Popery Anatomized, Section 4
SECTION IV. Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church, and the Reformed not true Churches?
OF this we collect that our Church muſt be the only true Church, and not theirs, becauſe ours hath never been interrupted, nor hath failed in any ſubſtantial point of faith and Religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles dayes, and theirs hath done. To confirm this, I ſay, that M. John, nor no Miniſter in Scotland can be able to aſſign to us the circumſtances of all mutations and changes in Religion: That is to ſay,
1. The author who firſt began our Religion.
2. The time when it was begun.
3. The place where it began.
4. The true Church who ſaid againſt the ſame.
5. The matter it ſelf which was changed or begun.
6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed.
All theſe things we ſhal aſſign to their Religion, and that ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles.
1. The firſt au…hor of their Religion, albeit not in all things, was Martin Luther, an Auguſtine Frier.
2. He began his Religion in the year of God 1517.
3. He began the ſame in Saxony in the countrey of Almanie.
4. The Church of Rome, Italie, France, Spain, Scotland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Pole, a great part of Almanie, with the eaſt and weſt Indies, which were the true Church, ſaid againſt him.
5. The heads of Religion which he firſt ſaid againſt, were Pardons. He affirmed that man was only juſtified by Faith. He denied the Supper of our Lord to be a ſacrifice, &c.
6. He departed himſelf from all the Chriſtian Churches in Europe, in the Indies, and other places, and therefore he had no predeceſſors of his own Religion, as we read in the Apologie of the Engliſh Proteſtants, that he and Zuinglius were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Evangel, and therefore none immediatly before them.
Then ſeeing that there was none of his profeſſion in the earth before him immediatly, neither viſible nor inviſible, he and his could not be the Church of Chriſt: for it hath ever ſtood, and never failed, no not the ſpace of one day univerſally, becauſe our Savior ſaith, I ſhal be with you every day to the conſummation of the world.
M. John Welſch his Reply.
As to your collection, the form of it muſt be this. That Church only muſt be the true Church that hath never been interrupted, nor failed in any ſubſtantial head of faith and Religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles. But ſay ye, yours is ſuch, and ours not: Therefore your Church is the true Church, and ours not. The propoſition I grant. But all the controverſie lyes in the probation of your aſſumption. Yea, in ſtead of proving, ye ſay it is not poſſible to me, nor to no Miniſter in Scotland to aſſign to you the circumſtances of all mutations and changes in your Religion, as the perſon, time, place, &c. And then ye attempt to aſſign all theſe circumſtances of our Religion, upon the which ye conclud the falſehood of it. So we will firſt ſee how ye prove your own, and then ſee how ye diſprove ours. Indeed this argument of yours is of ſuch account with you, that there are not many of your Writers, but they have ſet it, as it were, in the vant-guard of their hoſt, and among the greateſt of their ſtrengths and bulwarks, for to uphold their ruinous Babel. So Hammilton and Hay, in their demands to the Miniſters of Scotland, ſo Campion, ſo Duraeus Scotus againſt Whitaker in his defence, ſo your Rhemiſts upon the 28. of the Acts, and on 1. John 2. and ſo Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eccleſ. cap. 5. Whereby it may be ſeen of what account this argument of yours is in the judgement of your Church.
But to anſwer to your argument: firſt, I ſay, If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles, then your Religion and doctrine will be one with that which is ſet down in the Scripture of God. For you will not deny, I hope, but the Scripture doth ſufficiently teſtifie, what doctrine and Religion was in Chriſts and his Apoſtles dayes. And ſo let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture, and tryed thereby, and then I hope it will ſoon be made manifeſt how far it is changed. So, and you dare, M. Gilbert, let once your Religion be ſet upon the pannel, and let it once have an aſſiſe of the Scripture, and then the plea will end, I hope.
Next, I ſay, it will not follow, We cannot aſſign all the circumſtances of changes in your Religion: Therefore your Religion is uncorrupted. For it ſuffiſeth if we can prove the firſt only, that is, the matter or doctrine it ſelf which is changed, and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God, ſuppoſe we could not aſſign all the reſt of the circumſtances of the mutation, as the time, place, author, &c. for the changes of many things are moſt notorious and yet all the circumſtances of the change thereof not known. We ſay then, it is not needful to ſeek the beginnings and circumſtances of the decays and corruptions in your Church, when the corruption and change it ſelf is ſo manifeſt, by comparing your doctrine with the written Word of God, that it cannot be denyed. For will you ſay, that he who is deadly diſeaſed, is whole and ſound, becauſe I cannot tell you the firſt article of time, the place, and firſt occaſion of the diſeaſe? When it is manifeſt that a city is full of miſorder and confuſion, will ye ſay that ye will not believe it to be ſo, unleſs you know the firſt beginnings and progreſs of theſe miſorders? If you ſaw a ruinous houſe, would ye ſay, Prove me and tell me all the circumſtances of the change of it, otherwiſe I will not believe it? Will ye deny that a ſhip could be drowned, unleſs it were told you all the circumſtances of the change of the leck where through it drowned? If any found a man fallen in a pit, ſhal he not believe that he is fallen whom nevertheleſs he ſees to be there, unleſs it were told him, when and by whom he was caſt into the ſame? Even ſo will ye not believe, or will ye hinder all others to believe, that your Church and Religion is ruinous conſumed, rotten, dead, drowned, and full of miſorder, hereſie, and confuſion, unleſs the firſt beginnings of theſe changes can be told you? We ſay therefore it is ſufficient to prove the ruine and conſumption of your Church and Religion, if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the Scripture, we make evident the direct oppoſition betwixt them, ſuppoſe we could not aſſign all the circumſtances of the change of it out of the hiſtories, leaving it free to Hiſtoriographers to write what they pleaſe, and omit what they pleaſe.
Thirdly, it is manifeſt, that the Church of the Jewes in the time of Chriſt was changed both in doctrine and manners from that eſtat that it was in the time of Aaron, Eleazar, and ſundry others: and alſo the Churches of Galatia and Corinth, that they were changed from the eſtat wherein they were. And yet I ſuppoſe that neither ye, nor any Papiſt in the earth, is able to aſſign to me all the circumſtances of the mutations and changes in the ſame, as the firſt authors, time, place, &c. and yet there was a great change in doctrine and Religion in all theſe Churches, as hath been proved before. And we read that our Savior and the Apoſtles, convicted them of a change, and yet they deſigned not the firſt authors, time, and place, &c. The like I ſay of the Church of Greece, Aſia and Africa, which in number exceeds yours. That there is a wonderful change in their Church and Religion, ye will not deny, or elſe your Religion is hereſie: For (as ſaid is) they acknowledge not your Popes ſupremacy, tranſubſtantiation, &c. And yet I ſuppoſe, ye nor no Papiſt in the earth, is able to aſſign all the circumſtances of changes in their Church and Religion which they have preſently: yea, more unable to do this, then we are able to do the ſame in yours. I mean not the hereſies of Arrius, Samoſatenus, Neſtorius, Eutyches, Sergius, and the reſt, which long ago were damned by the Councils of the Greek Churches. (For I ſuppoſe ye ſhal not be able to prove that they now maintain theſe hereſies which they condemned and refuted long ago.) But I mean of the preſent errors and corruptions in their worſhip and Religion which now they maintain and profeſs. If then ye judge the Churches of the Eaſt heretical, becauſe they are not agreeable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome, and yet not be able to aſſign the circumſtances of the changes and mutations of the ſame, will ye not grant the ſame liberty to us, to account and judge your Church and Religion failed, becauſe it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, ſet down in the Scripture, ſuppoſe we could not aſſign to you the circumſtances of the changes of the ſame?
Fourthly, I ſay, if you have read Epiphanius, there ye ſhal find many hereſies, which I omit for ſhortneſs, which he accounts hereſies, whoſe beginnings and authors are unknown.
Fifthly, there is ſuch an univerſal complaint of the monſtrous abominations & decays in your Religion, diſcipline, and manners, and that by your own Councils, Concil. Conſtant. ſeſſ. 4. 5. Trident. ſeſſ. 6. Baſil. ſeſſ. 2. 3. Fathers, Bernard. in Cant. 33. Popes, Cardinals, and Friers, that I would have thought it uncredible, unleſs I had read them, that either your own mouthes ſhould have ſo condemned your ſelves, or elſe that the poſterity afterward ſhould have been ſo ſhameleſs as to have boaſted of the purity of their Church and Religion. Therefore the Council of Trent hath proclaimed it to the world in writ, that the Church hath need to be reformed in the head and members. Now, I ask that of you concerning theſe abuſes in diſcipline and manners, which ye ask of us concerning your doctrine. Show me all the circumſtances of mutation and change diſtinctly, if ye can, what time, what place, by what author, &c. ſuch monſtrous abominations firſt brake in in your Church and Religion? Now ſeeing there is no man who hath a ſpark of judgement, that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and diſcipline in your Church, and yet the circumſtances of the changes unknown: think ye then that ye ſhal aſſure men that no changes could fall in your doctrine, unleſs we knew the circumſtances of the changes of the ſame?
Sixthly, the Scripture teſtifies, Matth. 13.27.28 that even the tares which is the evil ſeed, doth not appear ſo ſoon as they are ſown; and that neither the times, nor the firſt author of them was known, no not to the moſt diligent laborers of the Lords ground at the firſt: and yet it was enough to know them to be evil ſeed, by the difference that was ſeen betwixt them and the good ſeed, ſuppoſe the time, place and author was unknown at the firſt. So it is proof enough againſt your doctrine, that it is but tares, if the difference be made manifeſt between it and the Lords truth in the Scripture, ſuppoſe the circumſtances of the changes of it cannot be aſſigned.
Seventhly, error is likened to leaven and a canker, which doth not all at once infect the whole maſs, and feſter the whole body, but piece and piece: ſo your corruption came not in all at once, but piece and piece infected your Church, and feſtered your Religion. And therefore it is no wonder ſuppoſe the beginnings of infection and circumſtances of it hath not been marked: For if they had broken in all at once, and ſuddenly overthrown the whole Church, it had been no difficulty to have aſſigned the circumſtances of the overthrow of it. For if any having a whole conſtitution with a ſtroke were ſlain, if a ſhip with a wave were drowned, it were no difficulty to aſſign the circumſtances of the ſudden changes. But in a conſumption, and in a leck that hath come in piece and piece in the body and in the ſhip, the beginnings thereof cannot be ſo eaſily perceived: For a little leck in proceſs of time will ſink a great ſhip. And if it be ſo hard to diſcern the beginnings of theſe things which our ſenſes may grope, how much more hard is it to perceive the beginnings of theſe ſpiritual corruptions which cannot be perceived by the natural man, but only by the light of Gods Spirit by the ſpiritual man?
Eightly, if now it be ſo in other hereſies, as the Scripture teſtifies of them, that their beginnings are ofttimes unknown, even unto the moſt diligent laborers of the Lords husbandrie, and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once, how much more is this true in your Antichriſtian Religion, which (as it was fore-told) ſhould deceive all Nations, and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication? And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture, an iniquitie, but a ſecret iniquitie: an unrighteouſneſs, but yet a deceivable unrighteouſneſs: a deluſion, but yet a ſtrong deluſion, 2. Theſſ. an abomination and ſpiritual fornication, Rev. 17. but yet put in a golden cup; that is, having the ſhow of godlineſs and Religion; and your Church is called, a harlot, but yet finely decked in purple, &c. not like a harlot, but a Queen. Your Kingdō is called, a beaſt that ſpeaks like the dragon, but yet like the lamb in his horns, reſembling the power and authority of the Lord Jeſus. Seeing then your Church, Kingdom and Doctrine, is ſuch a myſtery of iniquity; hath ſuch a ſhow of godlineſs, hath ſuch a reſemblance with the lamb, hath ſuch clokes of ſtyles, is ſo deceivable, and is ſuch a ſtrong deluſion, as the Scripture teſtifies of it: Is it any wonder, ſuppoſe the beginnings of this myſtery, and of the whoredoms of this Queen, be not diſtinctly marked and ſet down?
Ninthly, it is likely enough that the great credit wherein the firſt Biſhops of Rome was for their piety and godlineſs, and the lofty eſtat of their ſucceſſors after them, together with their cruelty and tyranny, did ſo dazel on the one ſide the eyes of the godly, that they were not inquiſitive in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions, and ſo bridled the mouthes of other ſome, that they durſt not write the things they ſaw; and if they writ any thing, they writ it but barely and corruptly; for the tyranny of your Church was ſuch, that none durſt mutter againſt your Church and Religion, but he was taken without further as an heretick, and condemned and executed where ever your tyranny reached.
Laſt of all, ſuppoſe they had been written by the Hiſtories of every age, and that diſtinctly; yet conſidering the univerſal power, craft and policy of your Church and Kingdom, is it any wonder ſuppoſe they be not now extant at all, but either burnt, or elſe ſo falſified and corrupted, that the beginnings thereof ſhould not have been perceived? For ſeeing in the purer times, when the power and dominion of your Church was not yet come to the hight, ſuch was the ambition and falſhood of your Popes, that in the preſence of a Council of 217. Biſhops in Carthage, anno 430. where Augustin was preſent, they did alledge a falſe Canon of the Council of Nice, for to have eſtabliſhed their ſupremacy, and under one of their hands ſent it to the Council by their Legats; the which was eſpyed and found out by the whole Council, that not only it was decreed and ordained in that Council he ſhould have no prerogative over the Churches of Africk, and that none ſhould appeal to him under the pain of depoſition and excommunication: but al…o he was rebuked by the Fathers of that Council in their letters to him. If he was ſo bold then, what marvel ſuppoſe ſince he hath falſified and corrupted every Hiſtory and Writing that he ſaw might bear any wayes witneſs of the corruptions, tyrannies and abominations of that Church and Religion of his? And hence it is, I am ſure, that we find ſo little written of the beginnings of their corruptions, and of them that reſiſted it. And your Index expurgatorius, deviſed in the Council of Trent, for blotting out every thing in the writings of men that might teſtifie of your corruptions, doth alſo ſufficiently witneſs unto the world what ye did in the former times. So, to conclud this, ſuppoſe we could not aſſign to you the circumſtances of the changes of your Religion, yet it follows not but your Religion and Church may be corrupted and decayed.
But to ſatisfie your demand (ſuppoſe I hope the things already ſaid, will ſatisfie the conſciences of the godly) What crave you, that all the circumſtances of changes in your Religion may be aſſigned to you? Firſt then, I ſay, there is nothing that may ſerve either to make the man of God w…ſe unto ſalvation, or yet that may make him perfect in every good work, but the Scripture teſtifies: For it is able to do both theſe. If theſe circumſtances then ſerve either for ſalvation or perfection, I ſay they are ſet down in the Scripture, ſo that we need not to go to Hiſtories to ſearch the ſame.
The firſt then ye crave, is the time when the change began. The Scripture tells you, That the myſtery of iniquity began to work even then in the Apoſtles days, and that it doth already work, and ſo grew on from degree to degree, till he that withheld it was removed; that is, till the Empire of Rome began to decay, and the ſeat of it removed from thence, as the Fathers expounded it, Auguſtin, Chryſoſtome, Jerome, and ſo the city left to the Pope, the man of ſin, for him to ſet his throne there: for Rome that ſeven hilled City, Rev. 17 9 behoved to be the ſeat of the Antichriſt, as it was fore told by the Scripture. So, if you will believe the Scripture, you have the time.
What crave you next? The place? I ſay the Scripture teſtifieth of the ſame, that that mystical Babylon, which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap 2. Rev. 17. your chief champion, grants to be Rome, that ſits upon ſ…ven hills, that had the dominion over the Kings of the earth; that is the place where firſt your Church and Religion began to decay. So there the place, if you will believe the Scripture.
What crave you next? The author? The Scripture alſo hath fore told, That the beast that came out of the bottomleſs pit, and ſlew the witneſſes of God, and made war with the Saints, and overcame them, and made all to worſhip the image of the beaſt and the harlot Babel (the city of Rome) the mother of whoredoms, who made all Nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, Rev. 12 7. and 14.8. That is your head and Church, they are the authors and mothers of this decay and corruption.
What is the fourth thing ye require? The Church that ſaid againſt the ſame? The Scripture will tell you that too: The two witneſſes of God whom ſhe killed, the woman that fled in the wilderneſs, the Saints with whom ſhe made war, and who would not worſhip the beaſt, nor receive his image; the hundred forty and four thouſand that John ſaw ſtanding with the Lamb on mount Sion, who was not defiled with your idolatry, but followed the Lamb whith…rſoever he went, Rev. 11. and 12 and 13. and 14. Theſe then are the true Church which ſpake againſt your corruptions, who are like unto Eliahs ſeven thouſand that had not bowed their knees to Baal.
What crave you more? The matter it ſelf they ſaid againſt? The Scripture, and ye will believe, will ſatisfie you in this point alſo. The doctrine then that was ſaid againſt, Was the myſtery of iniquity, that deceivableneſs of unrighteouſneſs, that ſtrong deluſion, 1. Theſſ. 2 Rev. 13. That doctrine of the dragon, that ſpiritual idolatrie and abomination, Rev. 17.18. That doctrine of Devils, in forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence of meat, &c. 1. Tim. 4.
What crave you laſt? The number from whom they departed? The Scripture will alſo bear witneſs of this, ſeeing your Religion is a departure from the faith, 1. Theſſ. 2. then all theſe that ever profeſſed the faith of Jeſus ſet down in his written Word, even the Lord Jeſus the head, the Apoſtles, the layers of the foundation, the primitive Churh, the woman that fled in the wilderneſs, the Saints with whom ye made war, and all the elect and choſen of God that abhorred your idolatrie. Theſe are the true Churches from whom you departed.
What now crave you more? Will not the abundance of the rivers of the Scriptures of God quench and ſatisfie this your deſire, but that you muſt go unto the unpure fountains of mens writings, as though the Scriptures were not ſufficient, not only to make a man wiſe unto ſalvation, but to make him perfect in every thing? Theſe things, I am ſure, will ſatisfie the ſouls of them that love the truth. But becauſe you give no credit to the Scriptures, but counts them as a noſe of wax; and as one of your Popes, ſpeaking to Bembus a Cardinal, called them a fable of Chriſt, and yet ſuch a fable as hath inriched your treaſures And Sylveſter Prierias writing againſt Luther, ſaith, That the Roman Church and Pope is of greater authority then the Scriptures. O horrible blaſphemies of the holy truth of God. Therefore we will go to the Hiſtories, and ſee what they have teſtified of theſe circumſtances. And although all things here be not expreſſed to the full, yet there is ſo much left uncorrupted and unſcraped out (by the gracious providence of God, that would not want his witneſs in all ages) out of the Fathers, and your own Writers, that I hope will ſatisfie the conſciences of all the modeſt and godly. Clemens Alexandrinus ſaith, lib. 1. ſtrom. that the Apostles ſucceſſors received the doctrine from them, as the ſons from their fathers. But he ſubjoyns, That there was very few children that was like their fathers. Aegeſippus, as Nicephorus reports, ſaith, lib. 3. cap. 16. That the Church remained a pure virgin as long as the Apoſtles lived, unto Trajans time; but they being dead, he writes that it was ſpeedily corrupted. So if ye credit the teſtimonies of theſe men, ye ſee the Church remaineth not long in her integrity. And if you would hear any thing of your Roman Church, Socrates lib. 7. cap. 11. ſaith, That Celeſtin your Pope past the bounds of his Priesthood. Read Baſilius de Spiritu ſancto, cap. ult. and there ye may ſee what change of Religion was in his time. Auguſtin teſtifies, epiſt. 119. c. 19. That the multitude of ceremonies grew ſo in his time, that the condition of the Jews ſeemed to be more tollerable, then the condition of the Church. Now did not this ſickneſs, ſuppoſe ye, grow by time? And to come to your own Writers, Bernard ſaith, in Cant. 33. That the Ministers of Chriſt (meaning of the Roman Church) ſerves Antichrist. And to the Pope himſelf, Eugenius the 3. he ſaith, lib. 4. And thou the ſhepherd goeth forth being clothed with a glorious attyr, if I durſt ſay it: theſe are the feeding places of Devils, rather then of ſheep: Thy court is accuſtomed rather to receive good men, then to make them good: not the evil profits, but the good decays there. And in another place, he ſaith, From the ſole of the foot (ſpeaking of the Church of Rome) to the crown of the head there is no health nor ſoundneſs. And de conv. Pauli, Pſal. 91. ſer. 6. he ſaith, What remains now (ſpeaking of the corruption of that Church of Rome) but that the man of ſin be revealed, the man of perdition, Daemonium non modò diurnum, ſed & meridianum; that is, a devilry not only in the day-tyde, but in the very noon-tyde. And lib. 4. to Eugenius the Pope, he ſaith, In theſe ſecular attyrs and powers, thou haſt not ſucceeded to Peter, but to Conſtantine. The day would ſooner fail me, then the writing of his complaints againſt the Church of Rome.
Pope Adrian the 6. in his inſtructions to his Legats who were ſent to the Council of Noremberg, he grants and bids them ſay to the Council, That we know that in this chair (meaning Peters Sea in Rome) for certain years many abominable things have been in it: the abuſe in ſpiritual things, the exceſs in commandments; and in a word, all things are changed in a worſe. And the Council of the Cardinals to Paul the third: they ſay, Out of this fountain (holy Father) as from the Troyan horſe, hath broken ſo many abuſes in the Church of God, ſuch heavy diſeaſes, whereby we ſee now that ſhe is deſpaired almoſt of health. Aeneas Sylvius a Cardinal, who alſo was Pope afterward, ſaith of your Church, That all faith hath periſhed in her, and love is grown yce-cold. And Cornelius Bitontinus Biſhop, who was preſent at the Council of Trent, ſaith; Would to God (ſpeaking of your Church) that unanimes velut prorſus, &c. all with one heart all utterly they had not declined from Religion to ſuperſtition, from Faith to infidelity, from Chriſt to Antichriſt, (What would ye have more? Will ye yet be ſo ſhameleſs as to boaſt of the purity of your Church?) and from God to Epicuriſm: ex Epiſtola 54 ad Caſpar. Schlick Oratio Cornelii Epiſ Bitonti. 3. Dom. advent. I leave the reſt, as Platin, Genebrard, Frier Mantuan, Nicolaus Clemangis, Franciſcus Petrarcha, Aventinus, and a number of others, who are full of complaints of the abominations of your Church of Rome, that certainly I cānot but wonder at your ſhameleſneſs in opening of your mouth, and ſaying, That your Church had the truth in all things, and never failed nor was interrupted, againſt ſuch a cloud of witneſſes, whoſe teſtimonies ye dare not refuſe. But I leave you to the Lord. The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord, Prov. 20 So your own mouthes ſhal riſe up in the day of the Lord and condemn you that ſaith, Your Church hath not failed in any ſubſtantial point of Religion. But you require more diſtinctly the time, place, and perſons, &c. that hath brought in this mutation and change. If theſe are to be accounted authors of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders thereof; then I ſay, the Popes of Rome (for the moſt part) are the authors of the ſame; for they were the chief defenders thereof, ſuppoſe they had not been the firſt teachers thereof. For otherwiſe Luther cannot be ſaid to be the author of our Religion, as ye ſay, becauſe he was not the firſt that taught the ſame, and that by your own confeſſion. For ye ſay, that ſundry other hereticks before Luther taught the ſame heads of doctrine which he taught, and which we profeſs now: as that faſting ſhould be free, that only faith juſtifieth, that man hath not free will, &c.
Next, becauſe it were too longſome to go through the whole heads of your Religion, therefore I will only bring a few examples, and that in ſome of the ſubſtantial points thereof. As for the ſacrifice of the Maſs, and the ceremonies thereof. I have ſhown the authors thereof in another place, therefore I omit that now.
The firſt that ever took upon him to exerciſe juriſdiction over the Churches of the Eaſt, was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who took upon him to excommunicat the Biſhops of the Eaſt, becauſe they would not follow his faſhion in the celebration of Eaſter. There the perſon, time, and place, reſiſted by Irenaeus Biſhop of Lions in France, and the Biſhops of the Eaſt, and the brethren there, Polycarpus and ſundrie others, Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. 25.26.
The firſt that took upon him the ſtyle to be called Univerſal Biſhop, was the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, anno 581. reſiſted by Pelagius, and after him by Gregorius Biſhops of Rome, lib. 4. epiſtola 32.38 39. And yet for all this, Boniface the 3. anno 607. obtained this ſtyle of Phocas the Emperor, the murtherer of his predeceſſor, Platina Sabellicus, Marianus Scotus, complained of by the Church of Ravenna in Italie, and reſiſted by ſundrie, as ſhal be proved afterwards.
The firſt that appointed laws of faſting, was Montanus the heretick, anno 145. Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. 17. accounted hereſie by Apolonius and Auguſtine, againſt the faſting of the Manicheans. The Manicheans were the firſt we read of that miniſtred the Communion under one kind, as the Papiſts do now: ſo forth of many other old condemned hereſies which your Church hath renewed, as ſhal be proved afterward.
The firſt that gave the riſe to Tranſubſtantiation, was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his inchantment, having firſt cauſed a cup of white wine to bear the color of blood, made his followers believe that by his invocation over it, that grace which is above all things, had powred his blood into the cup, refuted by Epiphanius, Haereſ. 34. and Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 8.
The firſt that decreed Tranſubſtantiation in effect, was Pope Nicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in cauſing Berengarius to recant, De conſecrat. Diſtinct. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius. but yet it was not decreed as an univerſal doctrine, before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a Council of Lateran anno 1215. as Tonſtal witneſſes, de Sacramenta. The Greek Church never conſented to it: Bertramus, Berengarius, Waldenſis, withſtood it. The firſt that decreed the worſhipping of Images, was Hadrian in the 2. Council of Nice, againſt the expreſs Scripture, after the example of Marcellina an heretick, who worſhipped the Image of Jeſus, reſiſted by ſundry Fathers, and Councils, Concil. Eliber. Concil. Conſtant. Conc. Francof. The firſt that impoſed ſingle life, and condemned marriage in their Clergy, was Pope Syricius, anno 290. diſtinct. 82. cap. Propoſuiſti. as the Manichees did before him, reſiſted by ſundrie, Sigebert. & H. Mutius. Let theſe examples ſerve as a taſte to the reader.
How ſtronglie now ye have manned and fortified your own Church and Religion by your proofs, let the reader judge. Now let us ſee, how ye diſprove ours. The queſtion now comes in of the truth of our Church and Religion, whither it be from Jeſus Chriſt, or not? You ſay, it is not from him, but from others ſince his time. If ye had gone the ſtraight way to have proved this, and to have ſatisfied the conſciences of men, you would at the neareſt have run to the Scripture, and by the ſame have diſproved it. But you in ſtead of this go a far by-way, and would father our Religion on fleſh and blood, duſt and aſhes, in pointing us out Martin Luther to be the father and author of the ſame, as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon unto, nor had not the beginning and foundation of it from the root of Jeſſe, the bud of the Lord, from whom it hath ſprung. And for to get your ſelf the better credit, you buſie your ſelf in marking the circumſtances of his preaching, as time, place, matter, oppoſition, &c. Now that ye are ſo skilled and acquainted with that hiſtory of Martin Luther, that you can aſſign all theſe circumſtances, it is no wonder, for that was the moſt notable and remarkable period of the decaying of your Babel, and of the erecting up again of the Kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt, which your head and Clergy had ſtamped under foot for ſo many years; which ſuppoſe the beginning of it was but like a little leaven, and as a grain of muſtard ſeed which of all ſeeds is the leaſt, yet now ſince it hath ſo ſowred almoſt the whole maſs, even the moſt part of the Kingdoms of Europe, which once was under your ſpiritual bondage, and hath grown up into ſuch a high tree having fair and great branches, under the which the Lords ſheep may get reſt and warmneſs, and in the which his ſouls that mounts upwards to that Kingdom, doth build their neſts, ſo that neither can all your purgations, nor yet all your axes of fire and ſword, of buls and pardons, of preachings and writings, ſtay the ſpreading of the one, nor cut down the branches and root of the other. That M. Luther began at that time, and in that place, and preached againſt theſe doctrines, we do not deny, and that is not controverted: But here lyes all the queſtion, whither if that doctrine that he preached againſt, was Antichriſtian or not? and whither that Religion which he neither invented, nor yet firſt preached (for ſundry before him did preach that ſame doctrine, whoſe names I ſet down in my anſwer to your objection) but only raiſed it out of the grave of darkneſs wherein ye had buried the truth of God? Here then, I ſay, is the queſtion whither that Religion which he preached hath the warrant from Jeſus Chriſt in his Teſtament, or not? The which if ye ever diſprove by the written Word of God, then ſhal we grant you all that ye ſay, the which is as impoſſible to you to do, no not ſuppoſe your King would call all your wiſe men and Clergy together, as it was to all the wiſe men of Babel, to tell and interpret Nebuchadnezar his dream: yea ſuppoſe your King would reward you gloriouſly with honor and riches if ye could do it, yet are ye not able to win your wages: yea, ſuppoſe he would tear you in pieces, and make your houſe a jakes, unleſs ye did it, as the wiſe men of Babel was, becauſe they could not tell and interpret the Kings dream. This is therefore the point which lyes in queſtion betwixt us, which ye ſhould have proved, if ye could. But know ye for a truth; that ſuppoſe he raiſed out of the grave the truth of God which ye had buried, yet was he neither the inventer, nor the firſt preacher of it: but it hath for the beginning and Author of it, Jeſus Chriſt the Son of God, and the foundation of it in the New Teſtament of his holy Scripture. This for the Author, time, and place which ye aſſign.
Now, to the Churches that ſpake againſt him. I anſwer, They were but ſuch as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication, and deluded by your ſtrong deluſions, being deceived by the golden cup, wherein you propined them to be drunken out, as it was propheſied of you, Rev. 17.4. But the meaſure of your iniquity being full, and the time of the lurking of the truth of God being run out. God of his infinit mercy by his miniſtery, and the reſt that followed ſince, hath opened the eyes of a great part of theſe Kingdoms who firſt ſaid againſt him, to ſee your Church to be the whore, Rev. 17.1. your Kingdom to be the beast, Rev. 13.11. and your head to be the Antichriſt, your doctrine to be deluſions, 2. Theſſ. 2.3.4.11. and your Rome to be that myſtical Babylon, Rev. 18 4. And ſo the Lord hath made them believe, and give obedience to that commandment of his, Go out of her, my people, &c. That ye call theſe the true Church that ſpake againſt him, that lyes in the weights and ballance yet betwixt us: For ere ye prove them to be the true Church, ye muſt firſt prove your doctrine which they then profeſſed to have the warrant out of the Word of God. So let them have the name of a Church, but of an impure and corrupted Church: of a Church infected by the peſt of your doctrine, oppreſſed by the tyranny of your Pope and Clergy, and conſumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatry. So then, it was not the true Church, that is, the called ones by the light of the Goſpel (for they are the true Church that ſpake againſt him) but only theſe that were infected and poyſoned with your abominations, the which, I grant, did over-ſpread theſe Nations, as it was fore-told of her, Rev. 17.2. and 18.3. and 13.14.
And as for theſe firſt heads of Religion which he oppugned: Of your pardons, juſtification by works, and the ſacrifice of the Maſs, their condemnation is ſet down in the great Regiſter and Teſtament of Jeſus Chriſt the Lord of life, as ſhal be proved hereafter. So that he was not the firſt that oppugned them.
Now as to the laſt, the Churches from whom he departed: he departed not from their body, but from the conſumption of your hereſie that conſumed the body: Not from the Church, but from the corruptions of your Idolatry and abominations in the Church. Not from the Commonwealth of Iſrael, but from your tyranny and oppreſſion of the Commonwealth. Not from the city of God, but from the peſt of your doctrine that infected the city. And laſt of all, not from the ſpiritual communion and ſociety of the Saints of God in theſe parts, but from the communion with Babel, with Antichriſt, with the beaſt, and with the dragon, and that at the commandment of the Lord, Flie from idolatry; Go out of Babel, my people. 1. Tim. 6.3.4.5. Matth. 7.15. Acts 19. and 8.9. 1. Cor. 10.14. 2. Cor. 5.14.15.16.17.18. Hoſea 4.15. Rev. 18.4.
Now after you have aſſigned the mutations of our Religion ſince Chriſt and his Apoſtles (as you think) you gather the whole force of it together, and makes the ſtream of your argument to run as ſtrongly as it can upon our Church and Religion, that the face and form of it might be ſo waſhen away, that it be not known to be a true Church. Your reaſon then is this. The true Church of Chriſt hath never failed univerſally for the ſpace of one day, becauſe our Savior hath promiſed to be with it to the end of the world. But our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes: therefore it is not the true Church of Chriſt.
As to your propoſition, if ye take failing for erring in matters of doctrine, then I deny your propoſition; for I hope I have proved ſufficiently before, that the Church both may err and hath erred in all ages. But if you take failing to be utterly aboliſhed and rooted out of the face of the earth, then I grant your propoſition, that God hath ever a Church, the Church of his elect, with whom he will be to the end of the world. And as to your aſſumption, that our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes, I deny it. Let us ſee how ye prove it. There was none (ſay ye) before his dayes, neither viſible nor inviſible that profeſſed his Religion. But how do ye prove that, for that is ſtill denied to you? For if your Religion hath the Old and New Teſtament to bear witneſs to it, and Jeſus Chriſt to be the author of it in every point, (as ſhal be made manifeſt by the grace of God) then I ſay whoſoever they were from the beginning of the world to this day, viſible or inviſible, that profeſſed the true Jeſus, the true Savior, his true doctrine and Sacraments wherein Religion ſtands, they are our predeceſſors, and are of our profeſſion and Religion: ſo then ye ſhould firſt (if ye had gone ſquarely to work) have diſproved the heads of our Religion, not to have their warrant from the tables of Chriſts Teſtament, ere ye had concluded that we had none of our profeſſion and Religion before Martin Luther. And this is the point you ſhould have begun at, for it is not the Church that makes the Religion, but the Religion that makes the Church. Have we a warrant out of the Word of God for our Religion, then are we the true Church, and the ſucceſſors of all them who ever from the beginning of the world have profeſſed the ſame. Have we not this warrant then, I grant you we have no true Church. So there is the point of our controverſie, whither our doctrine be from God, out of his Word, or not? But how prove ye that Martin Luther had none of his profeſſion before him?
Firſt, you gathered upon the former things that all the true Churches ſaid againſt him, and that he departed from them: unto the which I anſwered before, that theſe was not the true Church, but only ſo many of every Nation who was deceived by your doctrine, and whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his miniſtery, and by the miniſtery of others whom the Lord did ſtir up ſince, ſo that neither did the true Church who ſaw the truth, ſpeak againſt, nor yet did he depart from their ſocietie.
Next, as the Lord had a true Church in Iſrael in the time of Elias, even theſe who did not bow their knee to Baal, 1. Kings 19 10.18. who was neither known to Elias the Prophet, nor yet to the perſecuters: ſo did the Lord in the midſt of your darkneſs and Idolatry, reſerve to himſelf a true Church, even theſe hundred forty and four thouſand which John ſaw ſtanding with the Lamb on mount Sion. Rev. 14 1. who did not defile themſelves with your Idolatry, and did not worſhip the beaſt, and receive his mark: which ſuppoſe neither ye nor we had known, yet the Lord did reſerve them as he promiſed.
Thirdly, I ſay Martin Luther had ſundry who profeſſed his Religion immediatly before him, who was even known to the world, as I ſhal prove afterward.
Your next proof is taken from a teſtimony of one of our own Writers, where ye alledge that it is written of Martin Luther and Zuinglius, that they were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Goſpel. I ſay ye are not faithful in citing of this teſtimony for it ſaith not that they were the firſt that came to the knowledge of the Goſpel, but theſe are the words, That it was an eaſie thing to them (meaning of your Church) to deviſe againſt us (meaning the Engliſh Proteſtants, as ye call them) theſe curſed ſpeaches, when Martin Luther and Zuinglius firſt came to the Goſpel. The Latin words are cum Martinus Luther & Zuinglius primum acceſſiſſent ad Evangelium. So it ſaith not, that they were the firſt that came to the Goſpel, but that it was eaſie to you to ſpew out curſed ſpeaches when they came firſt to the Goſpel. So that this word primum, that is, firſt, is not in compariſon with them that knew the Goſpel before, but in compariſon with that time in the which they themſelves knew not the Goſpel. It is an adverb of time, and you take it for an adjective noun. But there is a vail over your eyes, that ye can neither ſee what we or your ſelves writes. So then to conclud, ſeeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught, hath the warrant from Chriſts Teſtament; and ſeeing all that ever profeſſed the true Religion that hath Chriſt to be the author of it in his Scripture, viſible or inviſible, are his predeceſſors: Therefore the Religion which Martin Luther taught was the true Religion. And ſeeing your Religion hath not Chriſt to be the author of it in his latter Teſtament, but is that apoſtaſie and defection, that Antichriſtian Kingdom that was fore-ſpoken of in the Scripture: Therefore I conclud, that your Church and Religion which he oppugned, is not the true Church and Religion, but that Antichriſtian Kingdom. And this for the firſt part of your objection. Now we come to the ſecond.
M. Gilbert Brown.
As for the other part of the objection which he alledges to be ours; that is, that our Religion was never ſaid againſt, we ſay not ſo: for why all hereticks, and others infected with falſe doctrine, have ever ſaid againſt the ſame, almoſt at all times. For how ſoon that Chriſt our Savior planted the truth, the Devil immediatly ſew popple in the ſame, according to the parable ſet down in S. Matthew.
M. John Welſch his Reply.
I come now to that part which ye ſay is untruly alledged of you, which moved you to ſay, that either I knew not your proofs, or if I knew them, that I altered the ſame that I might the better oppugn my own invention. Of my knowledge of your proofs, I will ſpeak nothing. But let us ſee whither this be my invention or not, or rather your own proof. You, for the confirmation of the truth of your Church and Religion, brought in this as a proof, that I, nor no Miniſter in Scotland, was able to aſſign the true Church that ſpake againſt it. Either then ye prove nothing, or elſe this muſt be one of your proofs, becauſe it was never ſpoken againſt by a true Church. Now compare theſe words with mine, and ſee whither I ſpeak ignorantly or untruly of your proofs. I ſaid, that ye affirmed your Religion to be true, becauſe it was never ſpoken againſt. Here our words are one, except this that ye add (be a true Church.) I underſtand the ſame; and therefore I gave the inſtances: firſt, of Chriſt and his Apoſtles: next, of the primitive Church: thirdly, of theſe that lived in Popery, which ſpake againſt your Religion: all which I appeal your conſcience, whither think ye that I judge them a true Church or not? Now in that ye expound it otherwiſe of hereticks, this is neither my words nor meaning, but your own invention. So that by this it may appear, that either ye have not underſtood my words alledging your objection, or elſe ye have altered the meaning of the ſame, that ye might the more eaſily anſwer to your own inventions, and gain-ſay my words.
M. John Welſch his Anſwer to the objection.
Your Religion of the Roman Church was never inſtiſtituted, nor preached, neither by Chriſt, nor by his Apoſtles, as I offer me to prove by their writings: which is the only touchſtone whereby all Religion ſhould be and muſt be tryed.
M. Gilbert Brown.
I think in this M. John takes upon him an impoſſibility; for it is ſaid that it is impoſſible to prove a negative propoſition, except it be ſet down in the Word of God, which is of authority: and that I am ſure he cannot find, becauſe Papiſtry by him is not ſo old as the Word of God is. But in the mean time M. John proves nothing. He offers very fair, and when ever he proves any thing contrary to us, with Gods grace he ſhal get an anſwer. And note here, that M. John can ſay nothing to our argument, for to it he gives no anſwer.
M. John Welſch his Reply.
In your anſwer to this Section: Firſt, ye think it impoſſible, becauſe of the form of it. Next, ye ſay it is but an offer, and I prove nothing. Thirdly, that I anſwer nothing to your argument, nor can anſwer nothing. Now of all theſe in order. And firſt to the form: ye think it impoſſible to prove, becauſe it is a negative propoſition. Is not this a negative propoſition, that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichriſt? You cannot deny it. Again, I ask is this ſentence to be found in the whole Scripture? I ſuppoſe ye will never be able to find it. Then, I ſay, if it be true that ye ſay, then ye your ſelf in your book, and this your anſwer, and Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Sanderus 40. demonſtrations, and all the reſt of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichriſt, takes in hand, in your judgement, an impoſſibility (and ſo do you indeed; not becauſe it is a negative propoſition, but becauſe he is the Antichriſt in very truth.) What would the Pope your head think of you, if he heard you ſay ſo? Certainly, I think he would not inrol your name among the defenders of his Catholick faith, whereof this is the foundation.
Secondly, is there not many formal ſyllogiſms that have the propoſition or aſſumption negatives; and will you ſay they cannot be proved if the matter be true, becauſe they are negatives? What is this but to raiſe the foundation of Logick and Raiſon? Logick is not Rhetorick, and Phyſick is not Logick: both theſe are negative propoſitions, and I ſuppoſe neither of them are ſo found in the Scripture; and will you ſay that it is impoſſible to prove them, becauſe they are negatives? What you mean by this, I underſtand not, unleſs you do foreign, ſtrive about words, prove and improve, forbidden by the Apoſtle, 2. Tim. 2.14.
Thirdly, ye except theſe negative propoſitions which are ſet down in the Word of God, which hath authority, as ye ſay, I aſſume. But your Religion in ſubſtance is condemned in the Word of God: therefore by your own confeſſion, it may be proved, ſuppoſe it be negative. For Nazianzen ſaith, lib. 5. de Theologia, That theſe ſentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a neceſſary conſequence, are of the ſame truth and authority with theſe ſentences that are expreſly ſet down in the Scripture. And whereas ye ſay Papiſtrie by me is not ſo old as the Scripture, I grant that. What then? Therefore it is not condemned in the Scripture. I deny that. For Antichriſt and his Kingdom are not ſo old as the Scripture, and yet the Scripture condemned it. For not only condemns it preſent hereſies, but alſo the hereſies that was to come. And ſeeing Papiſtrie is that Antichriſtian Religion, as ſhal be made manifeſt, by Gods grace: therefore it hath the expreſs condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it, no wayes will make it impoſſible to be proved. As for the next thing that I prove nothing bu offers very fair. I anſwer, it was not my purpoſe then, but I hope ye ſhal have a proof now of that which I offered then. As to the third then, that I can ſay nothing to your argument, which ye would h…ve the Reader to mark. When I read this, I marked this that ye would earneſtly have the Reader perſwaded of the invincibleneſs of your argument, and my inability to anſwer. But what bring ye with you to perſwade him of the ſame? Your reaſon is, becauſe I have not anſwered it. Will this follow, I have not (ſuppoſe it were ſo as ye ſay) therefore I cannot? It will not follow, I have not anſwered, I cannot anſwer to it. But as you have a new Theology, ſo have you a new Logick. But ſaid I nothing to your argument? What is not anſwered ſufficiently in the ſame? Your argument was the antiquity of your Religion, and continuance of it from Chriſt by a lineal ſucceſſion never interrupted, &c. and the novelty of ours. My anſwer was: Yours was not inſtitut by Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles in his Scripture, as ours was; and yours was gain-ſaid in the chief points, by the teſtimonies of the Fathers the firſt ſix hundred years, and the principal points of our Religion confirmed by ſundry of their teſtimonies
Thirdly, yours was that Antichriſtian apoſtaſie that the Scripture fore told ſhould come, and in the hight of your tyranny and Idolatry was gain-ſaid by many before Martin Luther, and ours was profeſſed by ſundry before him, whoſe names I ſet down: all which I offered to prove, and now ſhal do, by Gods grace. Now you ſay this is no anſwer. But is that no anſwer that cuts the very throat of your Religion (if it be verified) and invalidities your argument, that it do never ſtand up to under-prop your Religion again? For that Religion which is not inſtituted by Chriſt in the Scripture, whoſe main foundations is gain-ſaid by the teſtimonies of ſundry of the Fathers of the firſt 600. year, which is Antichriſtian, and which was gain-ſaid by the Saints that they perſecuted and ſlew, hath not the continuance from Chriſt by a lineal ſucceſſion never interrupted, nor ſpoken againſt by a true Church till Martin Luthers days. This I am ſure ye will not deny. But your Religion is ſuch as I offered then to prove, and now have in ſome points, and ſhal in other ſome points by Gods grace. The which if it be verified, then I hope ye will not deny, but that your Religion hath neither antiquity, continuance, nor ſucceſſion from Chriſt till Martin Luthers dayes. And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented ſince Martin Luthers dayes, which hath the warrant and inſtitution of it in the Scripture, &c. This you cannot deny. But our Religion is ſuch, as then I offered to prove, and now have done in ſome points, and ſhal do in other ſome points, by Gods grace. Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented, &c. but is the only true Religion. So that this anſwer, if it be proved, doth ſufficiently vindicat our Religion from novelty. Now if this be no anſwer to your argument, then I ſay no more, but ye will anſwer it the ſooner. And becauſe ye formed your own argument your ſelf in your anſwer to me, and I have anſwered to it elſe, therefore I will now inſiſt no further upon it. And as for your lineal ſucceſſion of Biſhops, it will come in queſtion afterward, therefore I omit it now.