Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Part 2
The other part concerning the Antichriſt. Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
IF the a)It was not my purpoſe then, Ioh. 5.43. Tract. 29, vponupon Iohn.Pope be the Antichriſt, what is the cauſe that Maiſter Iohn would not ſet downe ſome place out of the word of God that proues the ſame. But good reader, I will let you ſee how far Maiſter Iohn is againſt the word of God in this, and that by ſome examples onelyonly. Firſte, our Sauiour ſhewe vntounto the Iewes, that albeit he came in the name of his Father, yet they would not receaue him: This title of ſeruand of ſeruands will not excuſe him, being indeid the title of curſed Cham, for he is called the ſeruand of ſeruands and ſo fit in the Lords iuſt prouidence for your Popes who is that man of ſin.if another (ſaies he) ſhall come in his owne name, him ye will receaue. This no doubt, as Auguſtine expones the ſame, is meant of the Antichriſt, that the Iewes ſhall receaue. Nowe it is out of all controuerſie that the Iewes neuer receaued the Pope: Therefore the Pope is not the Antichriſt. Againe, the Pope came neuer in his owne name but in the name of Chriſt, for he is called the Vicare of Chriſt, and the ſeruand of the ſeruands of God: therefore he cannot be the Antichriſt.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
I Come nowe to the ſecond heade, whilk I offered then to proue: to wit, that your Popes whilk ye will hauehave to be the head of the Kirk of Chriſt, are the ſelfe ſame Antichriſt, that the Scripture fore-tolde ſhoulde come. Thou wouldeſt knowe (Chriſtian reader) of what waight this controuerſie, is, Whether the Pope be the Antichriſt or not? For this ſupremacy of his vntounto them, is the foundation whereupon their religion, and the ſafety of their whole Kirk depends: ſo that they cal it, the Rock whereupon the Kirk is builded, Rhemiſt. anno… vponupon Mat. 16 & Bella… …is praeface before that controuerſie of the Popes ſupremacieagainſt whilk the yets of Hell ſhal not preuaile. And Bellarm. calles him the foundation whilk vpholdes the houſe of God, the Paſtor whilk feedes his flock, the Emperour whilk gouernes his hoſte, the Sunne whilk giues light to the ſtarres, that is, to the Miniſters of the Kirk: the head whilk giues life to his bodie. So that remoue his Supremacy the houſe of God muſt fall, the flock of Chriſt muſt be ſcattered, the hoſte of the Lord muſt be diſcomfited, the ſtarres, that is the Miniſtery, muſt be darkened: and the body muſt ly ſtill without motion. Iſa 28, 16, & 8, 14.15And he applyes theſe (a) prophecies, ſpoken and fulfilled only in the ſonne of God, vntounto him: calling him that fundamentall ſtone in Sion, vponupon the whilk the whole Kirk is builded: and that proued ſtone, againſt the whilk the yets of Hell hes neuer, nor neuer ſhall preuaile: and that corner or cunzie ſtone, whilk ioynes both Iewe & Gentile, as two walles together in a Chriſtian Kirk: and that precious ſtone wherefrom the infinite treaſure of grace is moſte plenteouſly deriued, vntounto the whole Kirk: as vnity in doctrine, the bonde of peace, the vnity of faith, whilk is ſaluation it ſelfe, and the very life of Religion: and he ſayes there is no way to Chriſt, but by Peter, in whoſe roome their Popes ſucceedes: ſo that in their iudgement there is no way to Chriſt, but by the Pope. And he calles him that rock of offence, and ſtumbling ſtone ſpoken of in Eſay chap. 8. VponUpon the whilk whoſoeuer ſhall fall, ſhall bee broken: and on whome it ſhall fall, it ſhall daſhe him in peeces. O blaſphemous mouth! Let the heauens be confounded at this. And therefore this is of ſik a waight, that Boniface the 8. hes made it an article of our faith: whoſe wordes are theſe. We declare, Extra, de minoritate & obedientia, cap. Vnam ſanctamwe affirme, we define and pronounce that it is altogether needfull to ſaluation to all creatures to be vnderunder the Pope of Rome. So that Bellarmine ſaies, when the Popes ſupremacy is called in controuerſie, the ſumme of all Chriſtianity is called in queſtion: and when that is controuerted, then it is controuerted whether the kirk ſhould ſtand any longer or not, or fall & diſſolue. VntoUnto them therefore it is an article of faith, whilk muſt be beleeued and practiſed vnderunder the paine of the loſſe of ſaluation. And vntounto vsus he is that ſelfe ſame Antichriſt whilk the Scripture hes foretolde, time hes made manifeſt, & the Kirk hes ſuffered. VntoUnto them he is the heade of the body of Chriſt, the Paſtor of his flock, the ſunne that giues light to the ſtarres, the foundatiō of the houſe of God, and a mortall God amongſt men: VntoUnto vsus he is Gods enemy, the ſonne of perditiō, the ſecond beaſt, and falſe prophet, the aduerſary of true Religion, 2, Theſ, 2. apo, 13a peſt in the bodie, a tyrant in the commonwealth, and Antichriſt in the Kirk. So thou ſees (Chriſtian reader) of what wayght this controuerſie is.
Let vsus ſee then how he defends him from being the Antichriſt, and then you ſhall heare our reaſons to the contrary. You aske wherefore I ſet not down ſome places of Scripture to proue the Pope to be the Antichriſt: I anſwere: not becauſe I could not, but becauſe it was not my purpoſe at that time. But nowe I minde to doe it (God willing) after that I hauehave anſwered to your arguments. Your firſt reaſon is, The Iewes ſhall receaue the Antichriſt: but they neuer receaued the Pope: therefore the Pope is not the Antichriſt. I anſwer: Your Propoſition I deny, that the Iewes ſhall receaue the Antichriſt. For firſt I will aske you, Are you of that opinion with Bellarmine, the Rhemiſts, and the reſt of your Cleargy, Bella 1. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12.. Rhemiſt. annot. vponupon 2 Theſ. 2 The Iewes ſhuld not receaue the antichriſt as their Meſsias.that they ſhall receaue him as their Meſsias, whilk they looke for? If you be not of their minde, then beſide that you diſſent from the doctrine of your owne Kirk, it is not probable that the Iewes woulde receaue him, if they thought not hee were their Meſsias. And if ye be of their minde, then I ſay, the Iewes will receaue none as their Meſsias, but theſe who are borne of the tribe of Iuda, and the family of Dauid in Bethlehem, and who ſhall reigne in Ieruſalem. But the tribes are confounded, ſo that they cannot knowe it, and the family of Dauid deſtroyed by ſundry Emperours: or at the leaſt, ſo cō founded that they cannot be diſtinguiſhed: and Bethlehem is deſtroyed, & the Temple in Ieruſalem alluterly caſten down: therefore the Meſsias whilk they looke for, will neuer come. And ſo (if this be true) the Antichriſt whilk ye imagine heir will neuer come, ſince your Antichriſt and their Meſsias that they looke for, are both one, as your Kirk ſuppones. And I ſay further, Sanderus and the Rhemiſts ſayes, In 8. demonſt. Rhemiſt. annot. vponupon the 2, Theſſathe Antichriſt ſhall come of the tribe of Dan: if then he ſhall come of the tribe of Dan, (as they ſay) the Iewes will neuer receaue him as their Meſsias, becauſe they know their Meſsias whilk they looke for, ſhall come of the tribe of Iuda. Therefore if Sanderus and the Rhemiſts ſpeake true, the Iewes ſhall neuer receaue the Antichriſt at all. Thirdlye, I lay this ground whilk you cannot deny, that the Iewes are to be planted in again in the naturall Oliue: that is, they are to be conuerted to Chriſt, becauſe their fall was but for a time, as the Apoſtle plainly foretelles, Rom. 11. Rhemiſt annot. vponupon that chapterand the Rhemiſtes graunts it. VponUpon the whilk I aske you, Maiſter Gilbert, whether ſhall they receaue the Antichriſt, before, or after their conuerſion? If you ſay, after: thē I ſay, after they hauehave embraced the true Meſsias & the Goſpell, how can it be that they will looke for another Meſsias, and receaue the Antichriſt as their Sauiour. Next, we read of their conuerſion in the Scripture, but nothing of their reiection of Chriſt after their conuerſion. And thirdly, ſeeing (as your Kirk ſayes) the Antichriſt ſhalbe ſent to them, and they ſhal receaue him, becauſe they receaued not Chriſt Ieſus: of force then it cannot be after their conuerſion. For the cauſe, to wit, their hardneſſe of heart, and refuſall of the true Meſsias, being taken away: this puniſhment ſhould not bee ſent vntounto them after their embracing of Chriſt: ſo not after their conuerſion. And if you ſay before their conuerſion; thē I ſay, either muſt you make the reigne of your Antichriſt lō ger then three yeare and a halfe, (whilk your Kirk does) & put a greater ſpace betwixt the perdition of him, & the end of the world, then your a)Bellarmine puts but 45. daies betwene his perdition and the end of the world. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. c. 17.Kirk does, and ſo ouerthrow your owne doctrine concerning the Antichriſt, that ye may eſtabliſhe your imaginary Antichriſt. Or elſe what likelihoode is there that euer they ſhall be conuerted to Chriſt, whilk is againſt both the Scripture, & your owne doctrine? for ſeing the Iewes are to receiue him as their Meſsias, & ſeing he is to builde their Tēple, reſtore their ceremonies, & obtain ye Monarchie of the whole world, eſpecially by their help (as your doctrine affirmes) ſhall not this driue them further from Chriſt, Bella 1. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12.16. &c.and harden their harts more then euer it was before? And ſeing he ſhall raigne but three yeares and a halfe, and they cannot embrace the true Sauiour, as long as he raignes (for they cannot embrace both the Antichriſt, and the true Chriſt together) and ſeeing after his death the day of iudgement ſhall come immediatly, or at the leaſt 45. dayes after, (as Bellarmine ſayes:) how can it be poſsible that they ſhal euer be turned to Chriſt before the end of the worlde, if this your doctrine be true? Therefore they cannot receaue the Antichriſt before their conuerſion, and ſo they ſhall neuer receaue the Antichriſt. So then to conclude this point, as the Meſsias whilk the poore blinded Iewes lookes for, will neuer come, the true Meſsias being come already, whome they crucified: So the Antichriſt whilk ye imagine will neuer come, for the true Antichriſt (whilk either ye will not ſee, or elſe if ye ſee, ye will not confeſſe him) lurkes within your owne boſome, theſe many yeares, whome ye labour to couer, that he ſhould not be ſeene.
But how proue ye that the Iewes will receaue the Antichriſt? Becauſe our Sauiour ſayes to the Iewes, If another ſhal come in his owne name, him ye will receaue. I graunt indeede our Sauiour ſo ſpeakes. But firſte I ſay, this other is not to be reſtricted to the Antichriſt only, Ioſeph. de bello Iudaico, lib. 2. ca. 12. Pet. Gala. lib. 40. cap. 21. Bellarm lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. c. 12.but to be referred to all falſe Prophets, who ſhall come, not being ſent of God, ſo Nonus, ſo Lyra expones it: and this was fulfilled long ſince in receauing of Theudas and Cozban, and other deceauers whom they receaued. As for Auguſtine, it is true, he expones it of the Antichriſt. But if Bellarmine reiects Auguſtins opinion concerning the generation of the Antichriſt, that he ſhall come of the tribe of Dan, becauſe it cannot (ſaies he) bee prooued by the Scripture: ſhall it not alſo be lawfull for vsus, not to be bound to the expoſition of Auguſtine, vnleſſe it be certain by the ſcripture: ſo giuegive vsus that libertye whilk yee take to your ſelues. Your firſt reaſon then hes no feete: for this place ſpeakes of all falſe Prophets whatſomeuer, whilk the Iewes ſhould receaue: and it hes bene accompliſhed ſundry times amongſt them: therfore this yet remaines vnprooued that the Iewes ſhall receaue the Antichriſt. This for the firſt part of the argument. The ſecond part of your argument is, The Pope came neuer in his owne name, but in the name of Chriſt: therefore hee is not the Antichriſt. Your antecedent I deny. For if ye will credite Franciſcus Toledo if ye knowe him, writing vppon the ſame place, he ſayes, He ſhall come in his owne name, who truely ſhall hauehave no diuine vertue, The Pope come not in the name of Chriſt in truth but in his owne name, becauſe Chriſt left him neuer in his ſtead or left na ſik calling in his worde.but ſhall faine himſelf to be ſent of God, as the falſe Prophets came in their owne name, becauſe they were not truly ſent of God. And this is that, ſaies he, whilk is ſaid now (meaning in this place) if only ſhall come in his owne name: that he, is not truly ſent of God, neither hes Gods power. So then a falſe Prophete is ſaide both to come in the name of God, and in his owne name: in the name of God falſlye vanting ſo: in his owne name, becauſe God ſends him not, but he intrudes himſelfe without a lawfull calling. Nowe to anſwere you then, I ſay the Pope comes in the name of Chriſt, as his Vicare, I grant he and his Cleargie ſo vaunts: but falſly. For the truth is, he hes come, and he commes in his owne name, and that truly, becauſe the Lord neuer ſent him, but he hes intruded himſelfe without God his calling: therefore this can not free him but he may be the Antichriſt. But howe proue ye that hee commes in Chriſt his name, and not in his owne name? Becauſe (ſay ye) he calles himſelf the Vicare of Chriſt, and the ſeruand of the ſeruands of God. A pretty argument: hee ſo calles himſelf, Ergo he is ſo. Who will cr…dite either you or him in your owne cauſe? Is this all ye can do for your Pope? He is called ſo, Ergo he is ſo. Auguſtine ſaies, Non attendamus ad linguam, Tract 3. in epiſt. Ioan.ſed ad facta. Let vsus not take tent to the tongue, but to the deedes. For if al be asked, & all with one mouth confeſſe Chriſt, let the tongue ceaſe a little, and aske the life Interroga vitam? and againe, whoſoeuer denies Chriſt (factis) by his deedes, is Antichriſt. The idolaters of Epheſus might hauehave reaſoned ſo for their great goddeſſe Diana: Act. 19.ſhee is called a great goddeſſe, ergo ſhe is ſo indeede. And what falſe Prophet yet euer came, but they ſaid they came in the name of God, and they called themſelues, & were called by theſe whome they deceaued, the ſeruandes and Prophetes of the Lord: and yet will you frame this argument for them, as you doe for your Pope. Ierem. 23.25 Ezech. 13 6.7.All the falſe Prophets ſaid they came in the name of God, and were called by theſe whome they deceaued, the ſeruands of God, therfore they came not in their owne name, but in the name of God. Did not the falſe Apoſtles a)Reuel. 2, 2in Epheſus ſay they were the Apoſtles of Chriſt, & yet they were found liars: and did not the b)verſe 9.Synagogue of Satan call themſelues Iewes, and yet they blaſphemed in ſo ſpeaking. Does not the harlot with whome the nations of the earth hes committed fornication, c)Reuel. 18.7ſay in her heart, ſhe is a Queene, and yet ſhee is that great harlote. And is not her d)Reuel. 17 4Cupe of golde, and yet the drinke therin is abhomination. And ſhould not the Antichriſt e)2. Theſ. 2.4ſit in the temple of God, and yet he is the ſonne of perdition, and an aduerſary to God, and to Ieſus Chriſt. And f)Matth 4.8.9.ſaid not the Diuell of himſelfe, that all the Kingdomes of the world were giuen to him, & he would giuegive them to whome he would, and yet he was a lyar? So if this argument of yours will follow, The Pope is called the Vicare of Chriſt, & the ſeruand of the ſeruands of God, therfore hee came neuer in his owne name, and ſo hee is not the Antichriſt: you may with as good reaſon conclude, that the falſe Prophetes and falſe Apoſtles, came not in their owne name, but in the name of God, becauſe they are called the ſeruands of God, both by themſelues, and alſo by theſe who were deceaued by them. Yea, you may with as good reaſon conclude, that the Antichriſt is not the ſonne of perdition, & aduerſary to God, and that all the kingdomes of the worlde are giuen to the Diuell, & that he hes the power in his hand of giuing them to whom he will: becauſe the Scripture foretolde of the one, that he ſhould hauehave hornes like the Lambe, 2. Theſſal, 2. & Reuel. 17 Matth 4.and the other aſcriues this right and power to himſelfe. It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichriſt, vnleſſe with him alſo you defend all the falſe Prophets, falſe Apoſtles, falſe Kirks, the Antichriſt, and the Diuell himſelfe, from being the thing whilk they are indeede. But who will venter the ſaluation of their ſoule, vpō this ſo ſillie, and fooliſhe a reaſon? But I pray you (Maiſter Gilbert) let mee aske you this. Is your Pope the ſeruand of the ſeruandes of God, and the Vicare of Chriſt, as he calles himſelfe? Dare you avowe this in the preſence of him, who ſhall iudge the quick and the dead, that he is ſo, as he calles himſelfe? Did euer Chriſt Ieſus either tread vponupon the necks of Kings, and Emperours with his feete? or was he euer lifted vp and carried vponupon the ſhoulders of noble men? or did he euer giuegive his feete to Emperours to kiſſe, as your Popes hes done, as your owne hiſtories does witneſſe? And hauehave ye euer read what one of his owne Archbiſhops of Coleine, one of his owne religion, writes to Pope Nicolaus the firſte, fiue hundreth yeares agoe, Auentinus lib. 4. annalium.ſpeaking to him, he ſaies, Thou pretends the perſon of the Pope, but thou playes the tyrant: we feele vnderunder the habite of a Paſtor, a Wolfe, the ſtile belyes the Parent: thou vaūtes thy ſelf to be o)Iouem.God by thy deedes, while as thou art the ſeruand of ſeruands, thou contends to be Lord of Lords, according to the diſcipline of Chriſt our Sauiour, thou art the leaſt of all miniſters of the Temple of God; but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine: whatſumeuer lykes thee, Fucus factures Chriſtianis.is leeſome. This was euill in thoſe daies, but there are worſe ſince. And what now (reader) ſhal we ſay of the Pope, ſince his owne Arch-biſhop hes ſo written of him? You ſay he is the Vicare of Chriſt, but Chriſt Ieſus in his latter Teſtament, did neuer leaue him to be in his ſtead. For in the 4. Epheſ. 11. He gaue Apoſtles, Prophets, Euangeliſts, Paſtors, & Doctors for the woorke of the miniſterye, and the building of the bodye of Chriſt. But that he euer left a Pope to be head of the Kirk in his ſtead, to be a Monarch in this earth, to raigne in Rome, and to be Lorde ouer the ſeruands of God, there is not a ſillabe in the whole book of God to proue it. And becauſe you ſay he is the ſeruand or ſeruands: what ſeruice, I pray you, does he wherby he makes it manifeſt that he is a ſeruand in deede? For the principall ſeruice of the miniſtry of the Kirk ſtands in preaching the word, whilk he neither does, neither thinks that it appertaines to him to doe. Yea, what is it that appertaines to ony Lord, King, or Monarch in the earth, that he aſcriues not to himſelfe, and does not alſo practiſe? Yea, as though that were too little, what either ſtile or properties or workes, whilk are peculiar only to God his Maieſty, that he aſcriues not to himſelfe, as (God willing) ſhalbe prooued afterward in the third mark of the Antichriſt. So that Auentinus ſaies of the Pope, Lib. 7.He who is the ſeruand of ſeruands is the lord of Lords, and he deſires to be as though he were God: hee ſpeakes great things as if he were God: he changeth the lawes, eſtabliſheth his owne: he reaues, he ſpoiles, he deceaues, he ſlayes: that man of perdition, whom men vſes to call Antichriſt, (ſpeaking of the Pope) in whoſe forebead the name of blaſphemy is written: I am God I cannot erre. So what is this elſe, but a horrible mocking both of God & man to ſtile him the ſeruand of ſeruands, ſeeing hee hes lifted vp himſelfe, ſo far aboue both God and man? So then to conclude this, as Goliah his owne ſworde ſlew himſelf, ſo the reaſon whilk ye bring to defend your Pope from being the Antichriſt, doth moſt euidētly conuict him to be the Antichriſt. He may iuſtly be called the Antichriſt, who vnderunder pretence of the Vicare of Chriſt, and the ſeruand of ſeruands, is Monarch and lord ouer all: this you cannot deny. Becauſe the Scripture deſcriues the Antichriſt to hauehave two hornes lyke the Lambe, to ſit in the Temple of God, Apoc. 13. & 17. 2. Theſſal. 2.to hauehave a golden Cupe: and yet to ſpeake like the Dragon, to be aduerſary to God, and to lift himſelfe aboue all that is called God. But ſo hes the Popes of Rome done, as it hes, and ſhalbe proued by their owne doctrine and practiſe, and whilk you cannot deny: Therefore he is in very deed that Antichriſt whilk was to come. And this for your firſt reaſon.