Popery Anatomized, Section 28 · Reply 2 – Reply 3
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove; to wit, that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Chriſt, are the ſelf-ſame Antichriſt that the Scripture fore-told ſhould come. Thou wouldeſt know (Chriſtian Reader) of what weight this controverſie is, Whether the Pope be the Antichrist, or not? For this ſupremacy of his unto them, is the foundation whereupon their Religion, and the ſafety of their whole Church depends: ſo that they call it, The Rock whereupon the Church is built, againſt which the gates of Hell ſhal not prevail, Rhemiſt. annot. upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him, in his Preface before the controverſie of the Popes ſupremacy, The foundation which upholds the houſe of God: the Pastor which feeds his flock: the Emperor which governes his hoſt: the Sun which gives light to the ſtarrs; that is, to the Miniſters of the Church: the Head which gives life to his body. So that remove his ſupremacy, the houſe of God muſt fall, the flock of Chriſt muſt be ſcattered, the hoſt of the Lord muſt be diſcomfited; the ſtarrs, that is, the Miniſtery, muſt be darkened, and the body muſt ly ſtill without motion. And he applyes theſe Propheſies, Iſai. 28.16. and 8.14.15. ſpoken and fulfilled only in the Son of God, unto him a calling him that foundation ſtone in Sion, upon the which the whole Church is built: and that proved ſtone, againſt the which the gates of Hell hath never, nor never ſhal prevail: and that corner ſtone, which joyns both Jew and Gentil, as two walls together in a Chriſtian Church: and that precious ſtone, from whence the infinit treaſure of grace is moſt plenteouſly derived unto the whole Church: as unity in doctrine, the bond of peace, the unity of faith, which is ſalvation it ſelf, and the very life of Religion: And he ſaith, There is no way to Chriſt, but by Peter, in whoſe room their Popes ſucceed: So that in their judgement, there is no way to Chriſt, but by the Pope. And he calls him that rock of offence, and ſtumbling ſtone, ſpoken of in Iſai. chap. 8. Upon the which whoſoever ſhal fall, ſhal be broken: and on whom it ſhal fall, it ſhal daſh him in pieces. O blaſphemous mouth! Let the heavens be confounded at this. And therefore this is of ſuch a weight, that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith, whoſe words are theſe: We declare, we affirm, we define and pronounce, that it is altogether needful to ſalvation to all creatures, to be under the Pope of Rome: Extra. de minoritate & obedientia, cap. unam ſanctam. So that Bellarmin ſaith, when the Popes ſupremacy is called in controverſie, The ſum of all Chriſtianity is called in queſtion: and when that is controverted, Then it is controverted whether the Church ſhould ſtand any longer or not, or fall and diſſolve? Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith, which muſt be believed and practiſed under the pain of the loſs of ſalvation. And unto us he is that ſelf-ſame Antichriſt which the Scripture hath fore-told, time hath made manifeſt, and the Church hath ſuffered. Unto them he is the Head of the body of Chriſt, the Paſtor of his flock, the Sun that gives light to the ſtarrs, the foundation of the houſe of God, and a mortal God among men. Unto us he is Gods enemy, the ſon of perdition, the ſecond beaſt, and falſe prophet, 2 Theſſ 2.13 Rev. 13.11. the adverſary of true Religion, a peſt in the body, a tyrant in the Commonwealth, and Antichriſt in the Church. So thou ſees (Chriſtian Reader) of what weight this controverſie is.
Let us ſee then how he defends him from being the Antichriſt, and then you ſhal hear our reaſons to the contrary. You ask, wherefore I ſet not down ſome places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichriſt? I anſwer: Not becauſe I could not, but becauſe it was not my purpoſe at that time. But now I mind to do it, God willing, after that I have anſwered to your arguments. Your firſt reaſon is, The Jews ſhal receive the Antichriſt; but they never received the Pope: therefore the Pope is not the Antichriſt. I anſwer: Your propoſition I deny, that the Jews ſhal receive the Antichriſt. For firſt, I will ask you, Are you of that opinion with Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12 the Rhemiſts annot. upon 2 Theſſ. 2. and the reſt of your Clergy, that they ſhal receive him as their Meſſias, which they look for? If you be not of their mind, then beſide that you diſſent from the doctrine of your own Church, it is not probable that the Jews would receive him, if they thought not he were their Meſſias. And if ye be of their mind, then I ſay, the Jews will receive none as their Meſſias, but theſe who are born of the Tribe of Juda, and the family of David in Bethlehem, and who ſhal reign in Jeruſalem. But the Tribes are confounded, ſo that they cannot know it, and the family of David deſtroyed by ſundry Emperors: or at the leaſt ſo confounded that they cannot be diſtinguiſhed: and Bethlehem is deſtroyed, and the Temple of Jeruſalem utterly caſten down: therefore the Meſſias which they look for, will never come. And ſo (if this be true) the Antichriſt which ye imagine here, will never come, ſince your Antichriſt and their Meſſias that they look for, are both one, as your Church ſuppones. And I ſay further, Sanderus in 8. demonſt, and the Rhemiſt. annot. upon the 2. Theſſ. 2. ſay, the Antichriſt ſhal come of the Tribe of Dan: if then he ſhal come of the Tribe of Dan (as they ſay) the Jews will never receive him as their Meſſias, becauſe they know their Meſſias which they look for, ſhal come of the Tribe of Juda. Therefore if Sanderus and the Rhemiſts ſpeak true, the Jews ſhal never receive the Antichriſt at all. Thirdly, I lay this ground which you cannot deny, that the Jews are to be planted in again in the natural olive; that is, they are to be converted to Chriſt, becauſe their fall was but for a time, as the Apoſtle plainly fore-tells, Rom. 11.24. and the Rhemiſts grant it, annot. upon that chapter. Upon the which, I ask you (M. Gilbert) whether ſhal they receive the Antichriſt, before or after their converſion? If you ſay, after: then I ſay, after they have embraced the true Meſſias and the Goſpel, how can it be that they will look for another Meſſias, and receive the Antichriſt as their Savior. Next, we read of their converſion in the Scripture, but nothing of their rejection of Chriſt after their converſion. And thirdly, ſeeing (as your Church ſaith) the Antichriſt ſhal be ſent to them, and they ſhal receive him, becauſe they received not Chriſt Jeſus: of force then it cannot be after their converſion. For the cauſe, to wit, their hardneſs of heart, and refuſal of the true Meſſias being taken away, this puniſhment ſhould not be ſent unto them after their embracing of Chriſt: ſo not after their converſion. And if you ſay, before their converſion; then I ſay, either muſt you make the reign of your Antichriſt longer then three years and an half (which your Church doth) and put a greater ſpace betwixt the perdition of him, and the end of the world, then your Church doth. (For Bellarmin puts but 45. dayes between his perdition and the end of the world, lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17.) and ſo overthrow your own doctrine concerning the Antichriſt, that ye may eſtabliſh your imaginary Antichriſt. Or elſe what likelyhood is there that ever they ſhal be converted to Chriſt, which is againſt both the Scripture, and your own doctrine? For ſeeing the Jews are to receive him as their Meſſias, and ſeeing he is to build their Temple, reſtore their ceremonies, and obtain the Monarchy of the whole world, eſpecially by their help (as your doctrine affirms, Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. 16, &c.) ſhal not this drive them further from Chriſt, and harden their hearts more then ever it was before? And ſeeing he ſhal reign but three years and an half, and they cannot embrace the true Savior, as long as he reigns (for they cannot embrace both the Antichriſt, and the true Chriſt together) and ſeeing after his death the day of judgement ſhal come immediatly, or at the leaſt 45. days after (as Bellarmin ſaith:) how can it be poſſible that they ſhal ever be turned to Chriſt before the end of the world, if this your doctrine be true? Therefore they cannot receive the Antichriſt before their converſion, and ſo they ſhal never receive the Antichriſt. So then to conclud this point, as the Meſſias which the poor blinded Jews look for, will never come, the true Meſſias being come already, whom they crucified; ſo the Antichriſt which ye imagine, will never come; for the true Antichriſt (which either ye will not ſee, or elſe if ye ſee, ye will not confeſs him) lurks within your own boſom, theſe many years, whom ye labor to cover, that he ſhould not be ſeen.
But how prove ye that the Jews will receive the Antichriſt? Becauſe our Savior ſaith to the Jews, If another ſhal come in his own name, him ye will receive. I grant indeed our Savior ſo ſpeaks. But firſt, I ſay, this other is not to be reſtricted to the Antichriſt only, but to be referred to all falſe Prophets, who ſhal come, not being ſent of God: ſo Nonnus, ſo Lyra expone it: and this was fulfilled long ſince in receiving of Theudas and Cozban, and other deceivers whom they received, Joſeph. de bello Judaico, lib. 2. cap. 12. Pet. Gala. lib. 40. cap. 21. As for Augustin, it is true, he expones it of the Antichriſt. But if Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. rejects Auguſtins opinion concerning the generation of the Antichriſt, that he ſhal come of the Tribe of Dan, becauſe it cannot (ſaith he) be proved by the Scripture: ſhal it not alſo be lawful for us, not to be bound to the expoſition of Auguſtin, unleſs it be certain by the Scripture: ſo give us that liberty which ye take to your ſelves. Your firſt reaſon then hath no feet: for this place ſpeaks of all falſe Prophets whatſoever which the Jews ſhould receive; and it hath been accompliſhed ſundry times among them: therefore this yet remains unproved, that the Jews ſhal receive the Antichriſt. This for the firſt part of the argument. The ſecond part of your argument is, The Pope came never in his own name, but in the name of Chriſt; therefore he is not the Antichrist. Your antecedent I deny. For if ye will credit Franciſcus Toledo, if ye know him, writing upon the ſame place he ſaith, He ſhal come in his own name, who truly ſhal have no divine vertue, but ſhal fain himſelf to be ſent of God, as the falſe Prophets came in their own name, becauſe they were not truly ſent of God. And this is that (ſaih he) which is ſaid now (meaning in this place) if any ſhal come in his own name, that he is not truly ſent of God, neither hath Gods power. So then a falſe Prophet is ſaid both to come in the Name of God, and in his own name: In the Name of God, falſly vaunting ſo: in his own name, becauſe God ſends him not; but he intrudes himſelf without a lawfull calling. Now to anſwer you then, I ſay, the Pope comes in the Name of Chriſt, as his Vicare: I grant, he and his Clergy ſo vaunt; but falſly. For the truth is, he hath come, and he comes in his own name, and that truly, becauſe the Lord never ſent him, but he hath intruded himſelf without God his calling: therefore this cannot free him, but he may be the Antichriſt. But how prove ye that he comes in Chriſt his Name, and not in his own name? Becauſe (ſay ye) he calls himſelf the Vicar of Chriſt, and the ſervant of the ſervants of God. A pretty argument: He ſo calls himſelf: Ergo, he is ſo. Who will credit either you or him in your own cauſe? Is this all ye can do for your Pope? He is called ſo: Ergo, he is ſo. Auguſtin ſaith, Non attendamus ad linguam, ſed ad facta, Tract 3 in Epiſt. Joan. Let us not take heed to the tongue, but to the deeds. For if all be asked, & all with one mouth confeſs Chriſt, let the tongue ceaſe a little, & ask the life: Interroga vitam: and again, whoſoever denyes Chriſt (factis) by his deeds, is Antichriſt. The idolaters of Epheſus might have reaſoned ſo for their great Goddeſs Diana, Acts 19.27. She is called a great Goddeſs: Ergo, ſhe is ſo indeed. And what falſe Prophet yet ever came, but they ſaid they came in the Name of God, & they called themſelves and were called by theſe whom they deceived, the ſervāts & Prophets of the Lord, Jer. 23.25. Ezec. 13.6.7. and yet will you frame this argument for them, as you do for your Pope? All the falſe Prophets ſaid, they came in the Name of God, & were called by theſe whom they deceived, the ſervants of God; therefore they came not in their own name, but in the Name of God. Did not the falſe Apoſtles in Epheſus ſay, they were the Apostles of Chriſt, & yet they were found liars? Rev. 2.2. And did not the Synagogue of Satan call themſelves Jews, and yet they blaſphemed in ſo ſpeaking? Rev. 2.9. Doth not the Harlot with whom the Nations of the earth have committed fornication, ſay in her heart, ſhe is a Queen, Rev. 18.7. and yet ſhe is that great Harlot? Rev. 17 4. And is not her cup of gold, and yet the drink therein is abomination? And ſhould not the Antichriſt ſit in the temple of God, and yet he is the ſon of perdition, and an adverſary to God, and to Jeſus Chriſt? 2. Theſſ. 2.4. And ſaid not the Devil of himſelf, that all the Kingdoms of the world were given to him, and he would give them to whom he would? Matth. 4.8, 9 and yet he was a liar? So if this argument of yours will follow, The Pope is called the Vicar of Chriſt, and the ſervant of the ſervants of God, therefore he came never in his own name, and ſo he is not the Antichriſt: you may with as good reaſon conclud, that the falſe Prophets, and falſe Apoſtles, came not in their own name, but in the Name of God, becauſe they are called the ſervants of God, both by themſelves, and alſo by theſe who were deceived by them. Yea, you may with as good reaſon conclud, that the Antichriſt is not the ſon of perdition, and adverſary to God, 2. Theſſ 2.3.4. & that all the Kingdoms of the world are given to the Devil, and that he hath the power in his hand of giving them to whom he will; becauſe the Scripture fore-told of the one, that he ſhould have horns like the Lamb, Rev. 17. and the other aſcribes this right and power to himſelf, Matth. 4.9. It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichriſt, unleſs with him alſo you defend all the falſe Prophets, falſe Apoſtles, falſe Churches, the Antichriſt, and the Devil himſelf, from being the thing which they are indeed. But who will venter the ſalvation of their ſoul, upon this ſo ſilly and fooliſh a reaſon? But, I pray you, M. Gilbert, let me ask you this; Is your Pope the ſervant of the ſervants of God, and the Vicar of Chriſt, as he calls himſelf? Dare you avow this in the preſence of him who ſhal judge the quick and the dead, that he is ſo as he calls himſelf? Did ever Chriſt Jeſus either tread upon the necks of Kings and Emperors with his feet? Or was he ever lifted up and carried upon the ſhoulders of noble-men? Or did he ever give his feet to Emperors to kiſs, as your Popes have done, as your own Hiſtories do witneſs? And have ye ever read what one of his own Archbiſhops of Colen, one of his own Religion, writes to Pope Nicolaus the firſt, five hundred years ago? Speaking to him, he ſaith, Thou pretends the perſon of the Pope, but thou playes the tyrant: we feel under the habit of a Paſtor, a wolf; the ſtile belyes the parent. Thou vaunts thy ſelf to be God by thy deeds: while as thou art the ſervant of ſervants, thou contends to be Lord of Lords: according to the diſcipline of Chriſt our Savior, thou art the leaſt of all miniſters of the Temple of God; but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine: whatſoever likes thee, is lawful, Aventinus lib. 4. annalium. This was evil in thoſe dayes, but there are worſe ſince. And what now, Reader, ſhal we ſay of the Pope, ſince his own Archbiſhop hath ſo written of him? You ſay he is the Vicar of Chriſt, but Chriſt Jeſus in his latter Teſtament, did never leave him to be in his ſtead. For in the 4. Epheſ. 11. He gave Apostles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors and Doctors, for the work of the miniſtery, and the building of the body of Chriſt. But that he ever left a Pope to be head of the Church in his ſtead, to be a Monarch in this earth, to reign in Rome, and to be Lord over the ſervants of God, there is not a ſyllable in the whole Book of God to prove it. And becauſe you ſay, he is the ſervant of ſervants: what ſervice, I pray you, doth he whereby he makes it manifeſt that he is a ſervant indeed? For the principal ſervice of the Miniſtery of the Church, ſtands in preaching the Word, which he neither doth, neither thinks that it appertains to him to do. Yea, what is it that appertains to any Lord, King, or Monarch in the earth, that he aſcribes not to himſelf, and doth not alſo practiſe? Yea, as though that were too little, what either ſtile or properties or works, which are peculiar only to God his majeſty, that he aſcribes not to himſelf: as, God willing, ſhal be proved afterward in the third mark of the Antichriſt. So that Aventinus ſaith of the Pope, He who is the ſervant of ſervants, is the Lord of Lords, and he deſires to beas though he were God. He ſpeaks great things, as if he were God. He changeth the laws, eſtabliſheth his own. He reaves, he ſpoils, he deceives, he ſlayes: that man of perdition, whom men uſe to call Antichriſt (ſpeaking of the Pope) in whoſe fore-head the name of blaſphemy is written: I am God, I cannot err. So what is this elſe, but a horrible mocking both of God and man, to ſtile him the ſervant of ſervants, ſeeing he hath lifted up himſelf ſo far above both God and man? So then to conclud this, as Goliah his own ſword ſlew himſelf, ſo the reaſon which ye bring to defend your Pope from being the Antichriſt, doth moſt evidently convict him to be the Antichriſt. He may juſtly be called the Antichriſt, who under pretence of the Vicar of Chriſt, and the ſervant of ſervants, is Monarch and Lord over all: this you cannot deny. Becauſe the Scripture deſcribes the Antichriſt to have two horns like the Lamb, to ſit in the Temple of God, to have a golden cup, and yet to ſpeak like the Dragon; to be adverſary to God, and to lift himſelf above all that is called God, Rev. 13. and 17. 2. Theſſ. 2. But ſo have the Popes of Rome done, as it hath, and ſhal be proved by their own doctrine and practiſe, and which you cannot deny: Therefore he is in very deed, that Antichriſt which was to come. And this for your firſt reaſon.
Master Gilbert Brown.
Secondly, S. Paul in deſcribing of the Antichriſt, tells that he ſhal be but one, the ſon of perdition, 2. Theſſ. 2.3. Now then, if there ſhal be but one chief Antichriſt, whether is this preſent Pope he, or ſome other before him? For every man knows that there have been mo then 230. Popes, as all the Writers of their lives reſtifie. They cannot all be Antichriſts; for that repugns to S. Paul, who hath put him in the ſingular number. And if M. John will follow the Word, as he ſaith he doth, where will he find that there ſhal be many chief Antichriſts and not one only? For that place of S. John, where he ſaith, That now are there many Antichriſts, 1. John 2.18. can no wayes be underſtood, but of the fore-runners of the great Antichriſt. For at that time M. John will grant himſelf, that the great Antichriſt, the ſon of perdition, was not begun.