Popery Anatomized, Section 24
SECTION XXIV. Where our Religion was before Luther? Or a Catalogue of them who profeſſed our Religion in the midst of Popery.
Maſter John Welſch.
Laſt of all, I will ſet you down the names of theſe worthy men, that in the midſt of Popery ſpake againſt their errors, and preached the ſame Religion which we preach. I will but only name a few of them that was in the midſt of Popery, when it was come to the hight, anno 1158. Gerardus and Dulcimus Navarrenſis, M John hath not the right dyet of theſe his holy Fathers. Anſwer. If it was ſo, as you write it, it was error in ſcribendo: and that which I writ afterward, might have taught you this when I ſaid this was 400. years paſt.did preach earneſtly againſt the Church of Rome, and called the Pope the Antichriſt: and taught alſo that the Clergy of Rome was become the whore of Babylon, fore-ſpoken in the Revelation: this was 400. years paſt. In the year of our Lord 1160. one*This Waldus and his ſect, had wives, and all things common, and ſo muſt M. John, if he follow him. Anſwer. This is falſly alledged of him, and his followers: but either your Canon Law errs, Cauſa 12. qu. 1. Dilectiſſimis: or elſe Pope Clement was of this mind: and ſo if you be of his Religion, you muſt be ſo: for albeit ye have no wives, yet other mens wives have been made common to your Popes, and your Clergy, in horrible adulteries. Waldus, a citizen of Lyons in France, with a great number, taught that ſame doctrine which we teach now, condemned the Maſs to be wicked, the Pope to be the Antichriſt, and Rome to be Babylon. They were perſecuted by the Pope, and remained long in Bohemia. In the year 1112. the Pope cauſed an hundred perſons in the Countrey of Alſatia, whereof many were noble-men, to be burnt in one day, for the maintaining of that ſame doctrine that we now maintain againſt the Church of Rome. About the year of our Lord 1230. almoſt all the Churches of the Grecians, which with the reſt of the Churches of Aſia and Africk, who do not acknowledge the ſupremacy of your Pope, are mo then the Churches of Europe, who ſubmit themſelves to him, did all renounce the Pope, and the Romiſh Church, becauſe of their execrable ſimony and idolatry, in the year 1240. In the Countrey of Swevia, there were many Preachers that taught freely againſt the Pope, and affirmed, he, and his Clergy were hereticks and ſimoniacks, in the year 1251. or thereabout. Arnoldus de Villanova a learned Spaniard, taught freely againſt the Church of Rome; and among the reſt, that the Pope led the people to hell: for the which cauſe, the Pope condemned him as an heretick, about the ſame time. Gulielmus de Sancto Amore, Maſter and chief Ruler of that Univerſity, taught, that all the teſtimonies of the Scripture, ſpoken of the Antichriſt, ſhould be applyed to the Pope and his Clergy, and ſo taught them to be the Antichriſt, and the whore of Babel, anno 1290. Laurence an Engliſh-man, and Maſter of the Univerſity in Paris, proved mightily that the Pope was the Antichriſt, and his Clergy the Synagogue of Babylon. About the ſame time Robertus Gallus, a man of noble parentage, taught, the Pope was an Idol, and ſaid the judgement of God would fall upon him, and his Clergy. Becauſe I have no time to write the doctrine of the reſt that ſpake againſt the Pope, I will but note their perſons, Robert Groſshed, John Gryllis, a p…eaching Frier, anno 1253. Gregory Ariminenſis, Franciſcus de Rupe Sciſſa, Taulerus in Germany, Gerardus Rhidit, Michael de Ceſena, Petrus de Carbona, and Joannes de Poliaco, Joannes Rithetalanda, anno 1360. Armachanus, the Archbiſh p in Ireland 1360. Nicolas Orem, Matthias Pariſienſis, Nilus A…chbiſhop of Theſſalonica, John Wicleff, and the Lord Cobham, and ſundry others.
Master Gilbert Brown.
M. John hath ſet down here a number of(a)It is falſe. obſcure and infamous perſons, for the moſt part juſtly(b)And this alſo. condemned for hereſies, without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he alledges: and all(c)This is alſo falſe; for Gerard and Dulcimus Navarrenſis, which I firſt cited, was almoſt 400. years before M. Luther, and Calvin, and the Waldenſes, was more then 300. years before them. two hundred years before Calvin began their Religion, or thereabout. Of the which I contend not, whether they ſpake againſt the Pope or not. For all hereticks from the beginning have barked againſt the Pope: But our contention is, whether ſuch heads of Religion, as they denyed, were hereſies or not, which as yet M. John hath not(d)But theſe heads is proven, that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Rome Babel: they are not hereticks, therefore our Religion was before Martin Luther. proved, nor is not able to defend theſe whom he calls his worthy men: for appearantly by this all hereticks are worthy men by him, albeit they be not of his Religion in all things.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
You calumniat our Religion of novelty, and ſay, Martin Luther begin it anno 1517. Unto the which I anſwered, That our Religion hath Chriſt Jeſus in the Old and New Teſtament to be the Author thereof, and hath the primitive Church many hundred years thereafter, to be the teachers and profeſſors thereof, the which I have proved already by ſome examples, and that even till the ſmoak of that Antichristian darkneſs of yours did overſpread all, as it was fore-told by the holy Ghoſt. At the which time alſo the Lord did reſerve his own elect to himſelf, even theſe hundred and forty and four thouſand, which did not bow their knees to your Baal, as it was fore-propheſied: whereof alſo a great many is recorded in Hiſtories, and of whom I ſet down ſome examples here. Upon the which I reaſon: That Religion which is warranted by the Scripture, and profeſſed in the primitive Church, &c. and hath ſundry that taught and profeſſed it, and that even in the midſt of Popery, when it was at the hight thereof, is not a new Religion, nor invented by Martin Luther; But ours is ſuch as hath been proved: Therefore unrighteous and blaſphemous muſt ye be, who ſlanders the Lords truth and Religion of novelty, and fathers it upon fleſh and blood, whereof he is the Author. Your anſwer to the firſt two, we have examined: Now let us ſee your anſwer to this. Firſt, you ſay they are obſcure men. I anſwer: If you call them obſcure, becauſe they wanted the outward glory, wealth, and renown of this world: Then, ſuppoſe it were ſo, yet have they Jeſus Christ the Prince of life, who was called a carpenters ſon, Matth. 13.54 55 56. and his Prophets, of whom ſome were herd-men, Amos 1.2. and his Apoſtles who were fiſher-men, Mat. 4.18.21. & his Church which conſiſts not of many wiſe, mighty or noble; but of the fooliſh, weak and vile of the world: for them God hath choſen to confound the wiſe and noble, 1. Cor. 1.26.27.28. to be companions with them: and ſo they are the liker both the Head and the members. It is true indeed, your Popes and Clergy are not obſcure; for they have the wealth and glory of the world. But as Bernard ſaid to the Pope, In this they ſucceed not to Chriſt or Peter, but to Constantine. But they receive their good things in this life with the rich glutt…n, and therefore they muſt receive their pain with h…m in the life to come. But why do you call theſe obſcure whom I named here? Are not ſome of them Friers, ſome of them Provincials of Gray-Friers, ſome of them Maſters and Rulers of Univerſities, ſome of them excellently learned, which your own Church cannot deny; ſome of them Biſhops and Archbiſhops, ſome of them Noble-men; and ſome of them▪ as namely the Greek and Eastern Churches, in number, learning, purity of doctrine and godlineſs, far exceeding your Papiſtical Church? Who is worthy or famous, if theſe be obſcure? Are all men obſcure and infamous to you, but your Popes, and thoſe who ſubmit their necks to him? And if you think theſe too obſcure men to be called worthy men, then behold yet, M. Gilbert, more noble perſonages who have reſiſted your Popes Monarchy. As King Philip le Bell of France, the Prelats of France joyning with him in his Dominions, about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third, King of England, deſpiſed the Popes curſe, and appealed from him to God, about the year of God 1346. And alſo ſundry Emperors, as Conſtantine the fifth, Leo his ſon, and Conſtantine the ſixth in the Eaſt, and Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. and Frederick the 2. in the Weſt. Will you call theſe Kings and Princes of the whole world, obſcure men? So all ſorts of men, M. Gilbert, both rich and poor, Princes and ſubjects, and theſe alſo within your own bowels, being overcome with the ſtrength of the truth of God, have ſpoken againſt your Religion. Why you call them infamous, and hereticks juſtly condemned, I know not, except it be becauſe they taught and profeſſed the truth of God, and condemned your Antichriſtian idolatry and abominations. But all are not infamous and hereticks, whom ye call ſo: and ſurely if murderers, hereticks, adulterers, Sodomites open bargainers with the Devil, and the vile monſters of the earth, is to be called obſcure, infamous and hereticks, then your Popes are to be called ſo; who of all men that ever the earth hath born, have been the vileſt monſters and hereticks, as I have proved in my other Treatiſe concerning the Maſs and the Antichriſt.
You ſay, next, that you contend not whether they have ſpoken againſt the Pope or not; for all hereticks have ever barked againſt him, & that ſore againſt your heart, M. Gilbert; becauſe you cannot deny but ye have taught this doctrine with us: and if it be ſo, M. Gilbert, that theſe men and Churches, and many thouſands more of all ſorts, have taught this doctrine with us many hundred years before Martin Luther: for the firſt two which I named was almoſt 400. years before him: then why were you ſo ſhameleſs, both to write it, and alſo ſpeak it, to blind your poor Countrey-men, to their and your damnation, that our Religion was begun by Martin Luther, and never profeſſed before him? So leave off, M. Gilbert, to beguile the ſimple and ignorant people with this ſottiſh and blaſphemous reaſon of yours, Martin Luther is the author of our Religion. For now your are inforced to grant the contrary, that infinit numbers have taught the ſame doctrine before him. The truth is too ſtrong for you, M Gilbert, that compells you to grant the thing that ye would wiſh with all your heart the people never knew it. But comfort your ſelf, M. Gilbert, for the truth will be victorious at the laſt, and your darkneſs dayly more and more will be diſcovered. Indeed the leaſt ſtroke that ye can give for the defence of your Pope, is to call them all hereticks who have ſpoken againſt him: For I grant the Pope and his Clergy is not ſuch fools, as being their own Judges, to condemn themſelves, and to juſtifie them, who not only have taught it, but alſo ſufficiently did prove it, and many thouſands ſealed with their blood that he was the Antichriſt, and his Church Babel. But with them, they have the Son of God, and the Apoſtles, Paul and John hereticks: for they alſo did condemn his idolatry, and tyranny, and errors. But whereabout now will ye contend, M. Gilbert? Ye ſay, whether their doctrine be hereſie or not? I would you and your Church would ſtand upon this, and give over all your other contentions while this were firſt proved, Whether their doctrine, in ſo far as they agree with ours; and ours, in ſo far as it diſſents from yours, be hereſie or not? that is, be againſt the Scripture or not: the which if you would do, then I hope our contention would ſoon be ended. But for as faſt as you run to this now, you will flee from it as faſt again, when we deſire to have yours and our doctrine tryed by the Scriptures, which of them is hereſie: and conſequently, whether ye or we be hereticks? And therefore you ever refuſe to let your doctrine be tryed by the Scripture, but run to your pretended antiquity, and ſucceſſions, Councils, and lying miracles, and many other vain ſtarting-holes, like a wild Fox when he is hunted out of one hole, he flies to another, and dares never abide the fair fields. And mark their craft (Reader) when we affirm that our Religion hath Jeſus Chriſt to be the Author of it in the Scriptures, as we offer to prove the ſame, ye refuſe this tryal by the Scriptures, and ſay, That Martin Luther invented our Religion, and we had none that profeſſed it, and taught it before him. When we again reply, That we had ſundry of all ſorts many hundred years before him, even when your Kingdom was at the hight, and produces their names: they not being able to deny it, they ſlip from that again, and ſay, They contend not whether there was ſuch that taught ſuch doctrine or not: but they contend whether that was truth or hereſie: ſo they run from one ſtarting hole to another. But I will ask you (M. Gilbert) if it be proved that this their doctrine was not hereſie, will you contend any more then? Shal the plea ceaſe then? Will you ever ſlander our Religion of novelty, in ſaying, Martin Luther was the firſt that began it, and we had none who profeſſed before him. But you will ſay, This you have not proved. It is true, I had not proved it then: but now I hope I have proved it ſufficiently, that your Popes are the Antichriſt, and your Rome, Babel; which was one of the principal heads of the doctrine which ye taught, and ſundry others alſo. Diſprove you it, if you can, M. Gilbert.
Master Gilbert Brown.
But he ſaith, They preached the ſame Religion that he preaches, &c. Let M. John name any of theſe his Doctors, that he will abide at in Religion, and I ſhal let him ſee that he was not of his Religion in all things. For that is the thing that we ſay, That albeit M. John and his brethren, have renewed many old condemned hereſies of hereticks, yet they were not of their Religion in all things. And therefore this that M. John calls the only truth, was never profeſſed in all heads, as it is now in Scotland, before in no Countrey, no not by any one man, let be by a number; which thing M. Robert Bruce grants himſelf in his Sermons, in theſe words: And God hath choſen a few hearts in this Countrey, where he hath begun his dwelling place; for God dwells now in the hearts and conſciences of his own by his holy Spirit. And ſurely ſo hath he dwelt with … theſe thirty years, in ſuch purity, that he hath not done the like with any Nation in the earth: he hath not remained with any Nation without error and hereſie ſo long, as he hath done with us, &c. So God dwelt in no place without error and hereſie the ſpace of thirty years, while now in Scotland.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
But you ſay, they diſſent from us in ſome things, and is not of our Religion in all things. Whereunto I anſwer: That ſuppoſe this were true, yet it will not follow but that they are of our Religion, ſeeing they and we do agree in the main foundations thereof. For we have learned to call them brethren; which do hold the foundation, as the Apoſtle ſaith, ſuppoſe they have built hay, ſtraw, or timber upon the ſame. Otherwiſe, if ye will be content to be meaſured with that ſame meaſure wherewith ye meaſure us, if you will have none to be accounted of your Religion, but theſe only that profeſs with you in all things, as your Church doth now: then not only (by your reaſon) ſhal ye want the Lord Jeſus, his Apoſtles, the primitive Church, as ye do indeed: and that not only in the firſt ſix hundred years, but long after, till the thouſand year, and long after that alſo, to be of your profeſſion: becauſe not only the weightieſt points of your doctrine have not their original in the Scripture, and are unwritten traditions, by the teſtimony of ſome of your ſelves: but alſo ſundry points of your Religion have been brought in after theſe dayes, being unknown in the former ages, as your ſelves will not deny, and I have proved in ſome heads, in the other part concerning the Maſs. Yea, you ſhal want all the Fathers, by this reaſon of yours. For there is not one of them but they have their own errors, which ye your ſelves will not defend: and the moſt part of them are with us againſt you, in many things, which you cannot deny: and that which is more, ye ſhal want almoſt all the general Councils, except three or four, and many of your own Popes, Doctors, Biſhops, Cardinals and Jeſuits: for not only have ſome of them had errors, and ſome of them been hereticks, by your whole confeſſions; but alſo ſome of them have been with us in ſome points againſt you, as I have proved before, ſo that I need not repeat them now. As for example, Pope Gregory affirms, That the books of the Macchabees are Apocrypha, Lib. 19. cap. 16. in morali. And ſo have ſundry others of your Clergy, as Sixtus Seneſis, in lib. Operis Biblioth. Cajetanus in fine comment. Veter. Teſt. Arias Montanus, in editione quadam Hebr. Bibli. cum interlineari. Hugo Cardinalis, are againſt you, and with us, in the books of Apocrypha. Gelaſius de duabus naturis in Christo, is againſt your Tranſubſtantiation, alſo againſt your Communion under one kind: And Pope Adrian the 6. againſt this, that the Pope cannot err, and teach hereſies. Panormitan againſt this, that it is not lawful to Miniſters to marry after their ordination. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 19. Idem lib. 2. de purg. cap. 4. Michael Bai, Gerſon and Roffenſis, all Papiſts, againſt your venial ſins. Bellarm. lib. de imaginibus, cap. 8. Abulenſis, and Durandus, and Pereſius, Papiſts, againſt your making of the Images of the Trinity. A great many of you, as Alexander, Thomas, Cajetan, Bonaventure, Marſilius, Almain, Carthuſianus and Capreolus, teach, That that ſame worſhip ſhould be given to the Image, which is given to that which the Image repreſents: And yet Durandus and Alphonſus a Caſtro, and others, is againſt this: Therefore either the one or the other is not of your Religion. And ye your ſelf, if ye be meaſured by this meaſure, is not a right Papiſt, becauſe you diſſent from many of them in many things, as hath been proved before. And certainly (M. Gilbert) if this reaſon of yours hold forth, you ſhal cut off from your profeſſion ſuch a number of Popes, Councils, Jeſuits, Cardinals and Doctors from your Religion, that it is to be feared, that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholick Faith, yea from being a member of their Synagogue, that for the defence thereof is compelled to cut off ſo many from the ſame. And ſecondly, I ſay, your reports concerning their doctrine, is not to be credited, but their own Apologies and Writings: whereby it appears that it hath been always your faſhion, the more to diſcredit them, to charge them with a number of abſurd opinions, which they never held. As for example, you charge here Waldus, and his followers, to have had their wives, and all other things common, which is your calumny of them, and not their practiſe, or doctrine. For Gulielmus Parvus writeth, that their life was commendable. And Reynerus in his Book of Inquiſitions, one of your own Religion, a Writer of 300. years ago, who was often at the examination of them, as he himſelf ſaith, confeſſeth, That they had great ſhow of holy life, and that they believed all things well of God, and all the articles contained in the Creed, and lived juſtly before men: and chargeth them that they hated and blaſphemed ſolam Romanam Eccleſiam, the Romiſh Church only. So then, if his report be true, as I hope ye will not gainſay, they were both far from that error; for that were neither to believe all things well of God, nor yet to have a ſhow of holy life, and to live juſtly before men: and alſo they were of our Religion in all things.
And where you ſay that we renew many old condemned hereſies. I anſwer: That neither the doctrine which I affirmed they taught here, was hereſies, nor yet themſelves hereticks. But you and your Church who have condemned them for the truth of God, and have renewed old condemned hereſies, as ſhal be proved afterward. And we have renewed no hereſie at all, but only the truth of God, which your Church hath obſcured and buried. Therefore your concluſion is falſe, that our Religion was never profeſſed in all points, as it is now in Scotland, before in no Countrey; no not, ſay you, by any one man, For it was taught and profeſſed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and alſo by all the primitive Churches in their dayes, in all points, throughout all the parts of the world where they preached the Goſpel, as it is now in Scotland, as we offer to prove by their writings, and I have proved the ſame in ſundry heads here. Next, the ſubſtance thereof was continued many hundred years in the Churches of Chriſt, while partly by the hereſies that ſprang up (for the popple was ſoon ſown among the good ſeed, and the Myſtery of Iniquity began to work in the Apoſtles dayes) and partly by the Mahomet, and partly by the darkneſs of Popery, it was corrupted piece and piece. And what difference can you find between the Religion that the Waldenſes profeſſed, and us, if ye will give credit to their Apologies, and Reynerus teſtimonies of them? As for M. Robert Bruces teſtimony, which ye produce, it ſerves no wiſe to confirm your purpoſe: but ſeeing ye abuſe the teſtimonies of Scripture, it is no wonder ſuppoſe ye abuſe the teſtimonies of men. For it is moſt true which he affirms, that the truth of God hath continued for that ſpace in this Kingdom without hereſie or ſchiſm, as we never read it did in any Nation in the earth, in ſuch purity without hereſie and ſchiſm for ſuch a long ſpace. And yet it follows not but it hath dwelt in ſundry Churches in ſuch purity before, ſuppoſe not ſo long together, which you omit in your concluſion. Doth it follow by his teſtimonie, but that our Religion hath been preached and profeſſed in all true Churches, in all points, ſuppoſe not ſo long in ſuch purity as it is in Scotland? Neither doth it follow, but that the ſubſtantial and main points of our Religion have been profeſſed in all Chriſtian Churches longer then that ſpace, ſuppoſe mixed either with ſome hereſies or ſchiſmes. So you muſt coin a new Logick (M Gilbert) before ye can confirm your propoſition by his teſtimonie.
Maſter Gilbert Brown.
But here it is to be noted alſo, that M. John can find none before the year of Chriſt 1158. that ſaid againſt the Pope and his Religion, and none immediatly before Luther▪ the ſpace of an hundred years, and more. So the Church was without his Doctors eleven hundred years and fifty, or thereabout. And ſuch like, Martin Luther had no predeceſſors to whom he ſucceeded in his Religion.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
You not two things here which are both falſe: The one, that I can find none that ſaid againſt the Pope and his Religion before the year of Chriſt 1158. For our Savior and his Apoſtles, and ſundry learned Fathers in all ages, and Councils, both General and Provincial, and ſome of your own Doctors and Popes, have ſpoken againſt the Monarchie of your Pope, and your Doctrine and Religion, as I have proved before. And Reynerus a man of your own Religion, teſtifies, that ſome ſaid, The Waldenſes who had the ſame Religion which we profeſs, was continued from Sylvesters dayes, who lived about the 320. year of God. And ſome ſaid, that it continued even from the Apoſtles days. Therefore the firſt is falſe The ſecond thing is, that I can find none before Luther immediatly, the ſpace of an hundred years and more. I ſee you are not aſhamed to ſpeak any thing for the defence of your Kingdom, were it never ſo manifeſtly falſe: For if appears that either ye are not acquainted with the Hiſtories of that age, or elſe ye diſſemble it of purpoſe: for John Wicleff he left ſo many behind him in England who profeſſed our Religion, that though your Prelats did moleſt them what they could, yet they and their favorers in ſhort time grew to ſuch ſtrength and multitude, that by the year 1422. (which was an hundred years immediatly before Luther) Henry Chicheſley the Archbiſhop of Canterbury wrot to the Pope that they all could not be ſuppreſſed, they were ſo many, but by force of war. The profeſſors of our Religion began to gather ſo great force in Bohemia, after the burning of John Hus, and Jerome of Prague, at the Council of Conſtance, which was about the year 1417. (which was juſt an hundred years immediatly before Luther) that they were able not only to defend themſelves by force of armes againſt the tyrannie of your Popes, but alſo obtained many notable victories againſt the ſtrongeſt power that the Pope did raiſe againſt them. In England William Taylor was burnt, anno 1422. and two years after that William White was burnt. And betwixt that time and 1430. Father Abraham of Colcheſter, John Wadden, and Richard Hovington were burnt. And after that, Richard Wiche, and John Gooſe, one Braban, and one Jerome, and others with him, were burnt. Hieronymus Savanarola, a Monk in Italie, with two others, named Dominick and Sylveſter, were condemned to death at Florence, in the year 1500. with ſundry others, whom for ſhortneſs I omit here. Now ſurely, I cannot but wonder, M. Gilbert, that ye ſhould have been ſo impudent as to have ſet it down in writ, that I could get none that profeſſed our Religion an hundred years immediatly before Martin Luther. But the Reader may gather what credit he may give to your notes: and yet with ſuch impudent lies ye blind the poor people. Upon the which I gather, that both theſe concluſions of yours, is falſe. For the Church of Chriſt in all ages, even from the Apoſtles days to this day, hath ever had her own teachers and profeſſors (unto whom Martin Luther hath ſucceeded in his Religion) ſuppoſe not in the like frequencie and puritie, and that by reaſon partly of the ſmoke of that bottemleſs pit, that is, of your doctrine, which darkned both the Sun and the air, Rev. 9.2. that is, both teachers and people: and partly by your extream perſecution, whereby ye made war with the Saints of God, and overcame them, Rev 13 7. But your ſmoke will evaniſh away at the laſt, and the clear light of the Lord ſhal ſhine more and more, maugre all your hearts.