slendernesse unworthie the name of bread: thus prosecuting them with more bitter words than these. 32. After 1150 to 1200. I name the Emperour Fredericke Barbarossa, forbidding Appeales to Rome, and the coming of Legates from Rome into Germany, and other tricks of the Pope's pride. I name Lincolniensis, that noted the noveltie and heresie of Friers. He said, the definition of a Frier was, a dead carkasse risen out of his grave, wrapped in a winding sheet, and carried among men by the divell. I name the Waldenses, dispersed over all this part of the world who in the most substantiall points resisted the Papacie to the shedding of their blood. Their opinions were these, among some errors that are falsly imposed upon them: that the Pope is no greater then another Bishop: that there is no Purgatorie; that it is in vain to pray for the dead; that masses for the dead were the invention of covetous Priests: that images should be abolished, and the hallowing of water and other creatures: that the word of God should be freely preached to all men: that Frier's shrift, and the use of oyle in Baptisme, were the inventions of men. They contemned the Masse and all that belongeth to it, and prayers to Saints and Canonicall honres, and thought a man might worke any day except the Lord's. They misliked fasting dayes, and distinction of meates, and the single life of Voturies. They defended the reading of the Scripture by the Laitie, and received it as the judge of controversies; and thought there were but two Sacraments, as we do: and that the Communion should be ministred in both kinds to the people: and that Rome was Babylon, and the Pope had no right to the supremacie *. 33. After 1200 to 1250, I name Almaricus a Doctor of Paris, that was burned for withstanding altars, images, invocation of Saints, and Transsubstantiation. Robert the Bishop of Lincolne, that withstood the Pope's pro ceeding in England. Joachim Abbas said, Antichrist was borne in Rome, and should sit in the Apostolicke sea. *If any of your Readers should be desirous of farther information on this very interesting portion of Ecclesiastical History, let me recommend to them Dr. Allix's History of the Churches of Piedmont, and the Irish Pursuits of Literature, pp. 98 & seq. published by your learned and valuable correspondent INSPECTOR, where he will find at large the admirable Confession of Faith by the Albigenses, illustrated by many instructive and entertaining remarks. Fre Fredericke the second, as his ancestors had done before. him, resisted the Pope's usurped supremacie. Arnoldus Villanovanus spake against the Friers and the sacrifice of the Masse and Papall decrees. Everardus an Archbishop in Germany, in an assembly of Bishops at Regenspurge, spake thus of the Pope: Hildebrand, under colour of religion, layd the foundations of the kingdome of Antichrist. He was the first that began this mischievous warre, which his successours have continued to this day. These Priests of Babylon will reigne alone, they will beare no equall, they will never rest till they have trampled all things under their feete, and sit in the Temple of God, and be exalted above every thing that is worshipped. Lie that is the servant of servants, coveteth to be the Lord of Lords, as if he were God his brethren's counsell, yea, the counsell of his maister he despiseth. He speaketh great things as if he were God. In his breast he casteth new devices, whereby to raise a kingdome to himselfe. He changeth lawes, and confirmeth his owne : he defileth, plucketh downe, spoileth, deceiveth, murdereth: thus doth that CHILD OF PERDITION (whom they use to call ANTICHRIST) in whose forehead is written the name of blasphemy, I am God, I cannot erre; he sitteth in the Temple of God, and beareth rule furre and neare. 34. After 1250 to 1300, I name Guilielmus de S. Amore, withstanding the Friers and their abuses: The Preachers in Sweden that publickly taught, the Pope and his Bishops to be heretickes. Dantes the Florentine wrote in a booke, that the Empire descended notfrom the Pope; for the which cause, after his death, they condemned him of heresie. About the same time also lived Guilielmus Altisiodorensis an ancient Schooleman, in whose Summes are found many things confuted, that then were coming in, and maintained by others; the which because I have partly observed throughout this any answer, by alledging him against the Jesuite, I will not now stand to produce. 35. After 1300 to 1350, I name Marsilius Patavinus, that writ against the Pope's supremacie: in which booke is to be seene the confutation of all such reasons as were made to prove him the head of the Church. I name Occham the Schooleman, who exceeding vehemently writ against the Pope's authoritic over Kings (a great article of the Romane faith this day in England) and Councels: 16 Councels he told the Emperour, that if he would defend him with the sword, he againe would defend him with the word. And as he resisted the Primacie, so did he confute many errors now holden by the Church of Rome, and confirmeth that which is our faith not in a few points, as may be seene in his booke upon the Sentences. I name Gregorius Ariminensis, who in his booke upon the Sentences, hath diligently confuted that which is now holden by the Church of Rome, touching Predestination, Originall sinne, Freewill, the Merit of workes, and other matters. The same time the Universitie of Paris condemned the Pope's pardons. 36. After 1350 to 1400, I name Alvarus Pelagius, who wrote a booke of the lamentation of the Church, wherein he reproveth diverse abuses of his time. And Mountziger, who in the Universitie of Ulms, openly disputed against Transsubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament. I name Michael Cesenas, who said, the Pope was Antichrist, and Rome Babylon, and held there were two Churches; one of the wicked wherein the Pope reigned, which was a flourishing Church; the other of the godly and afflicted Church: and he complained that the truth was almost extinguished. The same time also lived John Wickliffe, and infinite more with him in England, whom in that time they called Lolards, resisting Papistrie to the shedding of their blood. 37. After 1400 to 1450, I name againe the Lolards in England, as Purvey, Badby, Thorp, Browne, Beverley, and the rest that were persecuted at that time. I name Chaucer, who expressly writ, the Pope and his Clergie to be Antichrist. The same time Nilus wrote his booke against Purgatorie and the Pope's supremacie and John Hus, Jerome of Prague, and the Churches in Bohemia notoriously resisted the Papacie. Their doctrine was the same with that of the Waldenses. : 38. After 1450 to 1500, I name Savonarola the Florentine, who preached that the time was come wherein God would renew his Church, that the Church needed reformation; he affirmed that the Pope taught not the doctrine of Christ, he maintained the communion under both kinds, and held against tradition, justification by workes, and the Popes supremacie. The same time Wesselus Groningensis, and Joannes de Vesalia were famous for holding against merits, freewill, traditions, pardons, Vol. VI. Churchm. Mag. April, 1804. Ff shrift, shrift, fasting days, pilgrimage, extreme unction, confir mation, and the primacie. In England also, and Bohemia, lived those which followed the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus, continuing the same till Luther. 39. And when 1500 yeares were expired, arose Luther, Zuinglius, Tindall, and divers others, whom God raised up to call his people out of Babylon, who you see were not the first that misliked the Papacie; many in all ages grudged at it before them; and the reformation which they brought in, was wished for and desired long before. 40. And touching the Catalogue that I have set downe, I warne the Reader of two things: first, that I have not set downe all, either that lived, or are recorded, in the severall ages nominated, but onely some few for example, to answer the Jesuites demand; by which few you may easily gather there were many more, when so learned men never use to want partakers, howsoever the tyrannie and oppression of their adverse part may keepe them under. Next, my meaning is not to justifie every one that I have named to have bene free from error, and a full Protestant in every point, (though many were so in every point fundamentall) but onely to shew that the Papacie in all ages was resisted as it came forward, which is the point the Jesuite requires us to shew. If it be replyed, that these persons were hereticks condemned by the Church, I answer first, the Jesuite bids us name, who resisted Rome, were all asleepe, none to observe the change? &c. and I name these, whereunto it is no sufficient answer to say they were hereticks, because it upholdeth not the question, and one hereticke may be able to detect another; and the Jesuite should not make his challenge so broade as to say, No mention is made in any storie of such an alteration. Next, it cannot be proved that these were hereticks. For one part of them is the Greeke Church, another part is some ancient Divines of their owne Church, a third part is such as the Romane Church persecuted. The first are sound and lawful witnesses, being the true Church of God to this day, though polluted with some errors. The second, though Papists in many points, yet shew against all exception, these points against which they held, to have bene no part of the Papall faith, in their time; for then they would not have resisted them, but embrace them as they did the rest. The third part I grant the Church of Rome then persecuted, and now calleth hereticks, but that is the question, whether they or their persecutors were were the essentiall parts of the Church, and this must be decided by the Scriptures onely. For our adversaries say, they are the true Church, and prove it by their antiquitie without resistance, both which we denie, shewing the contrary in the preceding Catalogue; which Catalogue when they will disprove againe, by replying, the men contained therein were condemned for heretickes by the Romane Church, who seeth not this to be a retiring backe againe to the question, when that is brought to maintaine the question, which is the question itselfe? BIBLICAL CRITICISM. COMMENTARY ON REVELATION X. AND XI. TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. I® GENTLEMEN, F my communications shall continue to meet with your approbation, I shall endeavour to harmonize the last vision of Daniel and that contained in the 10th and 11th chapters of the Revelation, in order to explain the latter. First, It is generally agreed that the Saracens and Turks are the subject of Rev. ix. and likewise that the same powers are denoted by the kings of the South and of the North (Dan. xi. 40.) Secondly, Daniel and St. John coincide in calling the incursion of these kings the time of the end (Dan. xi. 40. Rev. x. 6.) Thirdly, The time of the end is preceded in both visions by similar idolatry (Dan. xi. 38. Rev. ix. 20.) Fourthly, The description of the Turks is still more similar (Dan. xi. 40. &c. Rev. ix. 14. &c.) Fifthly, The Mighty angels in both visions resemble each other (Dan. xii. 1. Rev. x. 1. compare Dan. x.) They seem both to have a book, the everlasting gospel-their attitudes are alike-Their oaths are almost precisely the same. (Dan. xii. 7. Rev. x. 5. &c.) Michael swears that the power of Antichrist should not exceed 3 times, and that the completion of the dis |
