A General View of Papistry

The Papists.

[error 41] THey doubt not to say, that the Bishop of Rome hath authority and ought so to have, to ordain and constitute Bishops, to deprive and depose them, to restore them likewise to their former dignities, and this power he exerciseth over the universal Church.

The Jesuits principal & only argument is drawn from certain examples: how the Bishops of Rome have in times past, constituted, deposed, and restored some Bishops in the Greek Church, as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch: Ergo, he hath power over all Bishops.

We answer: First, It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops, any such constitution, or deposition, though perhaps their consent and allowance were required, as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperor, about the ordaining of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: Satis sit, quod vestrae pietatis auxilio & mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit: It is sufficient, that by your godly help and my favorable assent, he hath obtained so famous a Bishopric. Whether was greater now, the help and furtherance of the Emperor, or the base assent of Leo? Secondly, we deny not but that the Pope sometimes, what by sufferance of others, what by his own intrusion, hath usurped this power over other Bishops: by this ought not to make a law: that which is once or twice done by a false title, cannot prove the iustnes of the title. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authority, it appeareth by this, that he doth not, neither of many years hath constituted or ordained the patriarks of the Greek Church: they came not up to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts have done, & paid full dearly for them, being made slaves to the beast of Rome.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope neither hath, nor yet ought to have any such authority over other Bishops: but that everyone in his own precinct, and jurisdiction hath the chief charge: It is thus proved.

1. Peter was not chief, neither did exercise jurisdiction over the twelve: Ergo, neither the Pope ought to do over other Bishops. The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed. The heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church of God, is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation only of Peter, but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles: argument. Tunstalli. To this purpose also he allegeth in saying out of Jerome contra Jovinian. All the Apostles received the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and upon them all indifferently and equally, is the strength of the Church grounded and established. Fox. p. 1066.

2. Till the year of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome, but every Church was ruled by their own government: afterward followed the Council of Nice, wherein was decreed, that the whole Church should be divided into four circuites or precincts: over the which there were four Metropolitans or patriarchs set: first the Bishop of Rome: next the Bishop of Alexandria: the third was the Bishop of Antioch: the fourth the Bishop of Jerusalem: and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the room of the B. of Antioch. All these had equal authority in their provinces, and one was not to deal within another's charge: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome had not then the jurisdiction over the whole Church, argument. Nili. plura Fox. p. 9.

3. We will adjoin the testimony of the fathers of Basil, which were all of the Popish sect: what have the Bishops been in our days say they, but only shadows? might they not have been called shepherds without sheep? what had they more then their Miters and their staff, when they could determine nothing over their subjects? Verily in the primitive Church, the Bishops had the greatest power and authority: but now it was come to that point, that they exceeded the common sort of priests only in their habit and revenues. What plainer testimony can we have, then from the papists themselves?

Augustine also agreeth to their sentence: habet omnis episcopus, saith he, pro licētia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium propriū, tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit, quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare, sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Jesus Christi: Every Bishop is privileged by his own authority to follow his own judgment, neither is subject to the judgment of other Bishops, as he is not to judge them, but they all must be referred to the judgment of Christ: See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest room in the Church, and saith, they have no judge above them but Christ.

The Papists.

Such, say they, is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome, that appeals [error 42] may be made unto him from all Churches in the world, and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination. For the proof hereof they bring no scripture, nor any sound argument, but stand chiefly upon certain odd examples of some that have appealed to Rome: which we deny not to have been done: but our answer more at large is this.

1. One cause of these appeals, was both for that, they which were justly condemned of other Churches, found greater liberty and favor at Rome, as Apiarius did, who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Council for his detestable conditions, found favor with Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who wrote for him to the Council to be received again. No marvel then, if licentious fellows, hoping to find more favor at Rome, did appeal thither: As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat help forward this matter, who were as ready to receive such appeals, as others were to make them.

2. Bishop Tunstal doth answer very fully to this point, that, although appeals were made to Rome, yet was it not for any jurisdiction that the See had: but this was the cause, partly for that there were many devisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches, as also because many were infected with heresies, from the which the West & Occidētal Churches were more free, they were content to refer the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome, as being a more indifferent judge, and not like to be partial, being no party in the cause. Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly, but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italy and France, or of the whole West, as it appeareth by the epistles of Basil. Tunstal. apud Fox. 1067.

The Protestants.

That appeals ought not to be made to Rome, but that all matters and controversies may best be ended and determined at home, where they do arise: It is thus confirmed.

1. This matter was notably handled, anno 420. in the sixth Council of Carthage, where Augustine was present, with Prosper and Orosius: To this Council Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certain requests, of the which this was one, that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeal from the sentence of their Metropolitans, and also of the Council to Rome: alleging for himself a decree of the Nicene Council. The Council of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch & Alexandria, for a copy of the Coūcel of Nice, wherein no such Canon was found, that appeals should be made to Rome: but the contrary: for in the sixth Canon of that Council, it was found how all matters, and all persons ecclesiastical, both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitans: upon this decree the Council of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeals should not be made to Rome. First, it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the grace of God is as ready at hand in one province as in another. Secondly, there is no need to seek any outlandish help: for the party grieved may appeal to a provincial or general Council. Thirdly, it were not equal nor right to appeal from the Council to the Bishop of Rome: for it is not like, that God will inspire his truth unto the Bishop, and deny it to a multitude congregated in his name.

Fourthly, no foreign or outlandish judgment can be so upright or just: because the witnesses cannot be present, being hindered by infirmity of sex, age, sickness, by whom the truth should be discussed.

Upon these reasons the Council concluded, that neither any appeals should be made to Rome: neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters: And this answer they made to Zozimus first, to Boniface and Celestinus, that in short time one succeeded another. And for all the B. of Rome his absolution, Apiarius was again called coram, and brought to confess his fault. Fox. p. 10. col. 2.

Now out of the Acts of this Council, and their reasons alleged we conclude, that it is not fit, convenient nor reasonable, that appeals should be made to Rome.

The Jesuit answereth, that appeals were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome, not by Bishops. This is but a vain shift, for the reasons of the Council are general against all appeals: And Apiarius, that appealed to Rome, was a priest, and no Bishop.

2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Council, then this of Carthage: for in the Council of Basil it was decreed, that no actions or controversies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome▪ which were more then four days journey distant from the said court of Rome, a few principal matters only excepted, apud Fox. p. 697.

3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle, that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off. Is it so, saith he, that there is not a wise man amongst you, no not one that can judge amongst his brethren? 1. Cor. 6.5. Ergo, every Church hath wise men sufficient in it, whereby their controversies may be ended.

4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter, Miltiades Episcopus Romanus, non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani, sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not usurp or take upon himself to judge the cause of Cecilian, but the Emperor being requested, sent other bishops, that should sit and determine the cause together with him. Out of these words first we note, that it had been usurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to have taken upon him the judgment of this matter, not belonging unto him, unless the Emperor had committed it. Secondly, that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sit with him, as Bellarmine imagineth: but, he could not otherwise choice, for they were joined in commission by the Emperor, to be judges as well as he. Thus we see what small show or color of title the Pope hath, to hear or receive appeals from other countries.

The Papists.

[error 43] THe Pope neither can nor ought to be judged either of the Emperor, or any other Seculare or ecclesiastical Magistrate, no not of any general Council, Bellarmine. cap. 26. Nay, he should do injury unto GOD, to submit himself to the judgment of any, Iacobat. ex Tilhemann. de pontif. rom. err. 34.

Beside certain blind canons and constitutions, and a few examples grounded upon the insolent practices of Popes, they have no other arguments either out of scripture, or drawn from reason, to confirm this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal.

Bellarmine reasoneth thus: the Prince is not to be judged by the commonwealth: but is greater then his kingdom: the Pope is the prince of the Church: Ergo

We answer: First, concerning the Princes high and Sovereign authority we will not now dispute: we make it not infinite, the word of God must be a rule and square both of civil and ecclesiastical judgment. Secondly, It is sufficient for us here to answer, that the Jesuit hath said nothing: for this which he assumeth for a reason, is the greatest matter in question between us: and so great an untruth he hath uttered, that he is constrained to leave scripture, and seek help else-where. But he shall never, by any good reason, or sufficient authority prove, that the Pope hath any such Princedom in the Church, as he would bear us in hand.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiastical persons, ought to be, and is by right subject to the judgment and authority of the Emperor, King, Prince, or other supreme magistrate, and may also by general Councils be corrected and censured, thus it is proved.

1. Peter was judged of Paul, Galat. 2. and of him justly reproved: Ergo, the doings of the Pope may be judged and censured.

Bellarmine answereth, that it was not iudicialis censurae, but fraterna correptio, it was no judicial censure, but a brotherly reprehension.

We reply: First, public censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiastical judgment and discipline, therefore Peter being publicly rebuked, was thereby judged also of Paul. Secondly, the question is not only concerning public & open judgment, but whether it be lawful to call the Popes doings into question, & whether his decrees are absolutely to be received without any scāning or discussing, or making any doubt thereof: for this we hold, that it is the duty of all Christians to examine and try the truth of all things, which they are to receive and believe, though they sit not formally and judicially, as in consistories: to judge their spiritual pastors: so the Bereans judged of the Apostles doctrine: so may the Popes decrees be examined and judged. Thirdly, the Jesuit granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproved, but the Extrauagant denieth it: non est, qui audeat dicere, domine curfacis sic? none dare say unto him, sir why doest thou so?

2. Every soul must be subject to the higher powers, Ergo, the Pope, Rom. 13.1. Bellarm. answereth, that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiors both spiritual and temporal, and therefore it cannot be concluded, that the Pope ought to obey, but he must be obeyed, because he is also a spiritual power.

We reply: Saint Paul in this place speaketh only of the civil Magistrate. First he calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Princes, which is not meant of ecclesiastical or Church governors, nor so taken in any place of scripture. Secondly, they are said to bear the sword. Thirdly, tribute is paid to them: those things agree not to ecclesiastical governors: so the Jesuit is answered.

The Papists.

SOme of them hold that the Pope ought not, neither can be deposed for heresy; [error 44] because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresy. Pighius the Jesuit confesseth this to be a probable opinion: but himself defendeth it not: he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus, that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparent heresy. Bellarmine's opinion is this: that the pope cannot be deposed for any cause but heresy: and not for all heresy, but that which is manifest and apparent: Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church, but is of himself deposed, and ceaseth anymore to be pope: so the Church may afterward punish him, but he is then no Pope, for as soon as he is become an heretic, his popedom in the very Acte is gone from him, Bellarmine. cap. 30.

He reasoneth thus: A manifest heretic is not so much as a member of the Church, much less can he be pope, who they say is the head of the Church, and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without any sentence: and if afterward the Church proceed against him, they do not judge the Pope▪ for he had lost his papacy before.

We answer: First, if a manifest heretic be actually deposed, it is by the secret judgment and sentence of God: for by no other authority can he be deposed as they hold: but before God manifest heresy, and close and secret heresy is all one: therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresy, and not only for manifest: and so some of the papists think, as Iohann. de Turre veniata. Secondly, what call you manifest heresy? or how is he known to be a manifest heretic? Can he be an heretic before he be convinced? shall judgment pass against him uncondemned? A murderer is a dead man by law, yet he liveth till judgment pass upon him: so is the Pope being an heretic, yet Pope, till he be judicially proceeded against; as a murderer dead by right is in act yet living, till by law he is deprived of his life. An heretic, saith Saint Paul, after two or three admonitions avoid: that is, saith the Jesuit, he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the judge. Be it so, but he must first be admonished, and if he still continue obstinate, then he is a manifest heretic: so before the Pope can be known to be a manifest heretic, he must be found obstinate, he cannot be obstinate, unless he refuse to be admonished, if he be admonished, then is he judged. Thirdly, an heretic ceaseth not to be a priest, (as they speak) no not after heresy is known, for manifest heretics may baptize. The Donatists in Augustine's time were manifest heretics, and yet the Church did not baptize again after them: If a manifest heretic cease not to be a priest, neither ceaseth he to be Pope; there is like reason of both: for if an heretic, because he is not a member of the Church, cannot be a Pope, neither also can he retain the priesthood.

Lastly, who seeth not what bare and frivolous shifts those are? one saith, the Church may judge the Pope, not as he is Pope, but in respect of his person: another saith, that they may judge the man which was Pope, but he is then no Pope, because his heresy took from him the papacy. Why masters what juggling is here? is the Pope one thing and the Popes person another? By the same reason you may say, that the Pope neither eateth, nor drinketh, nor sleepeth, nor dieth, and so make a god of him, because it is the popes person that doth all this, and not the Pope.

And by this shift you make no difference between an heretic Bishop, o • heretic priest, and heretic Pope: for by the same reason, none of them all shall be subject to the judgment of the Church: for we may say, that a manifest heretic, whether Bishop or priest, hath lost by that very act of falling into heresy, his priesthood and Bishopric, and then is neither Bishop nor priest. And so you may conclude altogether: that neither Pope, Bishop nor piest can be deposed from heresy.

The Protestants.

WE doubt not to say, that the Pope both lawfully hath been deprived sometime by the Emperor, sometime by general Councils, not only for hesie, but for other notable crimes, and may still be proceeded against by the same right, as well as any other Bishop or Prelate.

1 Divers examples we are able to bring forth, how the Pope hath been deposed for other crimes, beside heresy. Pope John the 13. was deposed in a general Council by the consent of Otho the Emperor, for other matter beside heresy: as that he ordained Deacons in a stable, that he committed incest with two of his sisters, that playing at dice, he called to the devil for help, that he deflowered virgins, that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine, likewise with Ramera and Anna, and her Niece: for these beastly parts and such like, he was deposed: there was no heresy objected against him. And think you not he was worthily vnpoped? yet the Papists think no: for they admit no cause of deprivation but heresy. This devilish Pope, through the harlots of Rome (for he was well beloved of them) recovered his Popedom again; but at the length the Lord himself displaced him: for in the tenth year of his Popedom, being found without the city with another man's wife, he was so wounded of her husband, that within eight days after he died, Fox. pag. 159.

Boniface the 7. took Pope John the 15. who was made Pope a little before, and he expelled, yet recovering the Papacie by force, he took him, put out his eyes, and threw him in prison where he was famished: Likewise was John the 18. served by Gregory the 5. his eyes were thrust out first, and he afterward slain. I marvel how our Catholics can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome!

In the Council of Brixia, Gregory the 7. was deposed, not for heresy, but for other abominable vices: as maintaining of perjury and murders: for following Diuinations & Dreams, Sorcerie & Necromancie, Fox. p. 181. Pope John the 23. deposed in the Council of Constance: Eugenius in the Council at Basil: yet neither of them for heresy. And yet our adversaries would still make us believe, that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresy.

2 We can have no better argument, then from our adversaries themselves. It is a sport to see what diverse opinions they hold, and do run as it were in a maze, not knowing which way to get out. Pighius thinketh, that the Pope cannot possibly fall into heresy, and therefore for no cause may be deposed: Some other think that the Pope for secret and close heresy is actually deposed of GOD, and may also be deposed and judged of the Church: thus holdeth Iohann. de turre cremat. Caietanus is of opinion, that for manifest and open heresy the Pope is both already by right deposed, and may also actually be deposed of the Church: But Bellarmine confuteth all these. There is a fourth opinion most gross: that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresy, is either already of right deposed, or may be actually deprived of the Church. Lastly cometh in the nice and dainty Jesuit with his quirkes and quiddities, who saith, that the Pope in case of manifest heresy, ceaseth to be Pope, and is even now deposed: and if after the Church proceed against him, they judge not the Pope, for now he is no Pope: Which opinion how absurd it is, I have declared before.

The Papists.

THey do boldly affirm without any ground, that the primacy of that See [error 45] hath his beginning from no other but Christ: they are the Jesuits own words: Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum, author Christo, principium accepisse: that the princely dignity of the Bishop of Rome, acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof, but Christ, Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2.

1 They would build the primacy of the Roman Church upon certain places of scripture: as Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Luk. 22. I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not fail. John 21. Christ said to Peter, feed my sheep: Ergo, Peter and Peters successors have their primacy from Christ, Bellarm.

To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops, yet in this point holding the truth, did properly make answer in their Epistle sent to Cardinal Poole.

To the first: They affirm out of the ancient expositors, that it is meant of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter, and not of Peters person. Further, confirming out of S. Paul, that neither Peter, nor no creature beside, could be the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can any man lay (saith the Apostle) besides that which is laid, Jesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3.

To the second they answer: that Christ speaketh only of the fall of Peter, which he knew in his godly prescience, giving an inkling unto him, that after his fall he should be converted and strengthen his brethren: for if it were meant also of Peters successors, they must first fail in faith, and after confirm their brethren.

To the third: The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feed: for he himself testifieth the contrary, exhorting all Pastors to feed the flock of Christ, which was given them in charge by Christ, as it followeth in that place: when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive the incorruptible Crown of eternal glory: He calleth not himself the chief shepherd, but only Christ. It is evident therefore (say they) that your 3. scriptures meant nothing less, then such a primacy over all, Fox. pag. 1067.

2 There can be no time assigned since Christ (say they) when this primacy should begin, nor no author named that brought it in: Ergo, it must needs be attributed to Christ, he must of necessity be found the author thereof.

We answer: the time may be assigned, the authors named, when, and by whom this pretensed and usurped authority was brought in, as even now we will show.

The Protestants.

THat the usurped jurisdiction of Rome took not the beginning from Christ, nor his Apostles, neither was heard of for many years after: we thus are able to prove it.

1 Before the Nicene Council, which first divided the regiment of the Church into four Patriarchal seats: Rome had small or no preeminence. So Aeneas Sylvius witnesseth, who afterward was Pope of Rome, and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat, & ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus, Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Council, every Bishop lived to himself, there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome. What more evident testimony can we have then of a Pope himself? Yet the Jesuit saith, that it is false in part, which he writeth. He is somewhat mannerly, in making him but half a liar: yet I wonder that he will confess any untruth at all in his ghostly fathers words, Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2.

Secondly, in the Council of Nice there was no primacy of power given to Rome over the whole Church: but the other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, were privileged in like manner in their confines, as the Bishop of Rome was in his: They had all equal authority given them in their own provinces: Sic Tonstall. Stokesli. ad Poolum.

Thirdly, afterward there was a certain primacy of order granted unto the Patriarke of Rome above other Patriarchs; as to have the first place, to sit first, to give his sentence first. One cause hereof was, for that Rome was then the Imperial and chief city in all the world: this reason was rendered in the Council of Chalcedon. Can. 28. An other cause thereof, was the ample privileges and immunities, which the Emperors endued it withal, as Constantine the great: and Gratianus the Emperor made a law, that all men should retain that religion, which Damasus of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold.

A third cause was, the unquiet estate of the Greek Church, who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome, as being less partial and a more indifferent Judge, they themselves being divided and rent into sects. And hereupon, and other like causes it came about, that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped above his fellow Patriarchs, but yet had no such preeminent authority, as to command them.

Fourthly, the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vain glory, because they were reverenced of other Churches, many matters were committed unto them, and their consent required unto the decrees of Councils, when they were absent. Hereupon they labored every day more and more to advance that See, taking every small occasion that might help forward their ambitious desire, till Anno. 606. or somewhat after, Boniface the 3. obtained of wicked Phocas the Emperor (who murdered his master the Emperor Maurice and his children, to come to the Empire, and was after slain himself of Heraclius that succeeded him) of him, I say, Boniface for himself and his successors obtained, to be called universal Bishops over the whole Church: and the See of Rome to have the preeminence above all other Churches in the world.

Afterward in Pope Zechariah his time, the proud and insolent jurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France, who aspired to the Crown, and obtained it by the said Popes means, first deposing Childericus the rightful King, and dispensing with the oath, which the French men had made before to Childericus, Calum. Institut. 4. cap. 7. sect. 17.

Thus then it sufficiently appeareth, that the primacy of Rome, which it now unjustly challengeth over other Churches, is not of any such antiquity, as they would bear the world in hand, neither that it had the beginning from Christ: but both the time when, and the authors by whom it began, may be easily assigned.

2 We need no better argument, to prove that the primacy of Rome hath not his original from Christ, then the Jesuits own confession. First, he saith, that it doth not depend of Christ's institution, but, ex Petri facto, of Peters fact, that the Bishop of Rome should be rather Peters successor, then the Bishop of Antioch, or any other: It is not, iure diuino, saith he, by God's law: neither is it, ex prima institution pontificatus, quae in Euangelio legitur, of the first institution whereof we read in the Gospel. And again, Romanum pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur express in scriptures: It is not expressly set down in scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter: but it is grounded only upon the tradition of Peter. Nay, he saith further, that Peter needed not to have chosen any particular place for succession, and he might as well have chosen Antioch as Rome: Ergo, neither is the succession of Rome grounded upon scripture, neither any commandment of Christ: for then Peter could not have had free choice to appoint his successor where he would himself, as the Jesuit saith, if he had had any especial direction or commandment from Christ. So then, mark I pray you, they cannot prove out of scripture, that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeed Peter in the chief Bishopric, but only that Peter had the chief Bishopric committed to him and his successors in general, whosoever they should appoint: Ergo, the Bishops of Rome by their own confession, can allege no scripture, institution, or commandment of Christ, for the primacy of the Church to be annexed to the See of Rome: and yet against their knowledge they will allege scripture to color the matter withal, Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif. ca. 17.

3 Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major est. The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, according to the names of honor, which the Church by custom hath obtained. If then the difference of those two offices, both named in scripture, did arise rather and spring of the custom of the Church, which thought it good to distinguish them for avoiding of schism, and is not grounded upon the authority of scripture: much less can the Pope (whose neither name, nor office is expressed in scripture) fetch from thence any show of proof, for his usurped primacy.

The Papists.

BEllarmine setteth down to the number of fifteen glorious names which [error 46] have been of old given (as he saith) to the Bishop of Rome, whereby his primacy over other Bishops is notoriously known: but the principal are these: He is called the Pope and chief Father, the prince of Priests, or high Bishop, the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, the Prelate of the Apostolic See, universal Bishop. These six names or titles they do appropriate to the See of Rome, Bellarm. de Roman. pontif. lib. 2. cap. 31.

The Protestants.

WE will show by God's grace, that these six several titles and names aforesaid, are either such, as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop, nor any mortal man▪ or else were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops, as to him of Rome.

1 For the first name of Pope, it is derived from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in the Syracusane language, is as much as, Father: which name was indifferently given to other Bishops, which were famous in the Church for their virtue and learning: As Cypriane, Epiphanius, Athanasius, were called Papae, Popes: Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Council of Carthage, by the name of Pope, Epistol. 77.

Likewise, those two epithetes of the Pope, as to be called, Beatissim. & sanctissim. pater: most holy and blessed father, were used in the style of other Bisshops: Prosper, in his Epistle to Augustine, twice calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam, Lord, most blessed Pope, Tom. 7. Jerome calleth Epiphanius, Beatum papam, blessed Pope, Ad Eustach. Fabiol.

Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter, or Priest, being no Bishop, yet thus saluteth him: Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit, he hath written to your holiness. Nay, in his book dedicated to Renatus a lay man, neither Priest nor Bishop, thus he writeth, Hinc angor, quod sanctitati tuae▪ minus quàm vellem cognitus sum : This grieveth me, that I am not so well known to your holiness as I desire. If then these titles of holiness and blessedness were not only given to Bishops, but Priests also, yea unto lay men of virtuous and holy life; what color or show of reason can our adversaries have, to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome?

2 The second name is prince of Priests, or high and chief Bishop: which title, if it be taken for a chief power, dominion, and sovereignty, is proper only to Christ the chief shepherd, 1. Pet. 5.4. and cannot in that sense agree to any man. If it be used only as a title of excellency and commendation, so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops, as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius, Pontificem maximum, chief Bishop: yea it was in common given to all Bishops: as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus: Summi sacerdotes, id est, Episcopy, a deo iudicandi sunt: The high Priests, that is, Bishops (saith he) are to be judged of God. If it be taken further for the excellency of the ministry of the Gospel, and the worthy calling of Christians, in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium, of the high Priesthood, is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiastical, both Bishops and others: so Fabianus Bishop of Rome useth this name. Yea, the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a princely, royal, or chief priesthood: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome hath no especial or proper interest in this name.

3 The third name is, to be called the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Where we are to understand, that in respect of the spiritual regiment and kingdom of Christ, he needeth no Vicegerent upon earth: for, I am with you (saith he) to the end of the world: he himself is always present in power, and needeth not in that respect, that any man should supply his room. Petrus scriba martyr. Fox. pag. 906. If we do take it for a word of office and public administration, so the Magistrate may be called the Vicar of Christ, in governing the people according to the word of God: In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius King of the Britain's, calleth him the Vicar of Christ, and therefore in his own kingdom had power out of the word of God to establish laws, for the government of the people. So all Bishops, Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ, in preaching, praying, binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith, or whose work else it is, that, Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius: Every pastor and prelate (and not the Pope only) is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists, annot. in 2. Cor. 5.18. that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ, and as his ministers, that is, his Vicars. Nay, Augustine maketh yet a more general use of this word: he saith, that, Homo imperium Dei habens, quasi vicarius eius est: That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures, doth therein represent God, and is as his Vicar upon earth. So then, all ministers are the Vicars of Christ; the civil Magistrate likewise, in some good sense, may be so called: yea in respect of the creatures, man generally is upon earth in God's stead: Ergo, this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome.

4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortal man to bear, to be called the head of the universal Church: this is a name only due unto Christ, neither do the scriptures acknowledge any other head, but him, Ephes. 1.22.4.15. But (say they) we do not make the Pope such an head, as Christ is, but only a ministerial head over the militant Church upon earth.

We answer: First, Ergo, the Pope by your own confession is not head of the universal Church, whereof the triumphant Church in heaven is a part. Secondly, the Rhemists confess that the Church in no sense can be called the body of the Pope: Ergo, the Pope cannot be any ways the head of the universal Church, Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly, the Fathers of Basil used this argument: The head of the body being dead, the whole body also dieth; but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope: Ergo, he is not properly the head of the Church, Fox pag. 675.

If it shall be further objected, that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past, caput Episcoporum, the head of all other Bishops: we answer, that it was but a title of excellency and commendation, not of dominion and power: as London is called the head or chief city of England, yet are not other cities of the land subject unto it, or under the jurisdiction thereof. But we shall have occasion more fully to discuss this matter afterward.

5 They would have the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolic See: the Rhemists say further, that the Papal dignity is a continual Apostleship, Annot. 4. Ephes. sect. 4.

We answer: First, if they call those Churches Apostolical, whose first founders were the Apostles, then the See of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, are as well Apostolical as Rome: and this the Jesuit denieth not, Lib. 2. de pontific. cap. 31. Secondly, those Churches are Apostolical, which hold the Apostolic faith: so is not the See of Rome Apostolical, being departed and gone back from the ancient Catholic faith: but those Churches where the Gospel of Jesus Christ is truly preached, are indeed Apostolic. Thirdly, how can the Pope be an Apostle, or have Apostolic authority, seeing he preacheth not at all, much less to the whole world, wherein consisted the office of an Apostle? Neither can he show his immediate calling from Christ, as all the Apostles could: for seeing he challengeth the Apostolic office by tradition from S. Peter, and not by commandment from Christ; he can in no wise be counted an Apostle, or his office an Apostleship: for the Apostles ordained only Evangelists and Pastors, they had not authority to consecrate and constitute new Apostles. Our adversaries for this their Apostleship, can find nothing in scripture, nor for a thousand years after Christ in the ancient writers, Fulk. annot. in Ephes. 4. sect. 4.

6 Concerning the title of universal Bishop, it was thus decreed in the sixth Council of Carthage, as it is alleged by Gratian: Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur: No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called universal. In Gregory the first his time, John Patriarke of Constantinople, obtained of the Emperor Maurice to be called universal Patriarke: but Gregory would not agree thereunto, calling him the forerunner of Antichrist, that would challenge so proud a name.

Bellarmine and other of that sect do answer, that Gregory found fault with this title, because John of Constantinople would have been Bishop alone, and none other to be beside him, but all other only to be his deputies and vicars.

To this we reply: First, John did only challenge a superiority over other Bishops, not to be Bishop alone, for this had been a thing impossible. Secondly, if John had sought any such thing, it is not like that the Chalcedone Council and the Emperor would have yielded to so unreasonable a matter as they did. Thirdly, Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria doth call the said Gregory universal Pope, which name he utterly refuseth: and yet Eulogius had no such meaning to make him Bishop or Patriarke alone, but only to give him a preeminence above the rest. This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregory, instead of the title, Universal, brought it into the Popes style to be called Seruus seruorum dei, servant to God's servants: Ergo, we conclude with Gregory, that this title. Universal, is an Antichristian name, and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselves, and how other Patriarchs and Bisshops have challenged that ambitious name and title, as well as the Popes of Rome.

The Papists.

THey do not only affirm that the Pope cannot err, but that the Church [error 48] of Rome also cannot be deceived in matters of faith, so long as the Apostolic See remaineth there, which they say is like there to remain to the ende of the world. Bellarm. lib. 3. de pontif. cap. 4. Hereupon Panormitane doubteth not to say, that he would prefer the judgment of the Cardinals of Rome, before the judgment of the whole world: this he said, standing up in the Council of Basil, Fox. pag. 669. ex Aenea Syluio.

1. The Rhemists upon those words of Saint Paul, Rom. 1.5. your faith is published through the whole world, do thus infer: See (say they) the great providence of God in the preservation of the Roman common faith. In times past the Roman faith and Catholic all one: Ergo, that See cannot err in faith.

We answer: they must prove their Romish faith and popish religion, to be the same which was praised and commended by the Apostle, or else they gain nothing: but that shall they never do.

2. So long as the Apostolic See remaineth at Rome, it shall be preserved from error, but that is like there to remain till the worlds end: for it only remaineth, when all other Apostolic Sees are gone: and it is very probable, that if this See could have been overthrown, it should have been done by the incursion and invasion of the Goths, Vandals, Turks, the emulation of Princes, divisions and schisms of Popes themselves: yet for all this it standeth still, and hath so continued almost 1600. years, and shall so continue still. Ergo, the Roman Church cannot err. Bellarmine. lib. 2. cap. 4. Rhemist. annot. in Thessal. 2. sect. 7.

We answer: First, it is a great untruth, that all other Apostolic Sees are gone, for there is a succession at Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, even at this day. Secondly, it is false, that the See of Rome hath continued in that religion it now professeth, which indeed is no religion, but superstition and heresy, these 1600. years: for first till Gregory's time, which was 600. years after Christ, none of the popes would be called universal Bishops: and it was more then 300. years, from Gregory the 1. to Sylvester the 2. when Satan is thought fully to be let loose: for he by the devil was advanced to the papacy: All these years therefore you must strike off in your account. Thirdly, that the See of Rome, which is the seat of Antichrist, hath continued many years we grant: for it is the just judgment of God upon the world, because they loved not the truth, that they should be deluded a long time, and deceived by Antichrist, and believe lies: so did Saint Paul prophesy, 2. Thessalonians 2.10, 11. And we grant also that that Antichristian See shall in some sort remain till the coming of Christ, whom he shall destroy with the brightness of his appearing, as Saint Paul saith. You have gained therefore nothing by this, but that Rome is the seat of Antichrist, Fulk. annotat. in 2. Thessalonians 2. sect. 7.

The Prot •• tants.

IT is evident and plain, and need not much proof, that the Roman Church, as also any particular visible Church, may not only err in faith, but fall clean away into heresy and Idolatry, as we see it come to pass in the Church of Rome.

1. The Church of Rome hath no better assurance of their continuance, then the Church of the Jews had before Christ, no nor yet so great, for they were a peculiar and chosen nation. But Judah fell and transgressed, and committed Idolatry in the reign of Ahaz, and therefore the Prophet Isaiah complaineth and saith, From the sole of the foot to the head, there is nothing sound, cap. 1. ver. 6.

Neither are they better then the Church of Ephesus was in Saint John's time, who was as able (I think) to keep that Church from error, as the Pope is to keep Rome: yet the Lord threateneth to remove his candlestick frō amongst them, unless they did amend, Reve. 2.5. Ergo, the Church of Rome may err.

2. The Pope may err, as we have before shown, Ergo the Church of Rome: for the Apostolic See, as they say, is the cause that no error can approach or come near them. Therefore (me thinketh) the Jesuit committeth a foul absurdity, in saying, the Church of Rome cannot so much as err personally, and yet they grant that the Pope may err personally. So by this reason the body should have a greater privilege then the head: the Church of Rome should be freer from error then the Pope, who should preserve it from error: this sure is a great absurdity in Popish divinity, Bellarmine. cap. 4.

3. It is confessed by our adversaries themselves, that the Church of Rome may err: as the Council at Rome under Adriane the second erred, saith the Jesuit, in determining Honorius to be an heretic, one of his predecessors. cap. 11.

The Council of the Italian Bishops at Brixia erred in condemning Gregory the seventh, who was, if you will believe Harding, a virtuous and an holy man. Nay Paulus Iouius a popish Bishop confesseth, that Adrianus 6. was made Pope, mira & pudenda Senatorum factiosorum suffragatione, through the strange and shameful suffrages of factious Cardinals, because they preferred a stranger before their own order.

But our adversaries have a trick, to shift off all this that hath been said: They erred in a matter of fact, not in any point of faith. Yet they cannot so closely convey the matter away: for Panormitane even in such questions also preferreth the judgment of the Cardinals before the whole world, speaking in the defense of Eugenius, who was challenged in the Council of Basil, for the dissolution of the Council, which he did (saith Panormitane ) with the advice of the Cardinals: whose judgment he so much esteemeth in this matter, which concerned not faith, namely, for the dissolving of the Council.

The Papists.

THat the Pope hath such authorie, to make laws for the whole Church, [error 49] which shall bind under pain of damnation, as well as the laws of God, it is the general opinion of the papists, Fox. 981. articul. 13. & p. 1101. artic. cont. Lambert. 29. But they put in this clause, So they be not unjust laws nor contrary to the divine law, Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make laws, having not the authority nor warrant of scripture, neither is it necessary for these laws to be expressed or diduced out of scripture. And these laws are not only of external rites and orders of the Church, but even of things necessary to salvation, Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens. Caluini. Yea he addeth further, that in matters not necessary to salvation, he cannot be disobeyed without deadly sin, and offense of conscience, cap. 16. loc. 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum, Fox. p. 1283. col. 1.

1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood, things strangled, and offered to Idols, concerning the which, Christ gave them no precept: But this law did bind the people in conscience: for everywhere the Apostles gave straight charge, for the keeping of the decrees, Bellarm.

Answer: First, the Apostles commanded no new thing, but the same which they themselves were taught of Christ, that they should take heed of offense: the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keep the decrees concerning such things, then for avoiding of scandal and offense. Secondly, for afterward the offense being taken away, the law also ceased: and Saint Paul giveth liberty, notwithstanding this law, to eat things offered to Idols, if it might be done without offense, Asking no question (saith he) for conscience sake, 1. Cor. 10.27. Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound.

3. It is necessary to have some laws, beside the divine law, for the government of the Church: for the word of God is too universal, neither is sufficient to direct every particular action: therefore other ecclesiastical laws must be added, but every good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining power, and bindeth the conscience to obedience: Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councils, which are the only ecclesiastical laws, do bind the conscience, Bellarmine. cap. 16. lib. 4.

Answer: First, the word of God containeth all necessary rules to salvation: wherefore all laws of the Church concerning matters of faith, are but explanations, and interpretations of the rules of faith set forth in scripture, if they be godly laws, and so are not the laws of men but of God, and do bind the conscience to the observation thereof: as the laws of the Church, which command Christians to resort to the congregation to hear God's word, and reverently to receive the sacraments, are the very ordinances and commandments of Christ, who enjoined his Apostles to preach, and baptize, and his faithful people to hear and to be baptized, and therefore in conscience we are bound to the obedience hereof. Secondly, there are other ecclesiastical laws appointed for the public order of the Church, concerning external rites and circumstances of persons and place, as the hours of prayer, the form of the le • turgie & public service, the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments, and such like. These and such like constitutions do not bind in conscience absolutely, in respect of the things themselves, which are indifferent, but in regard of that contempt, and offense which might follow in the not keeping of them: contempt to our superiors, whom we ought in all lawful things to obey; offense, in grieving the conscience of our weak brethren. So that even these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospel, that is, unto edification, to the glory of God, and for avoiding of offense, do necessarily bind us in conscience, not conscience of the things themselves, which are but external, but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates, and conscience in taking heed of all just offense, sic. Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 10.11.

3 But we are not, God be thanked, driven to any such straight, that if there be need of any such Ecclesiastical laws, we should run for succor to the Popes beggarly decretals. (And yet such Canons, as were in force amongst them, agreeable to the rules of the Gospel, we do not refuse.) But if there be want and penury of good laws, every Church hath as full authority, to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order, and quiet government thereof, not as the Pope of Rome hath over the universal Church (for that by right is none, or if it be, it is but an usurped power) but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his own Bishopric and diocese.

The Protestants.

WHat our sentence is of this matter, it doth partly appear by that which we have already said: that the Pope hath no power over the whole Church, and therefore can make no laws to bind the conscience or otherwise for the same, for it belongeth not to his charge. Secondly, we say, that neither he, nor any ecclesiastical government beside, can make laws of things necessary to salvation, other then those which are in Scripture contained. Thirdly, all Ecclesiastical laws made concerning external rites, and public order, do not otherwise bind the conscience, then in regard of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawful things, and for avoiding of scandal and offense: But in respect of the things commanded, such laws do not bind. Calvin. loc. praedicto.

1 Saint James saith, there is one law-giver which is able to save and to destroy, cap. 4.12. He therefore only maketh laws to bind the conscience, that is able to save and to destroy: but that cannot the Pope do. Ergo, Calvin. argum.

Bellarmine answereth, that the laws of men do bind under pain of damnation, in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience, and so judgeth them worthy of punishment. cap. 20. All this we grant, that the laws of men being good laws, do bind in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers, but not in respect of the things commanded, which in their nature are indifferent. The Jesuit should have said: that God is offended not only for their disobedience, but simply for not doing the things commanded, which he durst not say: As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politic end commandeth upon some days abstinence from flesh, it is not the eating or not eating of flesh, that simply displeaseth and offendeth God, but the contempt of the law, and willful and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate: for otherwise the use of the creature is free and indifferent.

2 We will beat the Jesuit with his own staff: he saith not that all laws do bind the conscience, but only just laws, in the which four conditions are required. First, that they be made for some profitable end: so are not popish laws which nourish superstition, and have no edifying, and some of them do command plain idolatry, & open impiety, as the worshipping of images, the adoration of the Mass, & such like. Secondly, saith he, they must not be contrary to God's law, but such are many of their ordinances, yea the most of them. Thirdly, they must be made by him that hath authority: therefore none of the Popes laws bind the universal Church, for it is not subject to him. Fourthly, the form and manner of imposing such laws must be orderly: but their laws are most disordered, imposed upon the Church violently, without their consent, or any good proceeding. Thus, you see, even by their own confession, their laws cannot bind.

One thing more I must needs tell them of. If they would needs have their laws to bind men in conscience, they should have made fewer of them: now they are so many, that if the breach of them were an offense of conscience, do men, what they could, they should daily make shipwreck of their conscience. It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur, a good Christian, it is an homely speech, because the matter was somewhat homely, yet he did hit the mark. Like as (saith he) crosses were set up against the walls of London, that no man should pisse there; and while there were but a few, men for reverence of the crosses, would not pisse against the wall: but when in every corner they set up crosses, men of necessity were fain to pisse upon the wall and crosses too. So saith he, if there had been fewer laws of the Church, they would have been better kept: but now they are so many, that men cannot chose but break them.

3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his laws over the whole Church. Ergo, he cannot make laws to bind the whole Church. The argument followeth, for he that hath absolute power to make laws, hath also power to command obedience to the laws so made.

The first is thus proved: the Pope indeed hath taken upon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches: but it was an usurped and tyrannical power, and many times resisted, and controlled.

Pope Victor Anno 200. would have excommunicate the East Churches about the keeping of Easter, but he was stayed by Irenaeus. The Council of Constance did send out excommunications against Pope Benedict. sess. 36.

In the Council of Basil, Pope Eugenius cited Cardinal Iuliane, with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia, under great penalty: they likewise cited Eugenius under the like penalty, either to come or send to Basil. Fox. pag. 668.

Pope Leo the tenth, in his fumish Antichristian Bull, excommunicated and condemned Luther. Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excommunication against him, being an adversary to Christ, in these words:

Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls, and presumptuous excommunications: for it falleth out justly by them, as the wise man saith. As the Sparrow and the Swallowe by flying escape, so the curse causeless shall not come. Now seeing therefore the Pope faileth of power and strength to see his laws executed in the universal Church, it cannot be that his laws should universally bind.

Lastly, let Augustine speak: he thus defineth sin, peccatum est dictum, factum, vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei, sin is anything done, said, or coveted against the Law of GOD: therefore the transgression simply of the law of man is not sin; but as thereby also the Law of God is transgressed: Ergo simply it bindeth not the conscience: for sin only bindeth and toucheth the conscience.

The Papists.

THey deny not but that the power of order, as they call it, which consisteth [error 50] in the administration of the Sacraments, is equally distributed to all Bishops, and that they, as well as the Pope do receive it immediately by their consecration, of God, but the power both of external jurisdiction, which standeth upon Ecclesiastical censures, constitutions and decrees, and internal jurisdiction, which is exercised in binding and loosing, is derived, say they, from the Pope to all other Bishops.

1 God took of the spirit that was in Moses, and distributed it among the seventy Elders, that were chosen to bear the burden of government with Moses and to be his helpers: the Lord took of his spirit, not by diminishing it, but by deriving of his virtue to the rest: but the Pope is now in the room and place of Moses in the Church: Ergo, from him to the rest is this an authority derived.

Answer: First, Moses example was extraordinary, he was a figure of Christ, not of the Pope, Deuteron. 18. verse. 15. The Pope might with better right stand upon Aaron's example, who was high Priest, not lay claim to Moses office, who was the Prince and Captain of the people: for the Pope, I trow, would be chief Bishop, and not Emperor too. Secondly, the meaning is not that God derived Moses spirit to the rest: but bestowed the like gift of prophesying upon them, as Moses had: surely never any mortal man had the spirit in such abundance, that it could be divided into seventy portions, and one Prophet to make many. The like phrase is used, 2. King. 2.15. Where the Prophets said, that the spirit of Elijah did rest on Elisha, that is, God endued him with an excellent spirit of prophesying, as Elias had. If they will understand this place also of deriving of spirits, how then shall that be taken in the 9. verse where Elisha prayeth, that this spirit might be doubled upon him? If his spirit were derived from Elijah, how could it be doubled upon him? How could it be multiplied and increased? how could he have more then was in the fountain or original, seeing he received all from thence?

3 What maketh this place, I pray you, for the power of external jurisdiction? Here it is said that God gave of his spirit to seventy Elders and rulers of the people, and enabled them for their office; endued them with wisdom, and knowledge, and dexterity in judging of the people: this maketh nothing for their purpose, unless they will also say, that there is a secret influence of knowledge and wisdom derived from the Pope to all other Bishops, whereby they are made able to execute their office: but (I trow) they will not say so: for Alphonsus de castro, truly saith of the Popes of Rome, constat plures eorum adeo esse illiteratos, vt grammaticam penitus ignorent: it is certain that many of them were so unlearned, that they hard and scant knew their grammar.

4 The argument followeth not from one particular country, as this was of the Jews, to the universal Church: that because the seventy Elders received jurisdiction from Moses (yet that cannot be proved out of this place, for they were rulers before, and commaunders of the people, the were now but inwardly furnished, and further enabled) yet it were no good reason, that therefore the Ecclesiastical Ministers over the whole Church, should receive their power from one.

5 Neither doth it follow, that because the Prince and civil Magistrate may bestow civil offices, create Dukes, Earls, Lord's, constitute Judges, Deputies, Lieutenants, by his sole authority, that by the same reason Ecclesiastical ministers should receive their power & office from their superiors: for although, the Church from ancient time, hath thought it good, to make some inequality and difference in Ecclesiastical offices for the peace of the Church: yet the superiors have not such a sovereignty and commanding power over the rest, as the Prince hath over his subjects.

The Protestants.

THat Bishops have not their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction from Rome, but do as well enjoy it by right of their consecration, election, institution, in their own precinctes, circuites, provinces, cities, towns, yea, as the Pope doth in his Bishopric, and by much better right, if they be good Bishops, and lovers of the truth: thus briefly it is proved.

1 The Apostles had not their jurisdiction from Peter, but all received it indifferently from Christ: this the Jesuit doth not barely acknowledge, but proveth it by argument,. against the judgment of other Papists. cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope, though he were Peters successor: for if he were (to grant it for disputation sake) he is no more to the Bishops of the Church, then Peter was to the Apostles. If he gave not the keys to the Apostles; neither doth the Pope Saint Peters successor, to the Bishops, the Apostles successors: for they may with as great right challenge to be the Apostles successors, as he can to be Saint Peters.

Nay, the Apostles gave no power or jurisdiction to the Elders and pastors, whom they ordained: Act. 20.28. Take heed to the flock, over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or overseers: and Ephes. 4.11. He hath given some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors and teachers: so then the pastors and teachers, though ordained by the Apostles, yet had their calling and office frō God and not from the Apostles, much less now can they receive their power from any, no not from the Pope, for he is no Apostle, no nor Apostolic man, having left the Apostolic faith.

2 Augustine saith, Solus Christus habet authoritatem, & praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro iudicandi. de baptis. 2.2. Only Christ hath authority (saith he) to prefer us to the government of the Church, and to judge of our doings: the pastors then of the Church have the keys of the spiritual regiment from Christ himself, not from the Pope, or any other.

The Papists.

THe Papists of former times were not ashamed to say, that the Pope is the Lord of the whole Church: as Panormitane in the Council of Basil, Fox. page 670. Yea, Pope Innocentius the third said, writing to the Emperor of Constantinople, that as the Moon received her light from the Sun, so the imperial dignity did spring from the Pope: and that the papal dignity was seven and forty times greater then the imperial: yea Kings and Emperors are more inferior to the Pope then lead is to gold, Gelasius distinct. 96. But our later papists ashamed of their forefathers arrogancy, in words seem to abate somewhat of their proud sentence, but in effect say the same thing: For they confess that the Emperor hath his office and calling of God, and not from the Pope: neither that the Pope directly hath any temporal jurisdiction: but indirectly he may depose Kings and princes, abrogate the laws of Emperors, and establish his own: he may take unto himself the judgment of temporal causes, and cite Kings to appear before him: yet not directly (saith the Jesuit) as he is ordinary Judge over the Bishops and whole Clergy, yet indirectlie, as he is the chief spiritual Prince, he may do all this, if he see it necessary for the health of men's souls. And so in effect, by their popish indirect means, they give him as great authority, as ever he usurped or challenged, Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 6.

1 The Ecclesiastical and civil power do make but one body and society, as the spirit and the flesh in man: Now the Ecclesiastical power, which is as the soul and spirit, is the chief part, because it is referred to a more principal end, namely the safety and good of the soul: the other is as the flesh to the spirit, and respecteth but a temporal end, as the outward peace and prosperity of the common-wealth: Ergo, the spiritual power is chief, and may command the other. Bellarm. cap. 7.

Ans. First, it is a very unfit and improper similitude, to compare these two regiments to the soul and the body: for by this means, as the spirit giveth life to the body, and every parte thereof, so the civil and temporal state should receive their office and calling from the Ecclesiastical, which the Jesuit himself denieth, and so directly the one should rule the other: for the soul directly I trow, not indirectly moveth the body and governeth it. But if we will speak as the Scripture doth, we make all but one body: and it is the spirit of Christ, who is the head, that giveth effectual power to every parte. Ephes. 4.15.16.

2 It is false that the civil magistracy only concerneth the outward and temporal commodity only: for unto Princes also is committed the chief care of religion and the worship of God: They are to see true religion advanced, yea to watch over Ecclesiastical ministers, and to charge them to look to their offices: the Prince is God's minister, for the wealth both of the souls and bodies of his subjects: And therefore Saint Paul exhorteth to pray for Kings and governors, that we may live (not only) a peaceable life, but in all godliness and honesty, 1. Timoth. 2.2. Ergo, it is parte of the magistrates office, as to procure the peace of the people, so to have a care of their godly life. Wherefore it is false, as the Jesuit supposeth, that the chief ende of the civil government, is only outward and temporal: Ergo, his argument is nothing worth.

2 Azariah the high Priest drove Uzziah the King out of the temple, when he would have burned incense, and caused him to go out of the city and dwell apart, 2. Chron. 26. Jehoiada likewise deposed Athaliah, 2. King. 11. Ergo, the Pope may depose wicked and ungodly Princes. Bellarmine cap. 8.

Answer: First, we deny, that there is now, or ought to be any such high Priest in the Church of God, to have the chief authority in spiritual matters, as there was in the law: for he was the type and figure of Christ, who is our high Priest, and chief Bishop. Secondly, these examples do not excuse the Popes tyranny, who hath deposed rightful Kings and Emperors, and better then himself: as Pope Zechariah deposed Childericus the French King, and set up Pipinus: Gregory the seventh set up Rodolphus against Henricus the fourth, the Emperor. Pope Paschalis set up the son of the said Henricus against his father. But we will answer more particularly to these examples.

To the first: First, it was not the sole act of Azariah the high Priest, but there were 80. Priests that joined with him beside, and they all spake to the King: this example therefore maketh nothing for the sole authority of the Pope, who saith, that he may depose the Emperor himself, without any Council. Innocent. 4. Secondly, they did not depose Uzziah: they only withstood him according to the law of God, because he usurped the priests office: so ought faithful Bishops and pastors even to reprove the greatest Magistrates, for the manifest contempt, and open breach of God's law: Neither did they contstrain the King to go forth, before they saw the judgment of God upon him: for the text saith, they compelled him to go forth, because the Lord had smitten him, they saw the leprosy to rise up in his face, verse. 20. This therefore was the extraordinary judgment of God, and not of the high priest. Thirdly, he was not deposed from the Kingdom, though he dwelt alone: his son did execute the office only for him, and reigned after him: for being a leper, by the law he was to dwell apart, Levite. 13.46. Here was nothing done (we see) by the sole authority of the high Priest, but they had the manifest and direct law of God, unto the which their Kings also were subject.

To the second example, we answer. First, Athaliah was a tyrant and an usurper, and ought not to reign, and therefore was justly deposed. Secondly, Jehoiada did it not by his own power, but assembled the Fathers and Princes of the land, 2. Chron. 22.2. He shown them the young King, and they made a covenant with him. Jehoiada only gave directions, (the King being now known unto them) unto the Captains and governors. Thirdly, they had the flat word of God for that action, The Kings son must reign, as the Lord hath said, concerning the sons of David, ver. 3. So when the Pope hath any such warrant from God, he may do as Jehoiada did.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiastical hath no manner of temporal jurisdiction either directly or indirectly over Kings, Princes, Emperors, but ought of right to be subject to them and their laws: it is thus proved.

1 By the same reason whereby the Jesuit proveth, that the Pope directly hath no temporal jurisdiction, we will conclude, that neither indirectlie can he have any, and so none at all. Christ, while he lived upon earth, took upon him no temporal jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly: he refused to be a King, John 6. Nay he would not be a Judge in civil matters, as in deviding the inheritance, being thereto required, Luke 12.13. He paid poll money, Matth. 17. he did submit himself to the judgment of Pilate an heathen Judge: therefore seeing Christ used no such temporal jurisdiction, neither can any Minister of Christ: for the servant is not above the Master: Only Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ.

2 The Fathers of Basil do urge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2. against Panormitane, who had unadvisedly said, that the Pope was Lord of the Church. But the Apostle saith, Feede the flock of Christ, not by constraint, but willingly, not as Lord's over the Lord's inheritance, verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise useth all forceable, constraining, and tyrannical means, killing, slaying, imprisoning, deposing those that will not obey him: who calleth himself chief Lord and Magistrate of the whole Worlde. Surely this is Antichrist, and not the Minister of Christ, or successor of Saint Peter, whose counsel he refuseth to follow and obey.

3 Let but the stories of former times be searched: there we shall find how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaved themselves towards Kings, and Emperors: Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to do penance for Beckets death, and to be displed of the Monks. Innocent the third caused King John to kiss the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subject. Alexander the third did tread upon Emperor Frederick his neck. Pope Innocent spoiled Frederick the second of his Empire, caused him to be poisoned, and his son Conradus to be beheaded: and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order, Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his son.

It is not good, they say, to put a sword into a mad man's hand: and think you not, that these Popes used the temporal sword very discreetely, which they thus usurped, making fools and slaves of Emperors, as Pope Adriane did, that rebuked Frederick the first, because he held his stirrup on the wrong side, and did excommunicate him, for setting his name before the Popes in writing? Th • very insolent, devilish, and Antichristian practice of this their temporal power, showeth from what original it cometh, even from the father of pride.

Lastly, Augustine saith, writing upon those words, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Si quis putat, quia Christanus est, non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum, aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum, eis, qui haec curant potestatibus; in magno error est. If any man think, because he is a Christian, that he is not bound to pay tribute and tax, and yield due honor to the temporal powers (for of such Augustine speaketh) he is in a great error. If all then are subject to the temporal magistrate, that are Christians, then all Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons, yea the Pope himself, if he be a Christian. Ergo, the Emperor is not subject to him.

The Papists.

THey say that it is not against the word of God, that the Pope should be [error 52] both a temporal and Ecclesiastical Prince, and that both the swords of spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction do belong unto him: and that he is the right heir of Saint Peters patrimony: to him belongeth as chief Lord the Imperial city of Rome, the palace of Lateran, Capua also and Apulia are his. distinct. 96. Constantine.

1 Moses (saith the Jesuit) was both priest, and Prince: so was Heli 1. Sam. 4. He judged Israel forty years: so were also the Maccabees, Judas, Jonathan, Simon: yea Melchizedek long before Moses, was Priest and King: Ergo the Pope is lawfully both chief Bishop, and chief Prince also, and Lord of that which he now possesseth. Bellarmine cap. 9.

Ans. Concerning Melchizedek. Who knoweth not, that he being King and Priest, was a lively figure of our Savior Christ's spiritual Kingdom and Priesthoode? Heb. 7. And as yet the offices of the spiritual and temporal government were not distinguished: for all the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & the rest were sacrificers, therefore we cannot borrow any examples from them for this matter.

Moses also did offer sacrifice to God, and was chief judge both in spiritual and temporal affairs unto the people, until such time, as when by God's commandment, Aaron was chosen to the priesthood, unto whom the charge of sacrifices and unto his sons was committed: so Moses remained still Prince of the people, whom Joshua succeeded, and Aaron was invested to the priesthood, and so the offices were distinct: this example therefore of Moses is extraordinary, and proveth not.

Concerning the time when Eli judged Israel, which was in the days of the judges, we must understand, that the government of Israel was very dissolute, and men were left to themselves to do almost what themselves listed: as Iud. 17. we read that Micah set up an Idol in his house, and the reason is rendered, there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes. Likewise the tribe of Dan offered violence to Micah, and robbed him, Iud. 18. For there was no King in Israel, verse. 1. The Levites wife was most shamefully abused by the Gibeonites, for there was no King, chap. 19.1. The men of Benjamin took them wives by force: for they had no King, chap. 21.25. So you see that both religion was corrupted, and the manners of the people grew to be outrageous; and all because there was no perfect distinct government, there was no King in Israel.

In Eli his time, the word of God was precious, 1. Sam. 3.1. Great was the ignorance of the whole land: the licentiousness also of his sons was a great offense to all Israel, and brought a great decay of godliness with it, 1. Sam. 2.17.23. Yea they caused the people through their evil example to sin, verse. 24. Wherefore Eli his house was judged of GOD for his remisnes in government, in not correcting his sons, chapter 3.13. And he that cannot rule his own house, how should he care for the Church, 1. Timoth. 3.5? It cannot now be proved by the example of Eli, that the civil government was annexed to the priesthood by the Lord's appointment: but it is rather to be ascribed to the corruption of those times: for having no King nor Captain over them, they were driven of necessity to come to the high Priest, unto whom the judgment of many matters was committed by the law of God, Deuter. 17.8. Levite. 13.2. But the priesthood, and the civil magistracy were two distinct things always from the time of the law established.

It is then no good argument, which is drawn from the practice and example of those corrupt times: And yet we say not, that these offices were so distinct, but that the Lord might raise up some extraordinary prophet, as he did Samuel, who to restore justice and religion decayed, might for a time both judge the people and offer sacrifice, as we see he did.

As for the examples of the Maccabees, they move us not, you must bring better scripture for your purpose: the authority of those books bind us not: and again we see they did contrary to the law, in taking upon them both offices: for the priesthood was annexed to the posterity of Aaron forever, Numb. 3.10. And the scepter was not to depart from Judah till Christ came, Genes. 49.10. As the Lord also had promised to David, that the Kingdom should remain in his seed. 2. Chron. 22.3.

2 Constantine the great gave unto the Pope the chief government of the City of Rome, and other Lordships in Italy, yea the sovereignty over the West parts: why then is it not lawful for him to enjoy his gift? Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 9.

Ans. First, the donation of Constantine seemeth to be forged: for if Constantine resigned to Sylvester the political dominion of the west partes, how could he then have distributed his Empire amongst his sons, as the West part to one, the East to the second, the middle part to the third? Again, the donation saith, that Constantine was baptized at Rome by Sylvester before the battle against Maximinus, and that then the patrimony was given: but it is certain by stories that he was baptized at Nicomedia, by Eusebius Bishop there, in the 31. year of his reign: wherefore it seemeth to be a forged and devised thing. plur. apud. Fox. pag. 105.

2 Aeneas Siluius saith, that Mathilda, a noble Dutches in Italy, gave those lands to the Pope, which are called S. Peters patrimony: how then can it be true, that they were given by Constantine ? Thirdly, the popish doctors and Canonists confess, that Constantine's grant is not so much to be counted a donation, as a restitution of that which tyrannouslie was taken from him: but he hath his power spiritual and temporal immediately from Christ: you see then that they themselves make no great reckoning of Constantine's donation. Antoni. summa, major. 3. part.

4 Yet if Constantine that good Emperor had been so minded, to have bestowed the imperial dignity upon the bishop of Rome: there remaineth a great question, whether he ought to have accepted of it or not; nay he should have refused it: for the temporal sword belongeth not to spiritual governors: At the least it had been a charitable part, not to have suffered the Emperor to disinherit his own sons, for to enrich the See of Rome: as Augustine very well saith, Qui vult, exhaeredato filio, ecclesiam haeredem facere, quaerat alterum, qui suscipiat, non Augustinum, immo deo propitio nullum inueniat. He that would make the Church his heir, and defeat his own children, let him seek somebody else, to accept of his gift: surely Augustine will not, nor I trust any honest man beside.

The Protestants.

FIrst we willingly grant, that the Church may enjoy those temporal possessions, which have been of old granted unto it for the better maintenance thereof, so they be not abused to riot and excess: as the Levites beside their tithes, had their cities and fields, Numb. 35. Secondly, the judgment of Ecclesiastical matters doth of right appertain to the Church, as Amariah the Priest was the chief in all matters of the Lord, 2. Chron. 19.11. Thirdly, we do not utterly exclude spiritual persons from temporal causes: but as the civil Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiastical laws, so spiritual persons ought not to be strangers from the civil state; being meet men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withal, and conferred with, and to be joined in Council with the Magistrate in difficult matters: as we read, Deuter. 17.8. How the high Priest, and chief judge, did join in mutual help and assistance. But that any spiritual person may be a temporal prince, and have the chief government of both states, and handle both swords, we say it is contrary to the word of God: for in these three points standeth chiefly the office of the prince, in making and ordaining civil laws, in having power of life and death, in proclaiming of war, and waging of battle: with none of these ought Ecclesiastical persons to deal, as we will now show in order.

1 Concerning the making of civil laws and statutes, though the Ecclesiastical body, according to the ancient custom of this land, have their suffrage and voice, and do give consent: yet the chief stroke, in alowing, confirming, and enacting of such laws is in the prince, and cannot agree or be matched with any spiritual office.

Saint Paul saith, Who is sufficient for these things? that is, for the work of the Ministry, 2. Cor. 2.16. If therefore spiritual persons suffice not to execute to the full, their spiritual charge, though they should bend all their study and care that way, much more insufficient shall they be, if they be entangled in temporal affairs, for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient.

Again (saith he) no man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, 2. Timoth. 2.4. By affairs seculare here are not only understood (as the Jesuit imagineth) merchandise, traffike, buying, selling, and such like, but the care and charge also of civil government, of making laws and orders for the civil state, which must needs be a great let to the spiritual business, and require greater study and labor, then the other baser works which are named. To this Augustine agreeth: Quo iure (saith he) defendis villas? Vnde quisque possidet quod habet? Iure humano, iure imperatorum: quare? quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores & reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano. tract. in Ihoann. 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions? by the law of man, the law of the Emperors: for these human laws, by God's ordinance are given unto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world. See then, civil laws, and human constitutions are given and made, not by the Pope, Priest, or any other Prelate, but only by Kings and Princes, and the civil magistrates.

2 It were a monstrous & an unnatural thing, that any Ecclesiastical governor should have power of life & death: for he hath no better right to the civil sword, then the prince to the Ecclesiastical sword: and if it be not lawful for the civil Magistrate to excommunicate, which is as the spi • tuall sword, and the greatest censure of the Church, no more is it to be suffered, that by the authority or commandment of any Ecclesiastical person, any man should be put to death.

The high Priest was not to deal with matters of blood, which touched the life: but the offenders were brought to the gates of the city, where the magistrates sat. Deuter. 17.5. Not to the temple, where the priest ministered. Nay, we see, that in the most corrupt times of the Jewish common-wealth, namely, when they put our blessed Savior to death, the priests did not challenge any such power: It is not lawful (say they) for us, to put any to death: John 18.31. But that power was in the temporal Magistrate, as Pilate said to Christ, Knowest thou not, that I have power to crucify thee, and power to loose thee? John. 19.10. Ergo, the Pope cannot be a temporal prince, to have power of life and death.

3 If the Pope be a temporal prince, then he may wage battle, which although the Jesuit dare not plainly affirm, yet it followeth necessarily upon his assertion: for it is lawful for any temporal prince to make war: And it hath been the common practice of Popes and popish prelates so to do.

There were great & bitter battles fought between Urbane the sixth, and the Antipope Clement, in the which on the one side there were 5000. slain. Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lusty young blood, Bishop of Norwich, was the Popes Captain general in France: where he sacked the town of Grauenidge, and put man, woman and child to the sword.

So Pope Julius cast his keys into the River Tybris, and took himself to his sword: waged many battles, and at the last was encountered withal by Louis the French King, upon Easter day: where there was of his army slain, to the mumber of 16000. But these warlike affairs of the Pope misliked the Papists themselves: for he was therefore condemned in the Council of Turone in France, Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes do follow the rule of Christ, who commanded Peter to put up his sword into his sheath: If it were not lawful for Peter to strike with the sword, how is it lawful for the Popes, that, I am sure, dare not challenge more to themselves, then was lawful for Peter ? Thus we see how absurd a thing it is, that the Pope should be a temporal Prince.

The Papists.

THe Romish Jesuits do hold that Antichrist is not yet come, neither can they tell when he shall come: But this they say boldly, that Enoch and Elias, [error 57] who live all this while in Paradise, shall come immediately before Antichrist, and that Antichrist, when he is come, shall reign but three years and an half, and then shall the world end, Bellarm. cap. 4. lib. 3. de pontif. Rhemist. 11. Apocal. sect. 2.4.

1 The Roman Empire must utterly be destroyed & laid wast before Antichrist come: as S. Paul saith, That which withholdeth must first be taken away, 2. Thess. 2.7. that is, the Roman Empire. But the Empire yet remaineth: for the Emperor is known by name, and there are also prince electors of the Empire: Ergo, Antichrist is not yet come, Bellarm. cap. 5.

Answer: It is true that the Roman Empire, while it retained and kept the ancient dignity, majesty and power thereof, was an hindrance and let to the tyranny of Antichrist, but when it began to decay, then Antichrist set in his foot. First, it was not necessary therefore that the Empire should utterly be extinguished, but so much only taken away, namely the ancient honor and imperial majesty thereof, as hindered Antichrist, and so we find, that the Roman Empire was more then half decayed, when Antichrist crept into Rome. Secondly, the imperial power must in some sort be restored by Antichrist: for the Pope usurped the same authority which the Emperors had, yea greater: for the whore is described sitting upon the beast, Apocal. 17. which is the Empire: and therefore it is said, verse. 8. The beast that was, and is not, and yet is: for the ancient Empire both is, and is not: It is, because the power thereof is translated to the Pope: it is not, that is, not in that kingly manner, as it was in times past. Apocal. 13.12. The beast that rose out of the earth with two horns like a lamb, did all that the first beast could do before him: that is, the power of the Empire was in the Pope. Thirdly, Apocal. 13.15. It is said, that the image of the beast remained, & that the other beast gave a spirit unto the image of the beast: So is it at this day, the name and image of the Empire remaineth, but the majesty and power is gone: And who giveth life to the image but the Pope? he confirmeth and ratifieth the election of the Emperor. Wherefore, this rather is an argument that Antichrist is already come, because nothing but the image of the beast remaineth.

2 Antichrist shall reign three years and an half: but if he were already come, he must needs have reigned diverse hundred years already, Bellarmine. cap. 8.

They prove this reign of Antichrist for this short season, out of those places of Daniel 7.25. A time, times, and half a time: and Apocal. 12.14. Also it is described by days 1260. days, and by months 11.2. two and forty months: which all come to one reckoning, and make three years and an half.

Answer: First, the time is also set down by the name of three days and an half, Apocal. 11.11. How then is it likely, that 1260. days and three days and an half, should signify the same time? Secondly, with much better sense are these times applied by our learned and painful countreyman Master Fox, to the great persecution under the Emperors, which continued 294. years, which time is mystically signified by 42. months, taking every month for a sabbath of years. And the rest of the numbers agree hereunto: for 1260. days make three years and an half, that is, months 42: and three days and an half make hours 42. So taking every hour in the days, and every month in the years for a sabbath of years, there ariseth 294. years, which was the just time of the persecution from the death of John the Baptist, unto the end of Licinius the tyrant & persecutor. This account, I say, better agreeth with the truth of history, then their imagined computation. Thirdly, if it should be taken, as they expound it, for so short a time, then very little of the prophecy in the Apocalypse is yet fulfilled, which we doubt not but is most accomplished, as it may appear in comparing the visions revealed in that book together. And again, there is no prophecy beside this of 42. months, which can be applied to the great persecution in the Primitive Church: wherefore it is not like that the Lord would leave his Church, without some comfort, in forewarning them of those great troubles which immediately ensued. But if these prophecies, which are wrested by the Papists, did no • foretell of those persecutions, then are they utterly forgotten in that book: which is not like, it being the greatest trial that ever the Church had.

4 We say then, that we are not curiouslie to search into times and seasons, which the Lord hath not revealed: Only this we learn, that the time of affliction being set down by days and months, the faithful should hereby be comforted, knowing that the time of their trouble is limited of God, and is but short in respect of the kingdom of Christ.

2 The Lord saith, Math. 24. that those days shall be shortened, lest no flesh should be saved. But how can the time be short, if it should last some hundreds, or a thousand of years? Bellarmine. cap. 8. Rhemist. annot. Matth. 24. sect. 6.

Answer: First, that place verse. 22. is properly understood of the calamity of the Jews, which if it had continued any longer, the nation of the Jews had been utterly destroyed. Secondly, yet notwithstanding the reign of Antichrist is short in respect of the eternal kingdom of Christ: yea the whole time from his ascension until his coming again, is counted but short, Apocal. 22.20. I come quickly: and S. Peter saith, That a thousand years before God is as one day, and one day as a thousand years, 2. Pet. 3.

3 Christ preached but three years and an half, therefore Antichrist shall be suffered to preach no longer.

Answer: First, yet Christ was thirty years old when he began to preach, and shown himself before, though not so openly, as when he was twelve year old he disputed with the Doctors in the temple: he was also acknowledged for the Messiah in his nativity. If Antichrist then must in this respect be correspondent to Christ, he must also be known to be thirty years upon earth, before he be fully manifested. Secondly, though Christ himself preached no longer, yet he sent his Apostles, who preached many years after: we do not therefore oppose the person of Antichrist, whom we deny to be a singular man, to Christ, but the kingdom of the one to the other. Now by their own reason, it followeth, that because the kingdom of Christ endured many years, and yet doth, that therefore Antichrists kingdom must likewise.

Other demonstrations the Jesuit hath to prove that Antichrist is not yet come: as because the Gospel is not yet preached to all the world, cap. 4. Bellar. Helias and Enoch are not yet come, who are certainly looked for, cap. 6. There shall be a most grievous and terrible persecution under Antichrist, which is not yet past, cap. 7. But these arguments shall be answered in another place towards the end of this work, when we come to speak of the appearing of Christ to judgment.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist shall reign but three years and an half, we take it for a mere fable, and a very popish dream: whereas on the contrary side, we are able to show, both that Antichrist is already come, and hath tyrannized in the world these many years.

1 We will make it plain by demonstration, that Antichrist hath been in the world many years ago, by the prophetical places of scripture. First, it is said, the number of Antichrist is 666. Apocal. 13.18. So, anno. 606. or thereabout, Boniface the 3. obtained of Phocas the Emperor to be called universal Bishop. Thus saith Illyricus, Chytraeus. Also beginning at the year of the Lord 97. at which time John wrote the Apocalypse, and counting 666. years, we shall come to the time of Pipinus, whom the Pope made King of France, and he again much enlarged the jurisdiction and authority of the Pope. And yet more evidently, about the year of the Lord 666. the Latin service was commanded to be used in all countries subject to the See of Rome, by Pope Vitalianus: and about the same time, Constantius the Emperor removed the ancient monuments of the Empire to Constantinople, and left the city to the Popes pleasure, Fulk. annot. in 13. Revel. sect. 10.

Another prophecy we have, Revel. 20.3. that after one 1000. years Satan must be let loose. Even so, a thousand years after Christ, Pope Sylvester a great conjurer, having made a compact with the Devil, obtained the Papacie, and not long after him came in Gregory the 7. a great Sorcerer also and Necromancer, sic Lutherus.

But because it is not to be thought, that Satan was bound during that great and long persecution under the Roman Emperors, we must begin the account of the 1000. years, from the end of the persecution, which continued 294. years: unto that add a thousand, so have we the year of our Lord 1294. About which year Boniface the 8. made the sixth book of the Decretals, confirmed the orders of Friers, and gave them great freedoms: with this number agreeth Daniel his 1290. days, Dan. 12.1 • . Also somewhat before this time, anno 1260. the orders of Dominic and Franciscane Friers began first to be set up by Honorius the 3. and Gregory the 9. and so have we the 1260. days, which are set down, Apocal. 12. plura apud Fox. pag. 398.

2 If Antichrist should reign but three years and an half, as our adversaries teach, and then immediately that time being expired, the world should end: then it is possible to assign the time of our Lord Christ his coming to judgment, so soon as Antichrist is revealed. But the Gospel saith, that of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels in heaven, Math. 24.36. yet these good fellows take upon them to be wiser then the Angels: for they dare set down the very day of Christ's coming: which shall be, as Bellarmine presumptuously imagineth, just 45. days after the destruction of Antichrist. And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11. where mention is made of 1290. days, that is, as he fondly interpreteth, three years and an half, the just time of Antichrists reign: But blessed is he that cometh (saith the Prophet) to 1335. days: that is, saith Bellarmine, to 45. days after the destruction of Antichrist, and then Christ cometh, cap. 9. What intolerable boldness and presumption is this, contrary to the saying of Christ, to attempt to declare the very hour of his coming?

Agayne: the prophecy of Daniel had no such meaning: for he only speaketh of the afflictions of the Church, before the coming of Christ, as John prophecieth of the troubles that came after. Daniel therefore in that place receiveth instructions concerning the cruel persecution of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, the beginning, and the end thereof: There are three times revealed unto him.

The first is of a time, two times, and half a time, or rather the deviding of time, or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew, a part or parcel of times: so long should the temple be defiled, and the abomination set up in the temple, that is, three years and certain days: And so it came to pass, for this desolation began in the temple the 145. year of the reign of the Greeks, the fifteen day of the month Casleu. 1. Macchab. 1.57. when Antiochus caused the daily sacrifice to cease, and incense to be burnt to Idols: And just three years and ten days after, which is to be reckoned for the odd parcel of times, Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu, they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the law, 1. Macchab. 4.52.

The second time revealed, is of a 1290. days, Dan. 12.11. which maketh three years, seven months and odd days: which is the time, counting from the desolation, when as the sacrifices should be restored, and confirmed by the Kings grant, and Letters Patents: which accordingly came to pass, ann. 148. the fifteenth of the month Xanthicus, which was the last month but one, as it is recorded, 2. Macchab. 11.33.

The third time is described by days, 1335. Dan. 12.12. Blessed is he that should live to see that time: namely, when the Church of the Jews should fully be delivered by the death of Antiochus, which was in the beginning of the next year, which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16. Thus we see these times were fully accomplished under the tyranny of Antiochus: wherefore these prophecies being once fulfilled, they cannot be drawn to signify any other time, but by way of similitude and comparison.

Neither is that anything worth, which the Jesuit objecteth out of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2.8. Then shall the wicked man be revealed, whom Christ shall consume with the spirit of his mouth: As though presently after the revelation of Antichrist Christ should come. And therefore Antichrist must not be expected or looked for before the end of the world: for the whole time from the first coming of Christ to his second, is in the scripture called nouissima hora, the last times, 1. John. 2.18. And therefore Antichrist, at what time soever he is revealed after the ascension of Christ, he cometh in the last times: whose utter ruin and destruction shall be reserved for the glorious appearing of Christ, as the Apostle there speaketh.

3 Whereas the scripture saith, that Satan must be bound for a thousand years, and after let loose again, Apocal. 20.2: And it is plain that the thousand years since Christ are expired more then five hundred years ago: It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is already come: for he must be revealed with the loosing of Satan. Our adversaries have nothing to answer but this, that by this 1000. years, a certain time is not meant, but the whole space during the time of the new Testament, till the coming of Antichrist, Rhemist. Revel. 20. sect. 1. To whom we answer, that by the same reason, neither shall their 42. months show any certain time, but the whole space so long as Antichrist shall reign: and this number of months, as of days, weeks, hours, the scripture everywhere taketh mystically in prophecies: but when thousands, or hundred years are mentioned, they are always taken literally: as Isaiah. 7.8. it is prophesied, that Ephraim, that is, Israel, should utterly cease to be a people within 65. years, which even so came to pass, counting from the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz King of Judah, to the 25. year of Manasseh, when the remnant of Israel was carried away.

The Papists.

THey stoutly affirm, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, consequently [error 58] they also hold, that he shall have a certain name, as Christ is called Jesus, so Antichrist must also have a proper name: but what that name shall be, no man can tell, until he come: but it shall consist of certain letters, that in number make six hundred sixty six, Bellarm. cap. 10. Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 13. sect. 10.

1 Apocal. 13.18. Count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Hereupon they conclude, that Antichrist shall have a certain name, which containeth that number, Bellarm. ibid.

Answer: First, it is the number of the beast, and yet of a man: Ergo, it cannot be the name of any one man: for by the beast, the Jesuits themselves understand a company or multitude, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a company or succession of men, and such is the name Latinus, as afterward we will show. Secondly, it must be a name by number, showing the time, not an idle number signifying nothing; the time of his coming is set down to be 666: But the name of their Antichrist cannot show any such time, seeing there are years more then twice 666. gone already, and yet they say, their Antichrist is not yet come.

2 Antichrist shall have a name, as Christ had, but it is not necessary to be known, otherwise then Christ his name was: which was described by Sibil by the number of 888. as Antichrists is by 666. yet was not his name, Jesus, perfectly known before his coming, neither is it necessary that Antichrists should before that time. Jesus, in Greek letters thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10.

Answer: First, you must prove Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was, and then strive for his name. Secondly, you do evil to match Sibils prophecy, and John's revelation together, as though her conjecture of the name of Christ, by the number 888. were of like authority with John's prophecy, of 666. Thirdly, it is false, that the name, Jesus, was only by Sibil signified by these numbers: for Augustine allegeth certain verses of Sibil, which began with the letters of Christ's name in order one after another: so that the first letters of the verses shown this title or name: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Jesus Christus filius Dei saluator: And the Latin verses translated out of the Greek, do almost keep the same order of letters, August. cont. Iudaeos pagan. cap. 16. We see then that Sibil foretold the very name, Jesus Christ, and did not only decipher it by numbers. Why might not Antichrists name as well be shown?

The Protestants.

WE affirm by warrant of scripture, that as it is a mere fable, that Antichrist shall be one singular man; so of the like truth is it, that he shall be known by some notorious name: neither can any such thing be gathered, Apocal. 13.18.

1 If there should come such a notorious wicked person into the world, who only should deserve to be called Antichrist, it is not unlike, but that the spirit of God, speaking of his name, both could & would also have expressed it: As Josiah was described by name, 1. King. 13.20 and Cyrus, Isai. 44.28.45.1. long before either of them came into the world: And why, I pray you, might not this prophetical Evangelist, have named Antichrist, as well as Sibilla foretold the name of our Savior Jesus Christ?

Agayne, Christ's names were prophesied of and known before: One name of his is to be called a Nazarite, so the people call him, Math. 2 • .11. a prophet of Nazareth. This name the Prophet hath, Isaiah. 11.1. he calleth him, Netser, in Hebrew it signifieth a branch. Another name of his, is King of Israel, John 12.23. prophesied of by Zachar. 9.9. Also he was called the son of David, Math. 21.9. And Isaiah saith, he shall spring out of the root of Jesse. 11.1.

Further, he was known by the name Messiah, or Christ, before he came, John. 4. the woman of Samaria said, I know well that Messiah shall come, which is called Christ, verse. 25. This name was revealed to Daniel, 9.25. he is called Messiah, the prince.

But will our adversaries say, his name Jesus was not known before his coming? yes, even that name also hath some evidence out of the Prophets: for Jesus or Iesua, is all one, and signifieth a Savior: of the which name we read Zachar. 3. where mention is made of Ieshua the high Priest, who was a type of our Savior Christ, and bare his name, for verse. 5. a Diademe is set upon his head: which must needs be understood of Jesus Christ, our high Priest. Agayne, he is called Hosanna, John 12.13. which signifieth the same that Jesus, and both are derived from the same root: translated, Save us. Which name we find in the 118. Psal. verse. 25.

Lastly, if the name Jesus Christ were revealed to Sibilla a heathen prophetisse, how can it be, that the Prophets of God were ignorant of it? Therefore by their own argument, seeing Christ's names were known before his coming, why should not Antichrists in like manner, if he should be someone singular notorious man?

2 We can bring forth a name, which in all respects agreeth with that description, Apocal. 13.18. which is a name both of a man and of the beast, that is, of a company, or succession of men, which showeth the time of Antichrists birth, namely, the year 666. which also doth fitly agree with the manners and properties of Antichrist: and that is the name Latinus, which in Greek letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , showeth in account, the number 666. and so doth the name of Rome in Hebrew — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , romiijth. And, ecclesia Italica, in Greek letters do make the same number.

We see then, that all things do well agree to this name: first, that is signifieth the whole Latin Church or Empire, & so is the name of the beast. Secondly, it showeth the time 666. about which year Pope Vitalianus composed the Latin Service, and enjoined all Nations to use no other. Thirdly, it properly agreeth with the Antichristian practice of Rome ; which is called the Latin Church. And contrary to S. Paul's rule they have brought an unknown tongue which edifieth not, into the service of God: yea they prefer it before the Greek and Hebrew, making the Latin translation of the scriptures only authentical, as it was concluded in their Tridentine chapter. And they do so much extol their Latin text, as the setter forth of the Complutense edition is not ashamed in his preface to write, that he hath placed the Latin text between the Hebrew and the Greek, as Christ between the two thieves, Fulk. Apocal. 13. sect. 10. What Church then in the whole world but theirs, can be called the Latin Church? Fourthly, it also maketh much for us, that we have a consent of names, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & in Hebrew Romiijth, do all make the same number, and do note the Latin, Roman, or Italian Church.

But they object: First that Latinus maketh not that number with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . but Lateinus with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A great matter: wherein they show their ignorance, as though the Greek dipthong, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . be not usually expressed by a single 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in Latin, as we say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Antiocheia in Greek, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Alexandreia, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . dipthong: in Latin, Antiochia, Alexandria, with single 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for the cities of Antioch, and Alexandria: this therefore is a small quarrel. But mark I pray, what a poor shift this is: If this small letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . be but admitted, the Pope is made Antichrist: so we have found out Antichrist, saving one small letter.

2. Why, there are many names beside, that make that number, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and others: nay the Rhemists say, that Luther's name, in the Hebrew, and Bellarmine, that David Chytraeus his name, do express that number of 666. But what of all this? there is none of these names, unto the which the three properties aforesaid do agree, as they do unto Latinus, as to betoken the whole body of Antichrist, to show the time of his birth, and describe the qualities of his Kingdom, as the word Latinus doth, yet this we do not say, that this is the very name which is meant in that place, and that the Prophesy can have no other meaning: But to show how ridiculous their interpretation is, and how much nearer ours cometh to the truth.

The Papists.

THey do hold that Antichrist shall have a certain outward mark or character, which he shall cause to be printed in the right hands, and foreheads [error 59] of all both small and great, that do belong to his kingdom, Apocal. 13.16. But this mark is not yet known, no more then his name is: Only this they are sure of, that the Pope hath not Antichrists character, but rather the character of Christ, the sign of the Cross which he causeth to be signed in the foreheads, Bellarmine. cap. 11.

1. Antichrist must in all respects be contrary to Christ: for as he seeth his image and crucifix adored, so shall he set up his own image to be worshipped: and therefore as Christians now do bear in their foreheads the sign of the Cross which is Christ's mark, so he shall invent another mark contrary to Christ's: and he will make his name and the letters thereof sacred, as now the name of Jesus is worshipped among Christians, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 7.

Answer: First, where have you learned, that roodes and images are to be adored and worshipped? or doth not the word of God teach the plain contrary Psal. 115.8.9? O Israel trust in the Lord: but they that worship images are like unto them: he therefore that trusteth in an image cannot trust in God. Again, where learn you to make an Idol of the letters or syllables of Christ's name, to cause men to carry it in their caps, and bow their knee unto it? think you that Saint Paul, when he saith, that all things do bow the knee to the name of Jesus, yea of things in heaven, Philip. 2. that he meant, that even the Angels do stoup and make obeisance, when they see the name of Jesus written in a glass window? Or who taught you that the sign of the Cross is to be borne upon men's foreheads, and that with crossing of the forehead, we are preserved from danger? Saint Paul, you know, hath no such meaning, when he saith, He bare in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus, which were nothing else, but the signs and tokens of his persecutions, as whippings, stoning, and such like in his flesh: Galath. 6.17. Neither, when he saith, He rejoiced in nothing but the Cross of Christ, whereby he was crucified to the world, verse 14. hath he any relation to the Cross in the forehead: for it were a miracle, that a man by crossing his forehead, should straight ways crucify and mortify his affections: Nor yet did our Savior speak of this mark, where he saith, that they which will follow him, must take up his cross, Mark. 8.34. for in that place, by taking up of the Cross, he meaneth, nothing else but the forsaking and denying of our selves. So it is plain, that in the scripture you find not this superstitious sign of the cross in your foreheads.

2. Where you say, that you do honor the character of Christ, as his name, and the sign of the Cross: You do even so honor Christ, as the soldiers did, that gave him a reed for a scepter, and thorns for a Crown, and bowed themselves in mockage: So you do leave Christ certain badges and signs of his kingdom; but indeed you spoil him of it, and of his Priesthood too, making other mediators beside him, and other sacrifices propitiatory beside his. What do you else now, in bowing the knee to the name and syllables of Jesus, and spoiling him of his honur, but with the soldiers in mockage to bow unto Christ? And I pray you, how do you honor the name of Christ, when you make a jest of the name of Christian? for in Italy it is a word of reproach, taken for an idiote or fool.

3. We answer, that the sign whereby Christians are marked, are not external, but internal: we are sealed by the spirit of God, Ephes. 4.30. The outward signs are none other, but the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's supper: by the right administration whereof the congregations of the faithful are known. But of this, more shall be spoken in the Antithesis, or Antidotum, in the declaration of our opinion.

The Protestants.

BY the character or mark of Antichrist, we do not understand any visible sign or badge to be printed in the right hand or the forehead, as the Jesuit imagineth: as though he should brand all his subjects in the hand or forehead: But hereby is meant and signified chiefly the society and communion, whereby they shall be joined to Antichrist, by giving unto him their fidelity, oth, and obedience, agreeing together in the same corruption of faith, and doctrine. This is Antichrists badge or cognizance. Fulk. Apocalip. 13. sect. 7. There are also outward marks of their coniuncton with Antichrist: as the shaving of Priests, and greazing them with oil: such are the receiving of holy bread, the wearing of beads, the anointing with chrisome: But the proper note and character, is the oth and profession of fealty and obedience.

1. Antichrist say they, shall bring in another contrary character, to disgrace the sign and character of Christ, namely the cross in the foreheads: But Christ hath appointed no such visible character, neither are true Christians known by any such: therefore also the character of Antichrist is no such thing.

1. The people of the Jews had no such outward badge, who were more charged with outward observations, then Christians are: Circumcision was the only sign of the covenant to them, Genes. 17.11. which was one of their chief sacraments, in place whereof Baptism is enjoined us: Ergo, much less are we to be known by any other outward badge.

2. This place Apocal. 13. is taken out of Ezech. 9. where the Angel is commanded to set a mark upon the foreheads of them that mourn: but that was no visible external mark, for it was shown the Prophet in vision: Ergo, neither is it to be taken so in this place.

3. We grant, the sacraments are badges and marks of our profession: which marks the Pope, the only Antichrist hath defaced, by bringing in five other sacraments, and clean changing, polluting and altering, the right sacraments which Christ instituted: for they have brought into baptism, chrism, salt, oil, spittle, and such trash: into the Eucharist, adoration, transsubstantiatiō, sacrifice, with such like: so that herein he showeth himself Antichrist, and hath altered the true marks of Religion.

2. It appeareth by the effect what is the Character of Antichrist: The text saith, It was not lawful for any to buy or sell, but he that had the mark or the name of the beast: No more was it lawful for any to have traffic amongst the papists but he that acknowledged the Popes cross keys, or made himself a member of the Romish Italian Church: Nay they say, he is not of the Church, that acknowledgeth not the Pope to be head of Christ's Church, Fulk. Apocal. 13. sect. 7.

The Jesuit objecteth: First, this oth of fidelity and conjunction cannot be that character: for it must be in the right hand or forehead. Answer, We have already declared, that it is too childish to take these words literally, as though all Antichrists subjects should carry brandes in their foreheads or hands. Secondly, saith he, many do both buy & sell amongst them, that have not made profession of their fealty to Rome, as the Jews, Bellarm. cap. 11. Answer: Yea no marvel, for Antichrist is an enemy only to Christ: all other people he can brook well enough beside good Christians: tell me I pray you, whether our merchants be admitted to traffick safely in Spain, if their religion be known: The servants of God amongst you, can neither enjoy, houses, lands, liberty or life: which yoke also was laid a long time upon this land, till it pleased God to have mercy on us: for the which his name be blessed.

3. Again, many years ago, even in Augustine's and Ambrose his time, all Churches were joined to Rome, before Antichrist was yet revealed. Ergo. This is not the Character of Antichrist. Bellarmine. ibid.

Answer: First, they were joined then in common consent of religion, not as subjects by compulsion, but voluntary, because at that time Rome in the chiefest points of Religion was in the right faith. 2. But of late days in the Council of Constance not yet 2. hundred years ago, it was made an article of faith, to believe, that the Pope was the head of the Vniuersal Church: yea about the year 600. the title of Vniuersal Bishop first began to be appropriate to Rome: whereby was insinuated, that all Churches in the world should be under the obedience thereof.

Lastly, we have the testimony of one of their Popes themselves, who saith plainly, that he is the forerunner of Antichrist, which would be called Universal Bishop. lib. 4. epistol. 32. See then by his testimony, the title of Vniuersality, and exacting of obedience of other Churches, is the character & mark of Antichrist.

The Papists.

[error 60] THey do reject those old fancies concerning Antichrist, as that he should be borne of a Virgin by help of the devil, that he should have the devil to his father: that he should be a devil incarnate: or that he should be Nero, raised from the dead. Refusing these fables, they have found out one as foolish: Our Rhemists hold, that Antichrist shall be borne of the tribe of Dan. Bellarm. dare not say so, but he thinketh that he shall come of the Jews stock, and be circumcised, and be taken of the Jews for their Messiah. cap. 12.

1. That he shall come of the tribe of Dan: thus they would prove it, Genes. 49.17. Dan shall be a serpent by the way biting the horse heels: Ierem. 8.16. The neying of his horses is heard from Dan. And Apocal. 7. where 12. thousand of every tribe are reckoned, only Dan is left out, because (belike) Antichrist should come of that tribe. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8.

Answer: Bellarmine confuteth all these reasons: the first he saith with Jerome to be understood of Sampson, who came of the tribe of Dan: the second place is of Nabuchadnezzers coming to destroy Jerusalem, as Jerome also expoundeth it: to the third he saith, that Ephraim is left out as well as Dan: yea and so is Manass • h too: because the tribe of Joseph is named for his two sons: but Dan is left out because Levi is reckoned in his place. We may see now, how well they agree, when one Jesuit confuteth another. Bellarmine. cap. 12.

2. Bellarmine standeth much upon that place, John 5.43. If another come in his name, him will ye receive: But saith he, the Jews will receive none, but of their own kindred, and whom they look for to be their Messiah. Ergo. Antichrist must come of the Jews. ibd.

Answer: This place we have shown before, part 1. of this question, to be understood of false prophets amongst the Jews, such as mention is made of Act. 5. as Theudas and Judas, and not of any one false prophet: so John 10. where Christ compareth himself, which is the true shepherd, with the hireling, he understandeth all hirelings, though he speak in the singular number.

The Protestants.

THat it is a very fable and cousoning device of heretics, to make men believe that Antichrist shall come of the tribe of Dan, or of the stock of the Jews, thus we show it.

1. It is out of doubt, that the nation of the Jews shall be converted unto God, and mercy shall be shown again to the remnant of Israel, Rom. 11.25. confessed also by the papists: But if one come, which shall re-edify the temple, and restore the sacrifices and circumcision, such an one, as the Jews shall take for their Messiah: who seeth not, that by this means the Jews will be more hardened, having now their own hearts desire, their temple; Messiah, circumcision: and their conversion would be greatly hindered, nay quite and clean overthrown?

2. If Antichrist should come of the Jews, it is like that his seat should be at Jerusalem, and that the temple shall be built again by him: but that cannot be, for the temple, as Daniel prophesieth, shall lie desolate even unto the ende, Dani. 9.27. Ergo. he shall not come of the Jews. More of this in the next parte.

The Papists.

BEllarmine holdeth opinion, that Antichrist shall have his imperial seat at Jerusalem, and re-edify and build again the temple, yea for a while command [error 61] circumcision to be used and observed, Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. 3. de pontif. Rhemist, 2. Thessa. 2. sect. 11.

1. Apocal. 11.8. the City of Antichrist is called the great City where our Lord was crucified. But Christ was crucified at Jerusalem. Ergo.

Answer: First, it cannot be so understood, for ver. 2. Jerusalem is called the holy City. ver. 8. This great City is called Sodom and Egypt: how can the same City be capable of such contrary names? How can that be called an holy City, where the abomination of desolation shall be and the seat of Antichrist?

Secondly, Augustine in Apocal. homil. 8. understandeth by the great City and the streets thereof, the midst of the Church: And by the great city very fitly is understood the large jurisdiction of the Pope, who saith, he is head of the great city and Catholic Church: Whose seat we see is at Rome, by authority of which city Christ was put to death: and by Antichrist the Pope, Christ also is persecuted in his members. Fulk. annotat. Apocalypse. 11. sect. 2.

2. Apocalypse. 17.16. the ten horns, that is, ten kings, amongst whom the Roman Empire shall be divided, shall hate the scarlet whore, that is, Rome, and burn it with fire: how then shall it be the seat of Antichrist? Bellarm.

Answer: The text is plain, that the same kingdoms, that before had given their power to the beast, and were subject to the whore of Babylon, shall after make her desolate, and eat her flesh: which thing we see in part to be accomplished already, that many princes have redeemed their necks from Antichrist his yoke, Fulk. Apocal. 17. sect. 3. It is not necessary therefore to be done all at one time, but one after another.

3. 2. Thessal. 2. he shall sit in the temple of God: but at that time the Jews only had a temple, the Christians yet had none, and the Apostle speaking of the Church of God, did of purpose refrain this name, lest the Church of Christians should be thought like the Jews Synagogue. Bellarm.

Answer: First, the Jewish temple shall not be built again, as Daniel prophesieth, 9.27. and how can it be built in so short a space, seeing Antichrist, as they say, must reign but three years and an half? and to what purpose, seeing he will abolish all sacrifices? Secondly, though it should be built again, nay if it were standing now, for the exercise of Jewish sacrifices, it could not be called the temple of God. Thirdly, by the temple therefore is meant the visible Church, that which sometime was a true visible one, as the Church of Rome, and after should be so taken, reputed and challenged, as it is at this day by the papists: Neither have the papists hereby any advantage, as though the Pope sat in the very true Church: for it is not the true Church indeed, but so reputed and taken by them. Fourthly, though there were no material temples of the Christians in Paul's time, what of that? he speaketh not here of any such material temple, but of the Church of God, neither doth Saint Paul in this sense refuse to use the name of temple, as 1. Corinthian. 3. verse. 16. and 6. verse. 19. and in other places.

The Protestants.

THat Rome is the seat and place of Antichrist, beside that the Rhemists confess so much that Antichrist shall reign there, annot. Apocal. 17. sect. 4. We prove it thus.

1. Antichrist is called the great whore of Babylon, Apocal. 17.5. But Babylon is Rome, Ergo, Rome is the seat of Antichrist.

Object: It was Babylon, while it was governed and ruled by heathen Emperors, but the Church was not then called Babylon, Bellarm. Answer: First, Ergo by your own confession, Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist, seeing by Saint John it was called Babylon. Secondly, it was not only called Babylon in the time of the heathen, but even of Christian Emperors: Augustine saith, it is Occidentalis Babïlon, the Babylon in the west partes, & prioris filia Babilonis, and daughter to the first Babylon. Thirdly, Saint John doth not only prophesy of the cruelty of the terrene state, but of the false prophet Antichrist, you should also usurp an ecclesiastical government there.

Object. Secondly, they object that by the damnation of the great whore, is understood the final destruction of all the company of the reprobate, Rhemist. Apocal. 17.1. Answer, the damnation universally of the wicked is described cap. 20. and therefore this place must be understood of Antichrist, and his adherents: And very fitly doth the name of whore agree to that See, for once a whore indeed was Pope there, called John the eighth. Which so wringeth the Papists, that they have no other shift but impudently to deny it.

2. We have another argument out of the same chapter, verse. 9. the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth: But there is no city in the world notoriously known to stand upon seven hills but Rome: Ergo, it is the seat of Antichrist.

Object. The text is, they are also seven kings, so the seven heads or seven hills signify seven kings: for there shall be so many chief Empires which shall persecute the Church, there are five part: Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, the Persians, Grecians, the sixth, the Romans, which in parte standeth yet, the seventh shall be Antichrist, Rhemist. Apocalip. 17. sect. 7.

Answer: First, the seven heads are expounded to be both seven hills and seven kings: the scripture useth not to expound one hard and obscure thing by an harder and more obscure, as to say, seven heads are seven mountains, that is, seven kings: for we were nearer the sense before: and the term of heads doth more fitly resemble kings, then mountains. Secondly, the seven kings are more fitly taken for seven principal governors of the Romans, as Kings, Tribunes, Consuls, Decemviri, Dictators, Emperors, Popes: for by these seven orders hath the common wealth been governed first and last. Fulk. ibid.

Object. Rome is not now built upon seven hills, it standeth in the plain in Campo Martio, Sander. ibid.

Answer: First, you have then no right to Peters Chair, for when he sat at Rome, the City stood upon seven hills. Secondly, though the Pope now hath removed his palace to the Vaticane, on the other side of the river, yet he did sit for many years in Lateran, until the time of Pope Nicholas the second, who was almost 1100. years after Christ. Thirdly, though the Pope hath removed his palace upon pleasure beyond the river: yet his See is not removed: for upon everyone of those hills there are Monasteries, and chapples, and such like monuments to be seen to this day. In mount Caelius there is the Monastery of Gregory the first, the Cathedral Church of Lateran. In mount Auentine, the Monasteries of Sabi • e and Boniface. In the mount Exquilinus the Minster of S. Maria major, the ruins of Saint Cyriacus Church, which is yet a title of a Cardinal. The mount Viminalis hath the Church of Saint Laurence. The mount Capitoline hath an house of friers, called Ara coeli. The mount Palatine the Church of Saint Nicholas. The mount Quirinalis hath S. Maria de populo. Wherefore though the Popes person be removed a little aside, yet the popish religion is exercised, and relics of superstition are to be found in everyone of those hills. Wherefore we nothing doubt to conclude, but that Rome is that City upon 7. hills, and so the principal seat of Antichrist.

The Papists.

[error 62] THeir opinion is, that Antichrist shall be an open and manifest adversary to Christ, and that he shall abolish all worship of God, and all religion. Rhemist. annot. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Bellarmine draweth all the doctrine of Antichrist, to these four heads. First, he shall deny Jesus to be Christ, and abolish the sacraments instituted by Christ. Secondly, he shall make himself Christ. Thirdly, he shall make himself God, and be adored as God. Fourthly, he shall abolish all other worship, both true and false, yea the worship of Idols. Wherefore, saith he, the Pope cannot be Antichrist, that doth none of these things, cap. 14. of these now in their order.

1. Antichrist shall utterly deny Christ. 1. John 2.22. & 4.3. Every spirit that confesseth not, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, this is the spirit of Antichrist. Ergo, Antichrist shall altogether deny Christ.

Answer: First the Rhemists say that this is not a mark for all times, to know an heretic by, but it was only for those times, to confess Christ to be come in the flesh: this is a surer note now, say they, that whoso confesseth not Christ to be really present, and to be sacrificed in the mass, is not of God. Rhemist. annot. 1. John 4. sect. 2. Where I will not stand to note the presumption of these papists, that will correct and amend the Apostles rule, to know heretics by, which serveth for all times, and so Augustine taketh it. But here first I oppose our Rhemists judgment against Bellarmine : for they deny that this place serveth to describe Antichrist, belonging only to the Apostles times: Bellarmine saith, it doth most properly decipher Antichrist.

2. The great Antichrist shall deny Christ no otherwise then other Antichrists and heretics did in the Apostles time: for they are all Antichrists 1. John 2.18. and he giveth one rule to know them all by, verse. 22. But the Antichrists then denied not Christ apertly, but covertly, Ergo, so shall the great Antichrist.

The first is true, that the old heretics did not plainly deny Christ to be come in the flesh: but some denied his humanity, some his divinity, some his person. Augustine saith, Arriani hoc negant, licet verbis fateātur, the Arians deny that Christ is come in the flesh, though they confess it in word: for he that doth not confess that Christ is equal unto God, denieth Christ in the flesh: and so of other heretics. The second also is as true: that Antichrist, who is no other but the Pope, shall also cunningly and covertly deny Christ, for he that denieth the offices of Christ, denieth Christ: As Augustine saith of Peters denial, Quicquid eius negauit, ipsum negauit. Tract. in Iohann. 66. whatsoever he denied of or belonging to Christ, he denied Christ. So the Pope denieth Christ to be our Prophet, King, and Priest: His prophetical office he defaceth, and in effect denieth, in disgracing the scriptures, saying, they are imperfect, and contain not all matters necessary to salvation, that their authority bindeth us not without his allowance: His Kingly office, in making himself Christ's Vicar and Vicegerent upon earth, in making new laws, sacraments, ordinances beside Christ's, as necessary to salvation as the rules of the Gospel: His priesthood, in setting up a new propitiatory sacrifice in the abominable Mass, beside the only sacrifice of atonement upon the Cross, in making other mediators and intercessors beside Christ: and such like, whereof we shall have occasion to entreat afterward more at large. Ergo, the Pope in denying the offices of Christ, denieth Christ, and so is Antichrist.

2. He shall make himself Christ and Messiah, which the Jesuit would prove out of John 5. ver. 43. If another come in his name, him will ye receive: But the Pope cometh not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, he calleth himself Christ's Vicar. Ergo he cannot be Antichrist, Bellarm.

Answer: First, It is not necessary that Antichrist should openly profess himself to be Christ, in name, but he shall do it, opere, indeed, and that closely and covertly: for those whom Christ calleth, pseudochristos, false Christ's, Matth. 24.23. John calleth Antichristos, Antichrists, 1. John. 2.18. False prophets therefore are false Christ's, & Antichrists: yet all those false prophets and heretics did not in name and outward profession make themselves Christ's.

2. The Pope of Rome in effect maketh himself Christ: for who but Christ is the head of the Church? who but Christ is superior to the Angels, and to command them? who but Christ can make sacraments and articles of faith? But all this the Pope taketh upon himself to do: yea the Jesuit is not ashamed to say, that he hath the same office which Christ had being upon earth, lib. 5. de pontif. cap. 4. And whereas they say, the Pope cometh in the name of Christ: it shall as much profit him (it being not in truth▪ but in color only and show) as it shall profit the false prophets to say in the day of the Lord, Have not we in thy name prophesied, and cast out devils? Matth. 7.22.23. to whom Christ shall make answer, Verily I know you not.

3. Antichrist shall openly name himself God, and command men to worship him as God, 2. Thessal. 2.4. But this doth not the Pope: Ergo, he is not Antichrist, Bellarm.

Answer: First, If Antichrist should be such an one, you might have found amongst the Emperors of Rome diverse Antichrists: for such an one Caligula was, that commanded temples to be erected in his name, and his images to be set up to be worshipped, yea in the temple at Jerusalem.

2. Saint Paul's words will not bear any such sense: he shall sit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as God: and your vulgar Latin hath ostendens se, tanquam sit Deus, showing himself as though he were God, that is, in deed and effect, not in open profession: for he should sit and be worshipped in the temple as God: howe then can it be called the temple of God, being thus a temple of most gross Idolatry?

3. The Pope in effect maketh himself a god upon earth: for he can dispence against the law of nature, the law of GOD, against both new and old testament: as we have shown before, quest. 9. of this Controuersie▪ yea Bellarmine saith, he may by his Apostolic authority dispence with the precepts of the Apostles cap. 14. He is able to change the nature of things, and of nothing to make things to be, of wrong to make justice, &c. Pope Nicholaus distinct. 96. yea it is said of the Pope, that he is neither GOD nor man, but a middle thing between both: Pope Boniface. I pray you then what is he? he is no Angel, for he is above them, and commandeth them: Papa Angels praecipit, the Pope commandeth Angels. He must then either be a God or a devil, by your own confession, choose which you will: Nay they do make him a plain God: Es alter Deus in terris, another God upon earth: and they salute him by these names, Dominus deus noster Papa, our Lord god the Pope. Thus it is proved, that the Pope, both by his deeds as also by his titles, doth make himself god upon earth.

4. Antichrist say they, shall take away all worship yea of Idols, and shall command nothing to be worshipped but himself, 2. Thessal. 2.4. the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , numina, all things that are worshipped. But so doth not the Pope, for he prayeth to Saints, adoreth the body of Christ on the altar. Ergo. Bellarm. cap. 14. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10.

Answer: First, the text proveth not, that he shall take away, all Idols, or things worshipped, but shall exalt himself against them, and make small account of them. The place also of Daniel is plain,

Secondly, yet he shall magnify himself above all such God's, Images, Roodes, shrines and the like▪ yea above his own breaden God: so doth the Pope: for he rideth upon men's shoulders, when his breaden God is carried upon an hackney: he exalteth his throne above the altar, the Cross is carried on the right hand of Emperors swords and scepters, but is laid under his feet: In the year of Jubilee, he beateth upon the gates of Paradise with a golden hammer: Fulk. annot. 2. Thesse. 2.10. so then howsoever like an hypocrite he seem to adore his breaden God, yet indeed doth he magnify himself above it.

Bellarmine hath no other shifts to foist off our arguments, but these: he saith, this Mauzzim, is like enough to be the devil himself, whom Antichrist shall worship: but he careth neither for silver or gold: or else it is himself. And how I pray you can a man worship himself? or else, saith he, it is some strong castle where he shall lay his silver and gold: or else you know not what, Bellarmine. 14.

2 That Antichrist shall not abolish Idols of silver and gold, but rather command the people to worship them, as the Pope now doth, it is plain, Apocalypse. 9.20.

The Rhemists object, that he speaketh here against the heathen Idols, which is here called the worship of devils. Answer: First, in this place John speaketh of the ende of the world, in the opening of the seventh seal: and the Idols of the heathē were abolished long ago: Neither is there any known nation in the world that hath worshipped Idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, or wood, but the papists, for these many years. Secondly, all worshippers of Images, do worship devils: for Idolatry is a service invented by the devil, Fulk. annot. Apoc. 9. sect. 4.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist shall not in outward show be an open enemy to Christ, but secretly and closely, and under pretence of religion take away all religion: thus we make it plain.

1 These places alleged before do prove it: John. 1.2.18. the Antichrist, and the Antichrists, shall be enemies all alike, but the Antichrstes in Saint John's time, were covert enemies. Ergo, so shall the great Antichrist.

2. Saint Paul calleth it the mystery of iniquity, 2. Thess. 2.7. and he shall come in all deceivableness of unrighteousness, verse. 10. and God shall send them strong delusion, to believe lies, verse. 11. All this proveth that Antichrist shall work closely, cunningly, mystically, by deceiving, by delusion, not by open enmity, and profaneness, or by violence and tyranny only, as the papists imagine.

3 Antichrist shall be the greatest enemy to Christ, and his kingdom, that ever was in the world. But he is a greater enemy that pretendeth friendship, and yet is a foe, that under the name of Christ persecuteth the Christian faith, then he that openly destroyeth it, making no show of Religion: as David complaineth, Psalm. 41.9.

4. Lastly, Augustine saith as much, that Antichrist shall come with deceiveable doctrine, and show of righteousness. Quid expa • escimus in Antichristo, nisi quia nomen suum honoraturus est, & Domini contempturus▪ Quid aliud facit, qui dicit, ego iustifico? Quid aliud est dei ignorare iustitiam, & suam velle constituere, quam dicere, ego iustifico, ego sanctifico? What other thing do we fear in Antichrist, but that he shall honor his own name, and contemn Christ's? What else doth he, which saith, I do justify, I make holy? What is this but to destroy the righteousness of God, and to bring in his own?

Mark now I pray you, if all this be not true of the Pope of Rome: for he taketh upon him to justify, to sanctify, to dispense with men's sins for an hundred, yea a thousand years: to rid souls out of Purgatory: nay to command Angels to carry their souls to heaven, that die in their Pilgrimage to Rome, as Pope Clement the sixth did: what is this▪ else but to say, Ego iustifico, sanctifico, I justify, I sanctify? and who I pray you, doth so, if Augustine may be judge, but Antichrist? but thus the Pope doth. Ergo he is Antichrist.