer the face of the earth, since the first preaching of the Apostles vntounto this day. But the Papistes saye that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserued only in a part of Europe, when of all partes in the world onelyonly a part of Europe, which is the least part of the world, was subiect to the Church of Rome.
Tweluethly, the Seu…rians vsed the law and the Prophets, but they peruerted the sense of the Scriptures by a certayne peculiar interpretation of their owne. So doe the Protestants. Nay so do the Papistes, that submitte all vnderstanding of the Scripture, be it neuer so playne, to the interpretation of their Pope, and popish Church: as the commaundement of Images forbidden, and the cuppe to be receyued of all, doe most manifestly declare.
Lastly, it hath alwayes bene a tricke of Iewes and heretikes to be still in hande with translating holy Scriptures, that by chaunging they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side, as Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus. So doe the Protestāts now. Hieronym was no heretike, yet did he translate the Scriptures both into Latine and into the Dalmatian tongue. And the Papistes hauehave played the part of Antichristian heretikes, to confirme the vulgare Latine trā slation, which is so manifestly corrupt and false, contrary to the truth of the Hebrue and Greeke textes vponupon pretence of auoyding vncertaynty of translatiōs, wheras there is none so bad as that.
I might heere runne through a great number of the olde heresies, in which the Papists consent with the ancient Heretikes. The Valentinians in their crosse. Montanistes in their purgatory, and prescript fastings. Carpocratians in their images. The Hemerobaptists in their holy water. The Offenes and Marcosianes in their reliques and straunge tounge in prayers. The Heracleanites in annoynting them that are redy to dye. The Caians in praying to angels. The Archonticks in their coū terfaite mōkery. The Marcionists in extolling virginitie & fasting, & in permitting women to Baptize. The Enctatits in abstaining from flesh. The Apostoliks in their vowe of continence. The Cyrians in worshipping the virgine Mary. The Pelagians in their opinion of merites and freewill. The Eutychians in denyinge the truethe of Christe his bodye. The Anthromorphites in making Images of God, and many other, but that I hauehave doone it elsewhere, more at large. But of these, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others are witnesses.
The 11. and last marke is, that Antichristians shoulde goe about to make voyde, and deny the supernaturall graces which God hath giuen to his Church, so that the seale of Antichrist by Hippolitns iudgement should be Nego I deny. So doe the Protestants which deny fiue sacraments of the church, the sacrifice of the Masse. &c. And so maketh rehearsall of a greatnumber of popish errors, which indeed we deny, because they be contrary to the trueth of Gods worde. Among which he rehearseth some false and shamelesse slaunders, as, that we denye our sinnes to be taken away by the Lambe of God, saying they tary still but that they are not imputed. In deed, if we say we hauehave no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the trueth is not in vsus. But we say all the sinnes that we hauehave, are taken away, when they are not laid to our charge.
Secondly he chargeth vsus to teach, That no iustice is at all made in vsus by spreading charitie in our heartes, VVhereas S. Paule saith Rom. 5. many shalbe made iust: but they say onelyonly that Iustice shall be imputed. We say with Saincte Paule Rom. 5. that beeing iustifyed by faith we hauehave peace with God, reioycing in hope, which doth not confound vsus in the middest of afflictions, because the louelove of God is powred foorth in our heartes. I meane the louelove of God towarde vsus, and not our louelove towarde him. Wee say likewise with Sainct Paule, that by the obedience of one which is Christe, many shalbe made righteous. But howe can we be made righteous by obedience of Christe, but that his obedience is imputed and made perfecte vntounto vsus? O putide and absurde slaunders.
He chargeth vsus thirdly, that wee deny Baptisme, to remit our sinnes, which is false, excepte as Sainct Peter denyeth the woorke wroughte to saue vsus. 1. Pet. 3. verse 21. not the washing of the filth of the body, but the aunsweare of a good conscience vntounto Almightie God.
Fourthly, he chargeth vsus to deny that Baptisme is necessary to Children, which are borne of christian Parentes wherein he lyeth moste impudently: although wee agree not with the Papistes that the Infantes of Christians excluded by necessitie from Baptisme, are damned. In which errour although Augustine was, yet he is no more to be followed, then in an other errour, about the same infantes, to whome bothe he and Pope Innocentius thought the Sacrament of the Lordes Supper as necessarye as the Sacrament of Baptisme, affirming that Infantes whiche hauehave not receiued the Lordes Supper were damned. Contra duas Episto. Pelag. ad Bonifac. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ecce beatae memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptisino Christi & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi vitam non hobere paruulos dicit. Beholde Pope Innocente of blessed memory sayeth, that without the Baptisme of Christe, and the participation of the body and bloode of Christe, little Children hauehave no lyfe.
To conclude, we deny nothing that they can proue to be true, but such matters as we proue by the onelyonly rule of trueth to be false. But the Pope sheweth himself to be Antichrist, which denyeth al the soueraignitie of the office and prerogatiue of Christ.
He denyeth that Christe is the onelyonly heade of his vniuersall Church in Heauen and in earth.
He denyeth that Christ onelyonly is a Prieste, according to the order of Melchizedech.
He denyeth that Christ onelyonly is our Mediatour, aswell of intercession, as of redemption,
He denyeth that Christs woorde is sufficient for our saluation.
He denyeth that the sacrifice of Christe his death is the onelyonly purgation of our sinnes.
He denyeth that the merites of Christ are our onelyonly justification.
He denyeth that God onelyonly is to be prayed vntounto.
He denyeth the veritie of Christes bodye by his transubstantiation.
Finally he denyeth all honor and glory to be dewe onelyonly to God by Iesus Christ, and therefore he is none other, but euen that detestable monster Antichriste whome I beseech the Lord, speadely to confound and abolish by the spirit of his mouth which is his holy woorde, and by the brightnesse of his comming.
Amen.
God be praysed.
End of the text · William Fulke, A Retentive to Stay Good Christians (1580)