The Jesuits Gospel 2

THE POINTS OF NEW DIuinity contained in this Gospel.

THat the milk of Mary may come into comparison with the blood of Christ.

2 That the Christian man's faith may lawfully take hold of both as well as one.

3 That the best compound for a sick soul, is to mixe together her milk and and Christ blood:

4 That the sins and spiritual diseases of the soul are cured as well by her milk as his blood.

5 That Christ is still a little child in his Mothers arms, and so may be prayed unto.

6 That her milk and the merit and virtue of it, is more precious and excellent then Christ blood.

IN THE APPENDIX.

THat no man, but a woman did help God in the work of our redemption.

2 That God hath made Mary partaker and fellow with him of his divine Majesty and power.

3 That God hath divided his Kingdom with Mary, keeping Justice to himself, and yielding mercy to her.

4 That a man may appeal from God to her.

5 That a man shall oftentimes be sooner heard at God's hands in the meditation of Mary, then of Jesus Christ.

THE OCCASION OF THIS IESVITICALL Blasphemy.

IVSTVS LIPSIVS, a man of learning enough, but too much levity, having run over all religions; & at last set up his rest in Popery: fell in his declining and doting days to open Idolatry: And as he never troubled himself much with Christ in his life (whose very name a man shall seldom find in his books) so at his end, wanting matter (it seems) to magnify Christ, he writes 2 books in praise and honor of 2 Idols: namely 2 old rotten, or 2 new forged pictures of a woman with a child in her arms. Which must needs be taken for pictures of our Lady: Wherein the profane wrerch blusheth not to write, that at these 2 Images, there are more & greater miracles wrought, then the scriptures speak of to be done by Christ himself. A learned low-Country Divine wondering that such Owls durst fly abroad at Noone light, and such trompery be set to sale in these days of knowledge, wrote a short reproof of the impieties uttered in the first of thes • books, which is:

Wherein because the Jesuits were also touched, as being the fathers of such fooleries, and the makers of those bolts which such fools as Lipsius do shoot: Thereupon a Jesuit of Antwerpe calling himself Clarus Bonarscius, (but his true name being Carolus Scribanius) taking upon him in a Jesuitical pride, the general quarrel of the whole order of Jesuits, undertakes to defend their innocence, and their honor (forsooth) against all the world: and to that end writes a book, and calls it, The great Theater of the Jesuits honor.

Wherein, after many blasphemies against Christ: calumnies & slanders against princes: all kind of lies against our ministers & professors: he comes at last to defend their friend Lipsius, and his legend of our Lady of Hall: And after he hath abused him that wrote against it, with all despightful terms, and rayl'd most artificially, wherein he excels all other Jesuits, (Parsons excepted) as far as they, all other Papists: He makes a transition frō railing on men to playing with God: and from disgracing Princes to dallying with Jesus Christ: and not only defends the legend of Hall, written by Lypsius, but further to show his own devotion, he makes a Poem, not to the honor of God, or of Christ the Mediator: but to our Lady of Hall and the child Jesus. Wherein, whether the verse be better or the matter worse is hard to tell: But whether his devotion therein is greater to a creature, or his blasphemy against the blood of the Mediator, let the Christian Reader Judge, by the Poem it self, which hereafter followeth.

THE APPROBATION OF THIS AVTHOR.

CLarus Bonarscius, otherwise called Carolus Scribanius is a Jesuit now living at Antwerpe, and of much account amongst them; he wrote this book, and spewed this blasphemy out of his unclean heart some four or five years ago. And whereas both the Author and his book deserved the fire and halter, it was so far from being misliked in the Romish Synagogue, or any way censured, that since then the book hath been reprinted and the Author and his book stand enrolled, approved and commended (in their great volumes set out for that purpose) for good and Catholic.

Glori Bornascij Amphitheatrum Honoris Iesuitici, in quo Calunistarum in societatem Jesus criminationes iugulatae. Prostant palaeopoli 1605 & postea 1606. Haec Posseuinus Jesuit • in Apparar •• sacro Tom 1. l▪ it. G. pag. 3 • 7. edition is vltim • .

And it is to be noted that these volumes of Posseuine contain only an inrolement and approbation of no writers at all, save such as are approved Romish Catholics: and are set out with great and public allowance of the Romish State, as may be seen at the beginning of the first Tome.

Besides, let all men know the book stands yet uncensured, and the man lives still unpunished; nay, unreproved, or rather commended and rewarded for it: therefore this cannot be called an obscure or private fact, but may properly be held the fact of the Romish Church or State.

A DISCOURSE OF THE LADIES OF HALL AND SIchem, in way of preface showing particularly the occasion of this new Gospel.

THE blessed Mother of our Lord, as the Church in all ages hath done, so doth ours, willingly honor, as the most blessed of all Saints, yet as a creature, and as one saved by her son, that Savior in whom her spirit rejoiced: we know & acknowledge that not she but the holy ghost hath said that all generations shall call her blessed: Yet we must confess, we are of that fathers religion, who said, her spiritual bearing of Christ was happier then her carnal, and her self more blessed by conceiving Christ in her heart then in her womb, and by believing in him then by bearing him: for her bearing him in her body would not have saved her soul, if she had not more happily borne him in her heart. And in another place, she was happy and blessed, not because in her the word was made flesh, but because she heard the word of God and kept it.

This her blessedness, far be it from us to impeach: and who would not yield her all blessedness and honor that a creature may have, of whom GOD vouchsafed to take the flesh of man? And if any of our Religion hath given any words of her, that may give the least blemish to her blessed state, it was not done in any the least contempt of her, but in the zeal, they bare to the honor of their Savior, whom they held dishonored by the unequal comparing of her with him: for what will not a Christian man's zeal cause him to do, when he seeth his God dishonored? who would have thought that Moses would have cast so carelessly out of his hands, so precious a Jewel as were the two Tables written with the finger of God? and yet when he heard the name of the Lord blasphemed, he forgot himself and them, and as though he remembed none but God, he threw them away and brake them in pieces.

If Moses his zeal makes his hastiness excusable, then no reason to condemn them whose 〈◊〉 gave passage to their passions, and caused them for the honor of the Creator to forget the privilege of a Creature: & I dare say there was never learned man of our profession that presumed to touch the very skirt of the garment of her glory, unless they saw her set in comparison with God or Jesus Christ: which seeing the Romish Church dare offer to do, thereby ecclipsing the glory of God's mercy and the worthiness of Christ's satisfaction, we hold it our duties to be zealous for the glory of our God, and to preserve as far as in us lieth the perogatives of our Savior. If it be said, that they match her not with God or Christ: I answer they do, and that in such a measure, as we dare pronounce her or any Angel accursed that should either arrogate or accept of that which the Romish religion ascribes unto her. Too good evidence hereof hath been seen in all ages for these 200. years last past, wherein they have fallen from honoring her as a Saint, to magnify her as a Mediator: to pray to her as to a God, to trust in her as in a Savior: Many particulars have been specified by many of our writers which by the adversaries could never be denied (they are so evident) & yet were they neither recanted nor removed, but contrary-wise they have proceeded from evil to worse, till their blasphemy have even pierced the heavens and touched the Crown of the Almighty, and confronted the wounds, merrits and blood of our Savior. Perticular instances hereof are many, which may be collected out of the Authors of late years, part whereof shall if God permit be particularized in this Treatise.

But above all there is one, which as it is the latest, so is it the foulest, and wherein Popish Blaspemy is at that height, as now it gives hope to all Christian men that their prayers are heard, her end is at hand, and that her iniquity is come up before God, and there remains nothing but the revenging hand of God to be stretched out upon her. We have it not from the report of merchants, from the letters of the Posts, nor from the Intelligence of Ambassadors, for then our adversaries might suspect it: Nor from the report or writings of our own men, for then let the world not believe us: but we have it from the fountain it self even from the Record wherein it is written with the Authors hand: and surely if the evidence were not beyond exception, our selves would not believe it of them, though they be our enemies. Thus standeth the case.

Amongst the late devices that Romish policy hath forged to uphold their Hierarchy, a principal is, their art of Miracles, which they pretend to have so ordinary, that in many Churches they have more miracles then sermons: but alas daily experience showeth that they be lying Wonders and no true miracles. Now because such tricks are most effectual to delude the common people, and that they find themselves and their cause to have lost much of late in many parts of Christendom ^a therefore to recover themselves and to gain credit to their forlorn cause, they have most busily applied this point of late, and have by the craft of Machiauilian Jesuits (as Watson their brother Priest often stiles them) so far prevailed, that there scarce passeth a month wherein some new Image of our Lady is not found, or some strange miracle and wonders heard of.

Two years ago they caused a story to be written and published wherein they blush not to make their people believe, that more miracles, and greater then Christ did, have been and are daily done at Hall (a town on the borders of Brabant and Henault) by the Virgin Mary, at a Picture of hers in a Chapel there: and this is set out by no trivial or vulgar fellow, but by that famous Apostate Lipsius, that the tale may carry the more credit: and the miracles are not of ordinary but of the highest nature: for healing of freēsies, fevers, cōuultions, is nothing, nay: sight is given to the blind, and whereas Christ raised but 3. from the dead (that we know of) our Lady of Hall (saith Lipsius) gave life to 7. at least that were dead: Loe here how far short Christ himself is of his Mother: and now we marvel no more if they have written that St. Francis did all that Christ did, and more then Christ did, seeing the Picture of his Mother, can do more then he did.

I say the Picture of his Mother, because Georgius fabricius, the Popes censor of books, in his allowance of this Legend of Lipsius saith, that God giveth and communicateth divine power to work miracles nor only to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, but even to their Images or Pictures: behold good reader a worthy piece of new refined Popery, God's divine power is communicated to the very pictures of creatures: And if any man object that miracles are not in these days to be expected, Lipsius hath a learned and Catholic answer, that now indeed in respect of Christ, or to aver his Doctrine, or to maintain his honor, they need not, but the ease is otherwise (saith he) with the Saints, for many do refuse to worship them, and grudge at the honor that in the Romish Church is given them, and therefore to defend them in this point, and to establish that worship which they do unto them, God suffereth so many miracles to be done even by their Images: which answer being well considered of, what a kind of Doctrine it containeth, I leave to the learned and judicious Reader.

I only say, that if this be true, then how forteth it with the very body and current of his story, by which no man can deny, but it is apparent that most of the miracles which he specifieth, were done almost 200. years a • oe, namely betwixt the years 1400. and 1500. long before Luther began to preach, and (as they say) afore our Religion was in the world, and consequently before the worshipping of Saints was withstood; therefore it followeth, that miracles were ordained at Saints Images, even then when worshipping of Saints was not denied: Lipsius might have done well to have reconciled so evident a contradiction.

But what assurance have we for the truth of these miracles? or how know we that this is an approved Picture of our Lady? Lipsius answereth that there was one Sophia daughter to the Landgraue of Hesse, by his Lady Saint Elizabeth: (a Saint of Pope Gregory the 9. making within four years after her death.)

This Sophia (saith he) as it is thought, had certain Images of our Lady, given her by her Mother Elizabeth, (was it then but thought so, and must we now believe it?) one of these she gave to the Nuns of the Nunry at Vilvord, and that was called our Lady of comfort: 2. more she gave to Madam Machtild, or Maud, her husbands sister, who bestowed them thus: one she gave to Grauesand, another to Harlem (two towns in Holland) the third (which it seems stole all the virtue from both the other) to Hall a town in Henalt, (and this is that we now speak of:) and to ad more credit to the story, he tells us that this Lady Maude was Mother to that Lady Mawde, who bare at one birth 364. children, which were all borne alive, and baptized by a Bishop: So (saith Lipsius) this is that Image, which now we worship at Hall: and thus strong a foundation hath the Story: and now may not all Calvinists be ashamed to doubt of this Story or to suspect these grounds?

Now therefore surely we must needs believe (else we are unbelieving Heretics) that one was before this Image dispossessed of a Devil without any other means, for so he saith, & that ten at least were delivered from present death by but calling or thinking upon our Lady at Hall, and that seven were raised from death to life being but laid before the Image; and all these within the space of 20. years, and in one country (so ordinary a matter it is in Popery to raise the dead.) Nay we must believe (or else we are Infidels) that when a Faulkner should have been hanged for loosing his Lord's Faulkon, and had the rope about his neck, and did but call to mind the Lady of Hall, forthwith the Hawk came flying home again, and lighted upon the Faulconers shoulder, and so saved his life: for this is not Lipsius ashamed to report. Which if it be true, then we shall less wonder hereafter at that in the Legend, where it is reported how a Parrot having got abroad out of her Cage, and sporting her self in the air, was by and by espied by a Hawk, who being ready to seize upon her, instantly the Parrot seeing her self in danger to be surprised, cried out S. Thomas a Becket save me, and presently the Hawk fell down dead, and the Parrot was delivered.

As also those miracles of S. Francis so far beyond Christ's or his Apostles, that he tamed wild beasts, that he preached unto a Wolf, and converted him from his cruelty, and calling him by the name of his brother Wolf, made the town of Engubium & him friends, who of long time had been at contention, and for the assurance of the peace, he made his brother Wolf to give him his faith in the Market place, before the Magistrates, and afterward the Wolf went up and down the City, and took his meat from door to door. Loe here you Heretics, here is a Miracle worth something; and if they will not believe me, look in the holy Book of Conformities, and there you shall find all this and much more: as namely, how the Birds would come flying, and the Beasts flocking about him to hear him preach, and how the Nightingales and other Birds would come and help him to say Mass, and sing his office, and would answer him Verse for Verse. Come out ye Heretics (Calvinists and Lutherans) Saint Francis and his followers challenge you all to bring out one miracle like these, to approve your Religion: surely they may, and for ought I see Christ and his Apostles also, for they never wrought such a Miracle to confirm the Gospel. Is it not then apparent that S. Francis hath done more then Christ did?

Oh my dear country-men (you that name yourselves the Catholics of England) if you would but open your eyes and consider of this, I durst make yourselves Judges, what divinity this is: if you suspect me, believe me not, look into the books themselves, and believe your own eyes: If you say unto me that some such impieties and follies might creep into the old Books, 100. or 200. years ago when the times were not so wary nor suspicious; but the Church hath since reformed such abuses, I answer, I allege most of this out of the Book of conformities, lately corrected and printed in Italy within these 20. years: but if you look into the old one, printed 100. years ago, (wherewith your forefathers were abused) you shall there find such matter, as for reverence of the Reader I shame, and for the honor of God I fear to write.

And as for these miracles at our Ladies Picture at Hall they were never offered to the worlds view nor ever came to light till within these 3. years that Lipsius (a man who durst do anything but honor Christ) presumed to publish them, and with foul impiety to write that in these days Christ and his doctrine, service and Religion needs no miracles but the Saints and their service and worship do stand in need thereof: and as in the infancy of the Church Christ had his, so in the perfect state of it, Saints and their Images must have their miracles: but observe withal that (if they say true) more strange and as I may so say, more Miraculous Miracles are done by the honor of Saints, and approving the worshipping of them and their Images, then were for the establishing of the Gospel, the abrogating of the Ceremonial Law, and for proving Christ to be the Son of God.

If Lipsius were living I would not spare to tell him: that this his Doctrine smells strongly of that whereof he hath been, (it seems not without cause) suspected, which because he is dead I will forbear to name.

But some of our English Papists (which are not learned) may doubt whether there be such a Book or no, or if it be not devised by us, and fathered on them, (for so do their Priests often suggest unto them of such Books as they fear the people will mislike) but if any of their misleaders do so mis-inform them, let them know the Book hath been twice printed at Antwerpe, and once at Paris, with allowance of authority in both places, not only of the Censors of Books, and the Archbishop of the place, but the matter and miracles in the Book are confirmed with the Bulls of a Popes, one of Pope Nicholas, in the year 1451. the other of Pope Clement the 8. within these 8. years: and if any should be so vnreesonable as to think that we have forged all this, Posseuine, the Jesuit may give him full satisfaction: who in his Apparatus sacer hath published to the world that Lipsius in the year and at the place aforenamed, did put out such a work, and gives him special commendation for his labors, in that and the like for the Catholic cause.

But hath not Lipsius recanted, or the Romish Church reformed this since then? Alas, Lipsius was so far from that, that the year after, very near unto his death, as though he intended nothing but to heap up wrath against the day of wrath, he added drunkenness to thirst, as the Prophet saith, for heaping sin upon sin, instead of revoking & recanting his former collusion, he published another pamphlet, a more ridiculous Legend, and fraught with more improbabilities and impossibilities then the former. It bears this Title: Iustus Lipsius his History of our Lady of Shechem, or of our Ladies Picture of the craggy-rock or sharp hill, and of her new miracles and benefits: at Antwerpe. 1605.

At this Image saith he, are wrought miracles of all sorts Apoplexis, Epilepsies, gouts and all kind of diseases are healed, lame are restored to limbs, blind to sight, deaf to their hearing: and all by these heaps, not seldom or extraordinarily, but yearly monthly, daily: almost 60. are registered by Lipsius besides many more omitted, and all to be done in 2. or 3. years, insomuch as if his report be true, God makes miracles far more ordinary for the honor of Saints and their Images, then he did for confirming the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: But what credit hath the Story of our Lady of Shechem? even as good as hath our Lady of Hall, else let the Reader judge.

Neere to the little poor (but old) town of Shechem saith Lipsius, there is a mount, barren, rough, and craggy, on oue side thereof there is a little Hillocke: on it grows an Oak, and in it or fastened to it, is a little Image of our Lady, which hath done great miracles in time past, and was therefore worshipped of the people there: but how is that proved? thus; about 100 years ago, a Shepherd found that Image, and put it in his bosom, thinking to carry it home to worship it, but as he was in these thoughts, he was suddenly stricken and astonished in his senses, & benumbed in his whole body, insomuch as he could not stir one foot but stood still like a dead trunk, not knowing what to think of it, nor how to help himself: his M ^r . wanting both his shepherd and his sheep, sought them, and found him so standing, who told him the whole matter: his M ^r . taking the Image, went with great devotion and set it up in the Oak again, and forthwith the shepherd had his limbs restored, & went & worshipped it, and so by their reports, all the country heard of it, who came by heaps & were healed of all diseases, but agues especially: and so it continued (saith he) til within these 20. years, about which time the blessed Image was stolen or lost no man can tell how. (But is it not strange that if it could do these Miracles, they would let it be lost so carelessly?) well, lost it was: But what though? people went as fast then as afore, and still as great cures were there done as when the Image was there: and in want of the Image, the people worshipped the Oak, & why might they not say Lipsius, the holy Image had hallowed the Tree? so that it might lawfully be worshipped: (be hold Popish devotion!) yet, saith he, we worshipped not the Tree, but in it the Image, and in it our Lady & in her God. Mark good Reader, God gets his worship at last, though it be at the fourth hand: they tender it to the tree, the tree yields it to the Image, the Image conueyes to our Lady, and she presents it to God: so then by Popish doctrine and devotion God is served and honored after his creatures, and so at last gets his own. If they say that the worship is intended to God, & is not ended but in him: I answer; but were it not better that the worship were offered immediately from the heart and hands of the worshipper to God himself, and to pass through no hands, but of his Son the Mediator? but this is Heresy let it pass, or else it must pass the fire.

To return to the story: our Lady of Shechem is lost; but what then must the poor town loose her traffick and living? (Nay rather we will make another, for that is no hard nor unlawful thing in that Religion:) and so saith he 7. years after: an honest and devout Alderman of Shechem (perceiving well how his and his neighbors gains came in, and how the poor town lived) like a good townesman, made another Image, put it in a box of wood, and fastened the Box to the Oak that so their Lady might not be lost so carelessly as afore.

This new Image thus made, did as many miracles as the other, and why should it not for was it not as good as the other? nay it may be it was more curiously carved and better wrought.

Thus it continued certain years till at last the Parish Priest perceiving they began to be well customed, bestowed some cost on their Lady which got them so much, that they built her a little Chapel of boards, & there placed her. But still their custom growing greater, they shown themselves thankful to their patronesse, & as she filled their purses they sought her honor and built her a fair chapel of stone, some 2. years ago, and in that resteth the Image, working miracles every day. But what become of the holy Oak? it was cut away by pieces by devout persons, and carried away, that it was in danger of falling, and a counsel was called in the town what were to be done with it (as in so great a matter it is requisite) and there, after serious consideration, it was gravely concluded, that it should be cut up by the roots, & with much solemnity brought into the town of Shechem, where when it came, forthwith happy was he that could get a piece of the holy Wood, whereof (saith Lipsius, and blusheth not to write it) diverse made them little Images, and with much piety do worship them: others that were sick of grieueous dieases, shaved it into their drink and drunk, and so were healed. See what an excellent Religion this is: one Image hath begot many, and the first Image being but fastened to the Tree, so sanctified the whole Oak, that every Image made of the whole Tree, should be as good as it self, and every crumb of the Wood should work Miracles as fast as the Image did.

Loe here the History of our Lady of Shechem, or of the sharp hill: & this legend is not Lipsius ashamed to thrust upon the world, for a true & undoubted story: such are the times we be fallen into, that to set fast the crown upon the Popes head, truth must stand aside, and lies must pass for currant without control: and such a cause is Popery as cannot continue in credit before the people, but by forging a continual succession of lying wonders, for now we are made believe, that the Virgin Mary hath 2. Images within few miles together which have done more miracles in a few years by-past, then God himself did in the old, or Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament: Such Idols of indignation doth the Romish harlot advance against the sovereign majesty of God, to provoke him withal: for what is it but an Idol of indignation, that not a creature only, but the very Image of a creature should be made partaker of the divine power and Majesty of God?

The time was when Isaiah the Prophet durst say of God, I am the Lord, this is my name, and my glory I will not give unto another, nor my praise to graven Images: but how soever that might be tolerable doctrine in those days had he lived in these, he must have been taught that a part of the glory and praise of God, may daily be given to graven Images, and yet the glory of God not at all thereby impeached, but rather augmented: Loe what Idols of indignations and abominations lie hid under the mistery of iniquity.

And yet good Reader (as God saith unto the prophet (turn thee a little and thou shalt see greater abominations then these.

It is yet scarce 3. years ago since the tale of our Lady of Hall, was forged by some Jesuit, and published by Lipsius, when withal a fair Picture graven in brass was prefixed upon the first Page before the book of our Lady holding her Son in her arms.

And behold, the Jesuits as though the Mother were a woman, and the Son but an Infant: or as though they had gained enough by Christ a ready, and would now see what they could get by the Mother, began to call in question his merits and mediation, and the dignity of his wounds and sufferings, and at last pronounce that his wounds and her paps his blood and her milk, are either all one, or else that the milk is better.

And yet before we enter into the particular, let the Reader observe that though the Image be both of our Lady (as they call her) and of her Son Jesus our Lord, yet notwithstanding the miracles are all ascribed to her and her Picture, and none to Jesus Christ: for the colouring of which impiety, what they can say I see not, unless they dare affirm that the son will do no miracles in the presence of his Mother, to which end, it may well be noted, and generally in all places where the Mother and the son, the Virgin Mary, and our Lord Jesus be pictured together in their Churches, she is always set forth as a woman and a Mother, and he as a Child and Infant, either in her arms or in her hand, that so the common people might have occasion to imagine, that look what power of overruling and commanding the Mother hath over her little child, the same hath she over her son Jesus: and that seeing the son is but an infant in his mothers arms, therefore they might not wonder why her picture doth all the miracles, and his none; for its like, Christ did no miracles whilst he was a child: into these superstious and even blasphemous concelts do they endeavor to drive their people, not caring what they derogate from Christ, so they give it to their Saints.

Is it not admirable that still they will make him an Infant, still in his mothers arms, still under her power, and still all miracles must be wrought by her, and at her picture, as though either he could not, or in his mothers presence would not, or (at the least) as though she had many enemies, and therefore needed miracles, and Christ none?

But alas who seeth not that the Athisme & profaneness of the world causeth even the name and religion of Christ to be blasphemed, that if miracles might lawfully be expected, we should think them as needful as ever since the first planting of the Gospel: it is therefore a strange piece of Popish doctrine, that there is more cause that the Virgin Mary, and her Picture should have miracles for them, then Christ and his Religion.

But yet this, and all other their suspicious and impious speeches and practices against the honor of Christ & his Religion, are in my judgment inferior, and may all stoop to this new impiety of the Jesuits, whereby the Mother is compared to the Son, not as being a child, or a man, but as the Savior and mediator: & the paps of a Woman equalled with the wounds of our Lord, and her milk with his blood.

If this were written by Protestants, some might say we might report partially, or if it were a matter of old, the age might yield suspicion that it were made worse in the carriage: But when it is a matter of yesterday and comes from themselves, partiality it self cannot cavil against it.

And the particular is this, Clarus Bonarscius, a Jesuit or the Jesuits Patron, published this present year to the world, a volume large enough, in defense of the whole order of Jesuits, the book bears this title.

This volume he erected, as a Theater, yea an Amphitheater of Honor, in defense of the Jesuits wherein after he had assayed with much sleight of wit, and in a strange style, to wipe away many foul blots, with which that Atheistical brood hath stained the holy name of Jesus, and adorned it self (for generally that which dishonors God adorns them) and after he had ranged over all the former Churches, and raked up all rotten slanders, and revived the callumniations that were answered, dead and buried, 40. 50. and 60. years ago, and railed upon the living and dead, Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Stenius, Tossanus, Faius, and many other holy and learned men, with that bitterness and virulency as never was before him: yea, moreover after that he had laid high and horrible imputations upon this whole state of England, and (like a true Jesuits Impe) slandred the whole government, with foul injustice, and monstrous cruelty in many particulars, and had in Jesuitical pride, dared to defile the name and honor of renowned Queen Elizabeth, (whose memory forever will be blessed) with words unworthy the mouth of man (if he were not a Jesuit) at last from the defense of Jesuits, he falls to defend Lypsius, (a good friend of theirs) and his two stories of our Lady of Hall, and our Lady of the craggy Rock, and not only labors to to make good all his fancies and fables, but further (to show that a Jesuit hath one trick of impiety beyond all, and is anointed by the Devil with the oil of mischief above all his fellows) addeth a number of verses directed to that Picture, which he calleth our Lady of Hall, fraught with so many blasphemies against the blood and merits of the Mediator, as no Christian ears to this day did ever hear, and doubtless no Christian heart can patiently endure: and certainly if the blessed Virgin Mary, to whose picture he hath consecrated them, may be his Judge, without doubt both he and his blasphemy will be condemned to hell: and she whose soul rejoiced in God her Son and Savior, her soul I say will rejoice in the just damnation of him who shall match the milk of her a creature, with the blood of him her Savior: But shall we hear them? no will some say, let blasphemy rather be buried in the depth of oblivion, darken not the Sun, defile not the heavens, poison not the air, burden not the earth with it, amaze not the minds, and terrify not the consciences of weak Christians: and assuredly could I bury it so that it might never live, and quench it so as it might never flame again, and if my Book were the only Copy in the world, I would rather choose to cover this shame of the shameless whore of Babylon, then by discovering it to cause good men's ears to tingle, and their hearts to tremble: But seeing the strumpet hath the whores forehead, and glorieth in her own shame, and sounded out this blasphemy (as with a trumpet) in the ears of all Christendom by publishing it in a book which he calls the great theater of the Jesuits honor, even bringing so fearful blasphemy upon the stage, & dare diu • lge it in a second impression, least the world should want it:

Let us therefore crave leave of our Lord Jesus, to discover her shame wherein she glorieth, and that we may without impeachment of his honor, repeat so foul blasphemy, that so the world may both perceive what a Religion Popery is, and that we for our parts have no fellowship with such abhominable works of darkness

The Title he gives them is this:

See first the impiety lurking in this Title. She is a Queen or Lady, Jesus a Child or Infant: compare this with holy Scriptures, they indeed speak both of him and her, but of him as God and a Savior, of her as a creature; the Mother only of his humanity (although the Mother of him that was God) and exercising power only over his humanity, and that only during his infancy and priuatenesse, but not after he took upon him the Prophetical Office of the Mediator, for then he said (in a certain case) woman, what have I to do with thee? and again, being told▪ she was without to speak with him, he answered that he had more Mothers, though not in the same, yet in a better sense: for whosoever did the will of his father, the same saith he is my mother: thus the scripture proceeds to describe him in his prophetical, and afterward in his Priestly Office, and leaves him not till at last he be ascended into heaven, and have taken possession of his kingdom, and then the Scripture leaves him in his glory.

Is all this true? and yet must he now after 1606 years be an Infant in his Mothers arms? And for her the holy scriptures speak no more of her, but as of a creature, a woman, a believing Jew, a holy Saint, saved by faith in her savior Jesus Christ, and so leaves her, with little mention (after Christ was baptized, and entered his prophetical Office) her body to go the way of all flesh, and her soul to enter into that great glory which Christ had purchased for her, and all that spiritual kindred of his, whom with his own mouth he had pronounced more blessed for hearing his word & keeping it, then they could have been by being the mother of his flesh.

And yet now after 1600. years, she must still be a commanding Mother, and must show her authority over him, and he must receive our prayers by her means, and still she must bear him in her arms, or lead him in her hand, and her Picture must work all the miracles, but his none: and she must be salured as a Lady, a Queen, a Goddess, and he as a Child: If this be not so, let this Title judge: Ad Diuam Hallensem, & puerum Iesum. But let us leave the Title, and not stand long at the gates, but enter this Citty of confusion.

And now all good Christians hearken with grief of heart to that which I rather wish you might never have heard; but if your ears tingle, your hair stand up, and your hearts tremble at the blasphemy following, blame the heart that indighted it, the hand that wrote it, the Religion that allows it, and not the pen that discovers it.

THUS THEN BEGINS THE IESVITS Gospel.

That is:

HEarken thou blessed Apostle Paul, (if thou in heaven canst hear the blasphemy on earth) thou that didst preach and write, that thou desiredst to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified: thou that didst teach the Churches only to know and believe in Christ for salvation: and almost 20. times in thy Epistles hast magnified his Blood, without once mentioning the Virgin or her Milk.

Hear and be astonished at this, that some who profess to be thy Disciples or thy fellows rather, cannot tell whether to choose that blood of the Mediator, or the milk of a woman: At least hearken thou blessed spirit of truth, thou that canst and wilt hear, thou that didst inspire those holy truths into that holy Apostle: behold a Religion risen up in the world that dare compare the blood of that God who was by thee conceived, with the milk of that W • man, who was the Mother of his humanity and was saved from hell and damnation by that blood, and that dare allow her professors to make doubt whether to esteem the greater delight of their souls her milk or his blood: and we for reproving this, must be accounted Heretics: hear from heaven we beseech thee and Judge betwixt us.

The blasphemer proceedeth.

That is:

What before he delivered more darkly, now he maketh plainer: if any doubt what milk what blood he meant, he answereth our Ladies Milk, and Jesus Christ his blood: but what, doth popery make question whether of these two is better? Is this their holy Catholic Romaine faith? If no • , let their words be Judge, I stand musing saith he and cannot tell whether to take milk or blood: If I look at her paps, then I long for milk, If to his sides, then I would have blood.

Mark how indifferent a Papist is, whether he receive the one or the other: is not this evil enough? a man would think so, yet hearken what followeth, and we shall hear worse: but let us do it with fear and reverence of that glorious name, and precious blood which are blasphemed.

In English thus:

Hitherto he doubted, now he is resolved: but such a doubt, and such a resolution, Christian ears never heard of: he doubted whether were bet • er, the blood of God, or the Milk of a creature (the devil himself never doubted hereof) but now what is his resolution, doth it make amends? yes doubtless as the Pope useth to make Christ amends, when he hath dishonored him: I was at a stand (saith he) whether to take, and now I resolve I will have both: both are so good I will refuse neither, her milk his blood both so precious, both so powerful, both so virtuous, as I will have both. Both are good, and so good as hardly can I find difference but if there be any, it is that the Milk is more excellent, and therefore with my right hand, I will make it sure mine, if I may be so bold as to touch it, or if it be lawful for a sinners soul to taste so glorious, so invaluable and divine a liquor as is the Milk of the Mother: and as for the child it is well for him if he may follow his Mother, and have the next place to her: therefore if he please to give me leave I will lay hold with my left hand on his wounds.

O glorious God, the eternal son of the eternal Father, thou blessed Jesus Christ the stay and comfort of all Christian souls, hear in heaven thine only habitation this heinous blasphemy, and judge thy own cause: And if it fall out that any contagion of sin catch hold on me the writer or any the readers here of, by not trembling or not sufficiently detesting such fearful impiety as this that is past, or that that is to come; vouchsafe in mercy to forgive it, and to wash it away with that most precious blood of thine, whereto all the creatures in the world are not worthy to be compared.

And though this that's past, be abhominable, yet with reverence to thy holy name and precious blood, give us leave to discover the height of their iniquity, which still goeth forward in more horrible and fearful manner: for thus sings the Jesuit.

That is:

So now Christ Jesus shall have satisfaction, (if there were a fault afore) for if he complain that the Mother of his flesh, a woman and a creature, have the right hand when himself and his merits must take the left or none, here they will make him amends, for that he may have no cause to complain, for want of place or precedence, her milk and his blood will he mingle both together, and so make a sovereign compound cordial for his soul. But what? a mixture of milk and blood, of the Blood of God with the Milk of a creature? and is now the blood of the Lamb of God but one of the simples in that cordial Antidote, that must both restore and preserve the life of man's soul? ye heavens be astonied at this, so may we well say, for so said the Prophet at a matter of fa • re less wonder, hearken O Christendom, and all ye people, nations, & languages to whom the blessed name of Jesus Christ hath sounded: that poor paschal Lamb of the Jews that was but a shadow of our Savior, the Sign and Sacrament, and in some sort the means and instrument of the Israelites temporal preservation, might not, nay needed not to have anything mingled with the blood thereof, but the blood alone being sprinkled on their doors, delivered them from the stroke of the destroying Angel: this was their Passover, and saith the Apostle, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: shall this then be true, of their Passover, a Lamb taken out of the fold & flock, & only dedicated by God's instirution, & shall not the blood of our Passover the Lamb of God, God & man Jesus Christ (whose Godhead is consubstantial and coequal with the father, and his humanity personally and indiuisibly united to the deity) being sprinkled on our hearts & souls, suffice to preserve them from the infernal stroke of hell and damnation, unless it be mingled with the milk of a creature? pardon this blasphemy O blessed Jesus Christ, if it be not a blasphemy against the holy Ghost, and a despighting of the spirit of grace: pardon it in as many of them as do not sin vnpardonably, for thy mercies sake. Amen.

But say (I pray thee) tell us in good earnest, (If so we may presume to call a Jesuits Proctor to his answer) is there not a more sovereign Antidote for a sinful soul, then a mixture & cōpound of Mary's milk & Christ his blood? chen tell us who can make this mixture? who hath the skill sufficient for this confection who gives the true dosse? who appoints the quantities, Mithridates and triacles for the body are not compositions for every conceit, nor matters for every hand to make, but rather beseeming the skillfullest, and require the ouerviewing eye of the whole College of Physicians, shall then the heavenly Antidote of the soul be compounded without a heavenly Physician? say then (Man) if thou dare stand to thy deeds, who was the Physician that prescribed and gave thee this receipt, was it God the Father, the foundation of holiness and happiness? himself saith no, for thus proclaimed he twice from Heaven of Jesus Christ, This is my well-beloved son in whom I am well pleased: In none as in him, nay in none, no not in his Mother, but in, for, and by him. Thus the Father of Heaven hath testified that the blood of the son is one sufficient & sovereign simple, for a Heavenly Methridate. Now show thou, (and take the Pope to help thee) where ever he testified so much of her milk: but if no such thing, nay nothing at all, then he was not the Physician that prescribed this mixture.

Who then, was it Christ himself the Son of God and the Son of this woman? No, for of himself he saith, My flesh is (spiritual) meat indeed, and my blood is (heavenly) drink indeed: but of her he saith that every true believing Christian, is his mother (as well as she) in the best sense, and much more then she, had she been no more but the mother of his flesh: surely then if this be a lawful mixture, which this Papist makes, the son was much to blame to say so much of his own blood, that it is drink indeed, and that it gives the drinkers eternal life, &c. and not one word of his mothers milk: Not a word said I? I recall that, for when once a certain woman hearing him preach, not for anything she saw in her, but for the powerful and gracious words, that came from him, would have had her womb blessed that bare him & her Paps that gave him suck: (the worst whereof is better then her milk) he instantly answered her, that much more blessed was every man that heard God's Word and kept it. If no extraordinary blessedness belong to the womb that bare him (in that respect only, because it bare him carnally) If none to the womb or paps, which shall endure forever, then how much less to the milk that fed him, which is vanished & shall be no more: If Christ would not match her womb or paps with a man that feared God, what will he say to them that make her milk a match for his own blood, the milk being a matter far inferior, either to womb or paps. Thus they may see that Christ is not a fit Physician to make this mixture.

What then was the holy Ghost the Physician that framed this receipt?

No, for he by his divine power, conceived Christ in that holy and miraculous manner, that Christ was fully without original sin, and therefore his blood might well be a pure and perfect simple to make the Aqua Caelestis that must quicken dead souls: let them approve as much of her if they can: they speak and write that she was conceived without sin original, and have a holy day for it, but they cannot prove it. It is an Article of our faith, and grounded on plain words of Scripture, that Christ was conceived without out sin: and though the Whoore of Babylon, affirm as much of her, yet was she yet never so impudent, as to conclude it an Article of the faith. Thus God the father, the son, and the holy Ghost, do all disclaim the composition of this Antidote, as neither prescribed nor allowed by them.

Who then may be imagined to be this Physician? was it Moses? no, for he allowed nothing to be mingled with the blood of the Paschal Lamb: was it Isaiah? no, for he avoucheth that with his stripes we are healed, and his stripes were not without blood.

Was it Zacharia? no, for he teacheth that the Church is saved by the blood of her covenant, which is grounded only on the Messias.

If any other Prophet, let them show him: was it John the Baptist: no, for he restified that not the Mother of his Lord, but his Lord Jesus Christ was that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Was it S ^t . Paul? no, for he teacheth the Romans, that We are justified freely by his blood: (behold ye Romanists, there is no milk) and the Ephesians that we have redemption through his blood: (yet there is no milk) and the Collossians, that he set us at peace tbrough the blood of his cross not the milk of her paps: and the Hebrews that not with any milk, but with his own blood he obtained eternal redemption for us: to conclude, 13. times at least in his Epistles doth he mention the blood of Christ, to the same purpose, and with the same honor as afore, & not once did he so much as name our Ladies milk: surely either this was an intolerable omission in Saint Paul, not once to name it, else, presumptuous impiety in the Papists to match it with blood of the son of God.

Then who is it, was it S ^t . Peter whom you brag to be the founder, nay the foundation of your Church to and head of your Herarchie? No, that blessed Apostle renounceth it, for he proclaimeth to all the world, that we are elected through the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, here is no milk: and as we are elect and sanctified, so redeemed also not with things corpuptible (therefore not with milk) but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, Behold ye Jesuits and be ashamed, Peter is all in Blood, blood, he knows no milk.

There remains but one (for S ^t . James and S ^t . Jude if they name not Christ's blood, I am much more sure they name no milk) was it S ^t . John the beloved Disciple, to whom Christ committed her, (as his mother, but not his Savior?) no verily, for he is plain, that not the milk of the Virgin Mary, but the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all our sins: and that there are three which bears witness on earth, the spirit & water & blood: behold three witnesses on earth of our sanctification and redemption, and of them blood is one, but milk is none, yea water is, and yet milk is not: surely if the fathers of the society of the inquisition might be Judges, S ^t John were sure to be censured to remember water, and forget milk. But see how S ^t John and the Jesuits differ, they dare match and mixe her milk with his blood, he will neither mixe nor matchit so much as with the water, showing that the very water issuing out of his precious side, was more of worth and value, then all her milk, even that which fed the flesh of Christ when he was an Infant: Nay, the Apostle hath nor yet done, but tells us that Christ loved us and washed us (not in his mothers milk, but) in his blood: and that the Robes of the Saints are made white (even white, & yet not in white milk, but) in the red Blood of the Lamb: See here, if ever milk had been apt it had been here, if ever it had been seasonable to have named it, here had been the place: for what should make white, milk or blood? and yet the whiteness that must clothe the Saints; must be died not in the milk of our Lady, but in the blood of Jesus Christ, if his beloved and blessed Apostle John, nay if his own holy word may be believed. If none of all these, was it then her self that prescribed this portion and made this mixture? no assuredly: They say we dishonor & disgrace her, yet I dare venture even my soul upon it, that her heart never cōscented to such a thought, as to match & mixe her milk with his blood: for seeing the Angel saith she was beloved of God, I am sure that no creature can be beloved of God, that durst offer to match the best thing in him (if it were his very harts blood) with the blood of his son; no his soul would hate him, his wrath break out vpō him & his vengeance pursue him to destruction. Far therefore was she from so vile a thought: nay, her soul rejoiced in him her Savior, so far was she from making her self in any part a Savior of her self: yea rather, if a Saint in heaven doth hear a blasphemy on earth, then doubtless that blessed soul of hers; that magnified her Son and rejoiced in him as her Savior, will never cease to cry and call upon him, to revenge so high impiety: which is so much more heinous, in as much as they make the mother the dishonourer of the son. And if her prayers be as powerful with him as their Doctrine teacheth, assuredly she will net cease to provoke, his justice against them, til she have laid their tottering kingdom flat on the earth, for erecting up her as an Idol against her son, and for mixing the virtue of her milk with the the merits of his precious blood.

Thus then, if neither God the Father, nor Christ Jesus, nor the Holy Ghost, nor Moses, nor the Prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the blessed Virgin her self, did any of them prescribe this portion? nor make this mixture: It followeth, that either the Devil was the deviser of it, or else that they framed it out of their own brains and therefore to be judged Mountebankes, and spiritual deceivers: who make show to the world, they have a confection of miraculous virtue, when indeed it is a perfect poison to all that take it: for if S ^t . Paul say true, that if we join circumcision to Christ, Christ shall profit us nothing: then without all controversy, if we mixe the milk of a creature with the blood of the Mediator, that blood of his hath lost the virtue, and shall profit us nothing: And thus the Church of Rome hath spun a fair thread: she will needs have both the son and the mother to be hers, in such a manner, as she hath lost them both, and made them both her enemies, the mother to be her bitter accuser, and the son to be her angry Judge. But thus hath God in Justice blinded her, that whereas for these 2. or 300. years past, she came to this height of blasphemous devotion, as to trust more the piety of the Mother, then the merrits of the son, & often to appeal from him to her: Now ar last by this dealing they have taken the direct course to turn her against them also, and to make her curse and abhor them and their superstition, who dare make her name and her Milk to be the disho nourers of her Son, her Savior, and his precious blood.

Thus we have heard and seen the strangest piece of Physic, and most unequal mixture that yet was ever heard of, The blood of God, and milk of a woman are mixed to make a cordial potion, But now what will this potion do, what is the operation of it, hearken to the Mountebancks proclamation, and he will tell you.

Thus he cries.

That is:

Now he tells us what his Physic will do, and that particularly in both his simples, the blood and the milk: and as for the one of them that is the blood and wounds of the Mediator, if he had ascribed much more unto them, he might have past with praise (for us) for he cannot sufficiently extol the merit & virtue of them, but as for the other, that is the milk of a woman, (though it be the blessed virgin) or a confection of both, there he showeth himself both impious in making such a mixture, as also a vain deceiver, proclaiming great and sovereign power in that which is nothing worth; for I say again, if it be true that to him that joineth circumcision to Christ, Christ is no Savior: then we dare boldly say: To him that joineth a creatures milk in equallity with Christ's blood, that blood of Christ is of no virtue: for circumcision is of the fathers, nay it was God's own ordination. But her milk is merely apart (and no essential part) of her body which is a creature, and as for the mixture of it with his blood, it is an impious device of profane pollititians, not derogating from the dignity, but even quite abollishing the glory of the mediator: then if his passion may not be joined with circumcision, may his blood be mixdd with her milk? But what is that he proclaimeth vulnera restituent, &c. Christ's wounds will restore & heal the spiritual sores of a sinful Lazar, we believe it will, they will do so & much more; yet for not his sake that saith so, for we know that devils themselves for a vantage would bear witness to Christ. But for his sake that said. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was broken for our iniquities, the cha • isement of our peace was upon Him, & with his Stripes are we healed: and for his own sake especially, who said it and did it, I lay down my life for my sheep. Thus he hath said well and truly of the wounds; but the wounds of Christ will not serve his turn: He therefore addeth.

And will they so? who taught you this Divinity? will a creatures Paps quench and satisfy that soul that hungereth and thirsteth after righteousness? Say ye children of iniquity, have you not read Isaiah the Prophet, who tells us He was despised, He was afflicted, He was broken, He was plagued, and all for us: His stripes healed us, and not a word of her nor her Milk, but all of Him, his stripes and his wounds: what will ye say, wanted he knowledge of her worthiness? or deuotiō to her deserts? Can ye say the first without blasphemy to God? or the second without injury to the Prophet? could it be he knew not her who knew her son? could he foresee him and not her? or could any such mistery be kept frō him who spake and wrote, as he was inspired by God's spirit? and to conclude, was it not he that saith, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, even Immanuel Jesus Christ? so that its plain as the Prophet knew a Messias should come and should save his people by diing for them; so also he foresaw and knew he should be borne of a virgin: If thē the Prophet had knowledge of her, dareye say he wanted due devotion? and yet one of these you must say, and for want of one of these you must condemn him, who names none but Christ, or else yourselves, who dare mixe her milk with his blood.

But is this all? No,

One can heal spiritual pestilence, the other spiritual Fevers; see what difference there is by their religion, betwixt her milk and his • loud: are not these men great and devout honorers of Christ, and his suffering that can find other helps to heal their souls besides his blood? But if it be thus that both can heal so well, how comes it to pass they have so many sick souls in Popery, even sick of all spiritual diseases, especially seeing by their own doctrine and daily practice, it is apparent they can neither want the one nor the other of these 2. simples: for first they say, they make Christ's blood every day, then they have blood at hand continually: If they say that the Laity may not have that, but only their Priests (who indeed drink it up all) yet then they may take their Ladies milk whereof (if themselves say true) they have so much in several places▪ as some that lived 100. years ago do write, that in those days, it was more then a woman upon one child can give out, though the child sucked none at all: If that that is kept, and shown and worshipped in so many Cities of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, be not her milk, then where is the truth and honesty of that Religion, so to deceive the world? if it be, then why are their souls so full of spiritual diseases? why are they not healed, seeing this Jesuit teacheth that it will heal as well as Christ's blood? as well as Christ's blood will some say, why do you them that wrong? they are never so wicked to speak such blasphemy, No? then judge by that which followeth.

That is,

Here judge and spare not (without all partiality,) whether that I said be not true, that her milk will heal as well as Christ's blood, and this they affirm, not in general terms but in plain particulars: if, saith he, Anger swell, if Lust inflame me, blood will quench them & so will milk: are there two stronger passions, two more conquering corruptions, two more raging and reigning sins then Anger and Lust? yet even these two are quenched & conquered by her milk as well as Christ's blood: hearken ye Children of the Romish Synagogue, hearken I say what instruction your father gives you, hear I pray (but learn it not) a creatures milk will cleanse your Souls from sin, as well as your Saviors blood: O spirit of error and blasphemy, whether wilt thou go? O Romish impiety, when wilt thou make an end? wilt thou not cease till thou hast pulled down the fire of God's fury, from heaven upon thee? O Babylon we would have healed thee, but thou wilt not be healed, for who can heal him that will needs kill himself? so who can heal thee, whose blasphemy hath wounded & yet benumbed thy heart, gone over thy head & is ascended up to heaven, & in the presence of God crieth vengeance upon thee; & as for you seduced souls (my dear country-men) you who are deceived with shows of holiness and devotion, behold here a piece of Popish holiness, and of the doctrine of their devotion, that the sins of the soul are cleansed and taken away as well by a creatures milk as by Christ his blood! is this the catholic Doctrine they brag so much of? is this the catholic Church that teacheth such divinity? is this the chair of S ^t . Peter, & the seat that cannot err? If it be so, then what didst thou mean thou S ^t . John Evangelist, to teach that it was Jesus Christ that faithful witness, that first begotten from the dead, & that Prince of the Kings of the earth (even he, and not any creature) who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood: sure either must you recant this Doctrine, else they that boast themselves to be • successors of thy brother Peter may be ashamed of theirs, who tell us that our sins are washed away in her milk as well as by his blood: and you that are the dutiful and devoted children of that Romish seat, be Judges even yourselves in this case, what can be said hereunto: how can it stand with scripture, or with the tenor of true catholic faith? or how can it any way be defended that a creatures milk can quench the fire of sin in the soul as well as Christ his blood?

Can ye say that here is only ascribed to her and her milk, a derived virtue from another, and that the original and fundamental power, is only and wholly in Christ and his blood? if it were so, it were less evil (though Christ Jesus may not, nor will not bestow the perogatives of his Mediatorship on any creature) but look and weigh over the words again and again, expound them with any favor that the words may bear, and you shall not see the least difference.

If Lust burn, and Anger boil, Envy fret, vain-glory swell, I can help it with blood, so can I with with milk • : I can help it with milk, so can I with blood: there can be no greater equality made betwixt any two things in the world, then here they make betwixt this Blood and Milk.

Can it be said that the Author is a Poet, and said thus but to make up the Verse, which otherwise would not have fallen so fitly? surely no, for a young versisier can soon show how the verses might have run as well as they do, if he had not purposely labored to sort his verse to his matter, and not the matter to his verse:

For thus he might have said,

with very little altoration.

And so of the rest: but he as truly endeavored to magnify the milk as the blood, and therefore without any necessity of the Verse, gives the same power, place, & preeminence, in every respect to the milk as to the blood: but had he been as sound and sincere a Christian as he is a good Poet, he might in as good verses have given all the honor to Christ as he deserveth. Therefore (my dear country-men) be no longer seduced by a Religion so fraught with Atheism, blasphemy & impiety: do but look into the Scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers: yea ask the honestest & learnedst of your own Religion, (or any except Jesuits or such other like them, who frame a religion to their own purposes.)

If this be tolerable Divinity that the milk of the Virgin doth cleanse man's soul from sin as well as Christ his blood.

If it be not Divinity but Blasphemy, no Christian Doctrine but impiety, and yet suffered, yet approved in the Roman Church, both by doctrine and practice; then return to that truth and holy Religion, which out of God's word, and according to the purest antiquity is established amongst us: and with heart and voice join with us to embrace and say Amen, to that holy doctrine of blessed S ^t . John, who saith it is Jesus Christ that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood to him be glory forever and ever, Amen.

This was his Religion, this is ours: oh that it were yours also! he sucked this divinity out of that blessed breast of God's Son, whereon he leaned: and if he had sucked thence this divinity of the Jesuits, that the virgin Mary washed us from our sins by her milk, surely he would never have concealed it from us, nor have deprived her of the honor, nor us of the comfort that thereby might accrue both to her and us: for he was her son by her own adoption, yea her Son by the gift and nomination of her son and Savior, yea her Son in love, duty, and all respectiuenesse could he then, or would he in any sort obscure her due glory? would he give too much to her son, and too little to her? would he give all that to her son, which in part was hers? can this, may this, or dare this be immagined by any Jesuit? If not, then how dare they extend their devotion beyond his, & ascribe that to her which he never did, yea that to her, which he appropriates to Jesus Christ.

If they think that Peter had more devotion then John, hearken then what he saith: Jesus Christ his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree: let the words be Pondered, Jesus Christ saith he bare our sins: true (say they) but so did the Virgin Mary also, No (saith Peter he himself▪ his own self bare them▪ yea in his body. he bare them in his body: (say they) that is true, but he bears them in his mystical body, in his members, much more therefore in his mother, which is more then many members of his body: nay, saith S ^t . Peter, he bare our sins his own self in his body: but what body? even that body that was on the Tree: therefore if S ^t . Peter preach true divinity, then is this doctrine of your teacher heinous blasphemy.

All that may be imagined for their defense at the best is this, that all this is but poetical, & hyperbolical, or proceeds from the passion & height of devotion: but that in truth and earnest he ascribes all to Christ, & to his blood, makes his prayers to him, and puts the confidence of his heart in him alone: but least any man should have the least suspicion of him this way, or think so good a thought of him, he deals yet more plainly and to preuenr all such thoughts and objections, he makes his prayer both to the Moth • r and the Son, without any difference in the world, to the one for her milk, to the other for his blood: for thus he saith.

That is:

Here is plain dealing, it is not the Son and his blood that will serve his turn he must also have the Mother and her milk, is not this good catholic doctrine and devotion? but further is not this strange to see how he marshalls them in the order of his judgment and affection? he prayeth to the mother and the son: but first to the mother, he will have both milk and blood, but first milk: thus Mary hath the precedence of Christ, and her milk of his blood: But you will say it is not that he so esteems them in his judgment, but only for the necessity of of the verse: the answer is that a grammar scholar, can soon show how the verse is as good, and give Christ his precedence, as it is doing him this wrong:

But he still keeping Christ in wardship and under age, held it not fit that he should have the place before his Mother only, and therefore without all necessity even wittingly and willfully, he puts Christ in the second place. But now let us hasten to an end of this (if it be not endless and bottomless) impiety.

Upon these fearful premises thus he proceeds.

That is,

Now from blasphemy he proceeds to plain Atheism, not fearing to expose the greatest mysteries of Christian faith, and even our blessed Savior himself, to the ridiculous & scornful contempt of profane men: Speaking unto Christ, God c • equal with the father, and whose very humanity raineth now in glory at God's right hand, as to a seely Infant in his mothers arms: and to him whose very humanity is fed with the glorious presence and contemplation of the deity, as to a poor child sucking his Mother breasts: such conceits are common, and such words and writings rise with thm, of our blessed Savior, who never speak of the Virgin Mary, but with the Title of Queen of heaven, Lady of Angels, the gate of Paradise, the fountain of mercy, or some such other titles, fitting none but him that is God, or at least she is always a commanding Mother, and he an Infant governed, and an obedient child: But let us consider his words a little better. Paruule &c, youngling (saith he) thou pretty babe, thou playest in thy mothers arms, and sometimes sucks her breasts till they be empty, and again stayest till they be full, &c. Is this good and sound Divinity, that Christ our Redeemer is now this present year, at Halla in Brabrant, an Infant playing in his mothers arms, and sucking her breasts.

If it be so, then sure S ^t . Paul was much to blame to teach us, that even the man Jesus Christ, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth forever (not in his mothets arms, but) at his Fathers right hand: and what doing? not playing in her arms, nor sucking her breasts, but there he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Intercession! to whom? not to her in whose arms they will make him play, but to him, at whose right hand he sitteth for evermore.

And much more to blame S ^t . Peter, who (not foreseeing, it seems what doctrine his pretended successor would teach after him) teacheth us that Jesus Christ is at God's right hand, gone into heavē▪ to whom Angels, powers and might are subject. Are Angels, powers & might subject to him? & must he be subject to a mortal & human creature? Nay, is he now an Infant, playing in his mothers arms, and hanging on her breasts? is not this good Catholic Romish doctrine? and is not this good pure Romish devotion, to pray to him who is God of glory, & whose manhood is now at God's right hand, Angels and powers subject to him, in such words as these: Thou pretty Child that playest in thy mothers arms, and hangest at her breasts? Is this a salutation fit for the son of God, who is the Son consecrated forever? the heir all things. the brightness of God's glory, and the engraven form of his person? or is this a Christian like description of him, who having by himself purged our sins, sitteth at the right hand of the Majesty in the highest places? But this is natural to Popish Religion, to disgrace the mediator they care not how, so that they may advance some creatures, and magnify their own devises: but though they never so much abuse most of God's ordinances, and nullify the very Offices of the Mediator: Yet me thinks they should be a little fearful how they touch the Person it self of the Mediator and son of God, and should shrink and shame to expose the person of Jesus Christ, to the base conceit of the ungodly: for what can the carnal man, much more the Atheist, the Turk, and the Jew imagine of Christ, when he that is hi • pretended Vicar suffers his followers to speak and write of him, and pray to him, as a playing child, and sucking Infant, and to describe him in his behaviors as a very child, grieving and crying that any should touch his mothers Paps but only himself? alas what will this Religon of Rome do at last? the word of God and Sacraments and other his holy ordinances they have profaned, the officer of the Mediator have they nullified, and yet no • content: here they labor to make ridiculous to all irreligious men, the very person of Jesus Christ himself: could this be done by any but those that are the Children of that Mother of fornication, that sits upon the beast full of names of blasphemy arise Lord, maintain thine own cause, deliver thy holy Name from that pollution, and thy Religion from that contempt which they bring upon it. To conclude: it may not be amiss here to observe the opposition betwixt God in his holy Scripture, and and the Pope in this his Religion.

The Scripture saith.	Popery saith.
Christ Jesus is no more to be known after the flesh.	Christ is yet to be known and worshipped as a child.
The Scripture saith.	Popery saith.
Christ bears up all things by his mighty Word.	Christ is now borne in his mothers arms.
The Scripture saith.	Popery saith.
Christ sitteth forever at the right hand of God.	Christ is playing in his mothers arms.
The Scripture saith	Popery saith.
Christ tarrieth at his Fathers right hand, till his enemies be made his footstool.	He is in Heaven, till it please the Pope to allow a Picture at Hall or Shechem.
The Scripture saith.	Popery saith.
Without Controuersye great is the mistery of godliness that Jesus Christ is received up into glory.	Without controversy that it is no such mistery, for Christ is still in his Mothers arms.
The Scripture saith.	Popery saith.
Christ must suffer and so enter into his glory.	Christ after all his sufferings, must again be subject to the infirmities of an Infant.

Out of all this followeth a conclusion of good use: It hath been often objected to the Romish Church, that they have not true Christ left amongst them, but an Idol of their own rearing, erected in their own carnal fancies: now that this is no flaunder, no cavil, no hyperbolical or figurative speech, nor an accusation forced upon them against their wills, is apparent by their own doctrine and practice in this place: for the Christ of God and of his Church, is God equal to the father, and can do all things himself: the Christ of the Romish Church is a Child inferior to his mother and may deny her nothing. The true Christ, being man grew in stature and wisdom, and being grown a man, so lived and died, rose again and was glorified, and never decreased: but theirs is now become a child again and a playing Infant: the true Christ sitteth at the right hand of God his Father, theirs is borne in the arms of Mary his mother.

Hence the conclusion is evident, that therefore the Romish christ is not the true Christ of God and of the true Christian Church. This conclusion I demonstrate thus: the Title of these verses is this, To our Lady of Hal, and the Child Jesus: this child they speak of, is either Jesus Christ indeed or it is not: if not, then they proclaim themselves liars and impostors: if it be, then my conclusion stands good: for this Jesus in all the forenamed respects, and many more, differeth from the true Jesus and Savior of Christian men: let them take whether they will, the better is to bad. But now let us see what is that he saith to this child Jesus.

Quid me respectas, &c.

Why (saith he) doest thou frown on me (thou pretty child) art thou angry with me for desiring thy milk? doest thou ch • d me that I dare presume to ask the milk of thy mothers teates? this is all the cause he layeth of Christ his anger, what should a man say to this? what would a Jew say, what will an Atheist think of it? surely they will deride and laugh at that Religion that allows it, if our Christ be such a one as is angry at such a cause: But say I pray thee thou Romish Jesuit, (thou wantest neither wit nor learning to give answer) speakest thou in jest or earnest? if in Iest, then, knowest thou with whom thou iestest? considerest thou that it is Jesus of Nazareth, the great one, the holy one of God, of whose kingdom there shall be no end, he that is the brightness of God's glory & the engraven form of his person, he at whose remembrance the devils tremble, and to whom all knees bow in heaven, earth, and hell, and darest thou exercise thy wit, and whet thy style, & practice thy poetical vain upon him? and unto him that now having conquered sin, death, and hell? sitteth now at the right hand of Majesty, in the highest places? darest thou present such a Petition as this? O pretty child do not envy me that I should touch thy mothers paps, with which I perceive thou wilt suffer none to play but thyself: oh be not angry that I long for that which is thine, namely for the milk of thy mothers teates; didst thou ever find in Scriptures or sound antiquity, that any holy man did ever conceive of him, or speak to him on this fashion? no for its rather a sporting speech • it to be spoken to a playing child, then a salutation sit to be tendered to the Son of God and Savior of the world.

But if thou say thou speakest in earnest according to the truth of Religion, and soundness of divinity, then tell me I pray thee in earnest, is this any part of Christian faith, or is it catholic deuinity, that Christ Jesus is offended with that man that shall desire to touch the Virgin Mary's paps, or to taste of her milk (not in this regard that its a thing not possible, and therefore indeed not to be wished by a Christian, but) because they be peculiarly & propperly his paps and his milk, still as they were when he was an Infant? If this be Romish divinity, alas for the sheep that are fed in such pastures, and • ild with such doctrine: for this is fundamētally both false & impious, false, for if it be true that the holy scriptures teach, that Jesus Christ is now no more to be known nor conceived of according to the flesh, that is as a mere and mortal man, but as a glorified Man, a spiritual conqueror of his enemies, and spiritual head of his Church: If this I say be true, that he is no longer, to be known as a man, as he was upon earth, then it is false that he is still to be conceived of and spoken unto as a playing child: Besides it is impious and irreligious, and a step to Atheism to imagine that Christ our God & Savior, is offended for such an imaginary toy as this is, to touch his mothers paps, or to desire her milk: & what enemies of our religiō would not loudly laugh at this our Christ whom we so magnify, that we make him the rest and comfort of our souls, to be • such a one as he is here described? namely one that chides him that dare touch his mothers paps, for so saith the verse:

That is,

Alas, how shall the mouths of Turks and Jews be stopped from blaspheming, and saying: Is this your Christ? is this the glory of Christianity? Is this he whom you make a God? are these the sins he is offended withal? Surely no ways can such and fowler blasphemies be prevented, but that the Christian world publicly renounce, condemn, and curse, this damned doctrine, as being the private and impious blasphemy of the Machiuillian Jesuits, but not the Catholic doctrine of Christianity: For we cannot deny but there is a generation of vipers, bred of the corruption and putrifaction of an old and sinful world; calling themselves Jesuits, or Priests of the society of Jesus: who as they come nearest to God in their mouths; so are they in their hearts (if their courses can discover them) the furthest from him. With these fellows it may be it is a doctrine or a piece of devotion, that its a great sin for a man to desire from Jesus some of his mothers milk: but if they be asked who made this a sin, they must answer, themselves: if what law? even their own fancies: But as for the catholic and Christian Church, she doth renounce it.

But to proceed, is it not strange that a witty and learned Jesuit, should frame such a speech as this unto Jesus Christ, for thus to begin, Oh blessed Child why art thou angry at me, and offended with me? oft hast thou said to me being angry at my sins, &c. would put a man in hope that some great matter followed: for upon so good a beginning, would not a man presume that some good confession of sins should follow? as this, I must confess O Lord I have sinned in ignorance, in self love in security, in hardness of heart, in incontinency, in malice, in hatred, in covetousness in omis • ion of my duties in commission of evil, &c. for these O Lord, and for any of these, thou mightest say unto me, thou miserable wretch, how darest thou thus pollute my name, and as far as in thee lieth, crucify me again by these thy sins? how darest thou dust and ashes, thus vilify my eternal Law, the curse whereof thou hast hereby incurred? how darest thou bear my Name, or look me in the face, whom thou hast thus provoked?

Oh that our ears might have heard a Jesuit saying thus, and then in reason a man would have expected some good conclusion from such a beginning. But why should we look for either reason or religion from a Jesuit, (if that be true which their brother Watson the priest hath written of them.) To have supposed Christ to be angry with him for breaking the Morrall Law had been good divinity, and no poetical imagination, but these holy Fathers have no such faults: nay see how innocent Lambes the Jesuits be, that when Christ is most angry with a Jesuit, and rebukes him for sin, he hath none to lay to his charge, nor find any whereof he is guilty, but a little holy presumption, or rather height of ardent devotion, that he dare touch the Paps, and beg the milk of the virgin Mary: O fearful presumption, O carnal self-love, O hellish pride, and well beseeming the Jesuitical brood! is not this the generation that praiseth it self, and (as Solomon saith) is good in his own eyes? But say in earnest, is this all the fault that thou thinkest Christ can find with thee? then belike there is either no breaches at all of the moral Law, amongst Jesuits, or else the breaches of God's Law, are less sins amongst them, then are the breaches of their own devises, and well may it be so: for he was a Jesuit who taught that a Priest sinneth less if he kept a whore, or lie with another man's wife▪ then if he marry a wife of his own, I say he was a Jesuit that wrote it, and he was a Jesuit that defended it.

Again, they teach that its a less sin to swear in common talk by the holy name of God, then it is to eat an egg in lent: for the latter say they is a mortal sin, the first is but a venial. Again, that he sins no more that works upon the holy Sabbath day then he that works upon the feast day of S ^t . Didace the Spaniard whom Sixtus made a Saint, not yet 20. years ago: they who • e doctrines these & such others be, no marvel though they hold that the breach of of a duty of their own devising, is a greater sin, then the breach of the moral Law: for so must he hold that wrote this, or else that Christ can find no greater fault in him, but that he durst beg his mothers milk: or else that Christ would pass by all other faults in comparison of that, let him choose which of the three doth please him best, for one he must needs take, or else confess that all this while he is but in jest.

I would leave this point, but that my love to you (my dear country-men, the Papists of England) provokes me to one word more, to you and for your sakes.

Consider I pray you what these men are, who be the Fathers and founders, at least the guiders and governors of your faith: A generation that knows no evil by it self, but this that (I dare stand to) is no evil at all, but of their own making, a generation against whom Christ hath nothing but this ridiculous allegation which you have heard of: which if it be true, as they are a society of all the world to be honored, so being false, they are a brood of Hyppocrites, of all the world to be detested: Then see how, you are daily bewitched by their enchantments, and carried up and down as they please to lead you: but consider I pray you what will not those men say of themselves to you in private, which speak thus insolently of themselves in public? what marvelous, miraculous, and incredible things will not these fellows buz into the ears of their Novices (whom they endeavor to bind Prentises to their Belzebub?) who offer to publish to the eyes and censure of all the world, that Christ layeth nothing to their charge unless it be an extremity of devotion, to his blessed mother: O beloved countrymen, be not seduced by such impostors! let not such vipers eat your hearts; but discover the Hypocrites and send them home unmasked to Hell where they were hatched, for they that dare thus dally with our Savior, no marvel though they be so bold with your souls and consciences, your children and your estates and all that belongs to you.

Now to go forward, he hath told us the great quarrel that Christ hath to him, and the hideous fault for which he chides him, that he offers to touch his mothers teates, and will needs have some of her milk: but now let us see what he answers and how he defends himself.

To a strange accusation, here is a more strange answer: for now the tide of his blasphemy is even at at the highest: the quarrel he supposed, Christ to have against him, was that he durst presume to touch his mothers paps, or desire to taste of her milk: a fearful sin doubtless, yet neither forbidden in the Law nor the Gospel; but a sin of the Popes making. But what is his answer hereunto? he plainly pleads not guilty, alleging for himself, that he is not so bold, so rude, so presumptuous, as to dare to entertain any such thought, or attempt any such thing, as to touch her sacred paps, or to drink of that glorious milk: no his ambition reacheth not so high, he only prayeth to have part of his wounds and blood, that he desireth as being a thing of an inferior nature and not comparable to the other.

O miserable times of ours, that we should live to see that any man's heart should conceive▪ any man's tongue utter, especially any man's pen should publish such horrible blasphemy against the blood and person of our Savior! what, must the Virgin Mary be first compared, afterward equalled, and is not that enough unless now she be preferred before, and advanced above Christ? is his blood inferior to her milk? and is it less presumption to be bold with Christ then her? whither will Romish religion go at the last, that already comes to this?

But to come to a more particular consideration of the words: the answer that here the Jesuits makes, contains apparently both absurdity and impiety, and both in the highest degree: The absurdity appears in his evident contradiction of himself; for now, as though he had either forgotten or cared not what he said afore he denieth that which before he spake almost in every verse: dare you not now touch her Paps, nor taste her milk? then who was it that afore said: I am doubtful whether to take paps or side, milk or blood: If I look at the Paps, I long for milk: if at the Wounds, I would have blood: seeing therefore both are so good, I will have both: I will catch the milk with my right hand, the blood with the left. Didst thou this even now, and now sayest thou dare not touch it? Nay, was it not thou that saidst I will mingle the milk of the mother with the blood of the Son, and so make a souerainge cōpound to heal my soul, and now darest thou not touch the milk nor paps? was it not thy mouth that said, if Anger, Lust, or any sin vex my soul, blood will help it, and so will milk: therefore Mother and Son here my request, I must have milk, I will have blood, I will have both? and dost thou now say, Oh I will have blood indeed, but I dare not desire milk? was it then devotion to take it, and taste it, and drink it, and mingle it with Christ's blood, and apply it to the soul, and is it now presumption to desire it? can one mouth send out such gross contradictions? but let it pass, for no absurdity nor contradiction can be so vile as should ever have moved me to have set Pen to paper at this time, (for they are sufficiently discovered already in these and other points,) but when dishonor and blasphemy is offered to the blood & person of Jesus Christ, how can a Christian hold his peace? for if that be true which the learned father saith, that in accusation of heresy he would have no man patient, whereas heresy is but the shame & hurt of the man that holds it? then sure in the case of blasphemy and impiety, touching the very crown, and striking at the head of Jesus Christ our Lord and redeemer, who can be patient, who can but speak? neither think that herein I challenge ought to myself above my brethren, but know contrariwise, that though I only write, who first, or with the first discovered it, yet speak I, and write I in the person of many millions more, who all with one heart and voice detest his Romish impiety.

The impiety that bewrays it self in this answer is such as goeth beyond all we yet heard, and wherein it seems the blasphemer thought to exceed himself: that we may the better discover it mark the current of his speech: O Christ (saith he) oft hast thou being provoked with my sin, rebuked me and said: darest thou sinful wretch presume to touch my teates or medle with the milk that feeds me? he answereth, oh no blessed child I dare not, nor I will not so far presume, I never was so rude, nor so uncivil, as to imagine that I might touch those precious Paps, or taste the blessed milk of thy mother: I only beg a little of thine own blood, from thy side, thy hand or foot: that shall content me: what is this we hear? you are content to have Christ's Blood, but as for the virgin Mary's milk thou darest not desire it what: is her milk more precious, more dainty, more sacred then the blood of the Mediator? Ye heavens be astonied at this, and all ye creatures of God (in your kinds) renounce and detest this heinous blasphemy. And you (my poor countrymen) that are the devoted children of th • t Church, behold here a piece of Popish divinity a • d devotion, a creatures milk is of more esteem then Christ his blood: a christiā by the power of his ordinary saving faith may be partaker of the benefit of Christ's blood, but not of the blessed milk of our Lady. The blood he may boldly challenge, the milk he scarce may name: in the blood, he may dive and wash his soul, the milk he may not presume to touch: Oh new divinity, fo • merly it seemed strange that her milk was but compared to his blood, but when after it was made equal to it, and mingled with it, and held as fit to heal the soul as it that seemed incredible, till we saw it: then what is this that now we hear, that her milk is not only comparable nay equal but even more precious, more sacred, more excellent then the blood of Jesus Christ: Oh miserable Religion of Popery! whether wilt thou draw thy deceived children in the end? what will become of thee and thy followers? If the devils confessed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ of God, that is the only Savior of the world, and the only anointed of God, to be the mediator, and yet for all this are Devils still and no better: then what are they and what a religion is that, which makes his blood no • so good, so virtuous, so sovereign, so precious as her milk, and so by consequent will neither let him be the only nor the principal Savior. Now the same glorious God and Savior Jesus Christ, whose merrits are debaced, whose person dishonored, and whose blood little better then trodden under foot, either convert in mercy, or in justice confound all that shall consent, defend or give countenance to so fearful a blasphemy: and the same God give you grace poor seduced English men, to relinquish that Religion, which is the Mother of such monsters as upon this theater of the Jesuits, are presented unto you: and especially to detest that Jesuitical Sect, whose honor it is to dishonor Jesus Christ, and who bring upon the great Theater of their honor, the blood of Jesus, so dishonored, as it yet never was by any sect or profession, Turk or Jew, Atheist, or Heretike, devil or man, since the world began.

But let us see what remaineth.

After the discourse imagined (as we heard before) to be betwixt Christ and him, containing Christ's accusation, and his defense touching the high presumption of being as bold with his mothers milk as his blood: now sodaainely he turns himself from Christ to Babylon and supposeth that Babylon that spiritual strumpet allures him to her unlawful lusts and vild Idolatries, and that her temptations have been both frequent & forcible. And surely herein we easily believe him: for what is spiritual Babylon but the kingdom of sin & Satan, of impiety, Idolatry, blasphemy, superstition, profanes: and where is that as in Popery, and where to be found so fully as in the bowels of the Popish state, whom they well know all the world either clearly condemns, or at least justly suspects to be that spiritual Babylon so fearfully accused and condemned in the Revelation. For what City is so notoriously known to stand upon the notable & famous hills as Rome is? what City in all the world did reign over all the Kings of the earth, then when S ^t . John wrote, but only Rome? and the Text saith (as plainly as can be) that the woman, the great Whore of Babylon the mother of fornications, is the great City that reigneth over the Kings of the earth: and lastly there is no place, person, state, nor power, in the world, in whom the number of 666. so fully concurreth, in so many languages, in so many respects, so directly, and with so little straining as in the Popes.

I will specify but few for many: the Pope or none but the Pope challengeth to the principal of the Clergy, in the world, and therefore in the former years hath called himself universal Bishop, and Pastor of Pastors: Now it falls out that this his pride doth proclaim his shame to all the world, for the number of the beast is in this name, without adding, altering, or any straining, as he shall find that will reckon.

D	V	X		C	L	e	r	I
500.	5.	10.		100.	50.			1.	Total. 666.

Again the Pope glorieth in this Title and honor, that he is God's general Vicar on earth: this is the foundation of all his pretended power and usurpation: this he and his imps fight for as for their lives.

This his seduced creatures, English Priests and Jesuits, do in England die for (excepting some that died for horrible treasons) and no marvel, for they know they lose all if they lose this, and yet the Pope cannot hold it, but withal he must have the number of the beast engraven in his forehead, so as he that runs may read it: for put down this Title in the latin tongue, (which is the tongue by him advanced above Greek o • Hebrew, wherein he writes his Letters, gives his laws and his bulls, and works all his fears) and it contains the number of the beast, and neither more nor less.

G

E

N

E

R

A

L

I

S

V

I

C

A

R

I

V

S

D

E

I.

I

N

T

E

R

R

I

S.

50.

1.

5.

1.

100.

1.

5.

500.

1.

1.

1.

50.

1.

5.

1.

100.

1.

5.

500.

1.

1.

1.

total 666.

Thus its clear, that as the Pope will needs be God's general Vicar on earth, so he cannot have it, but he must bear the mark and number of the beast. If any man say he calls not himself God's Vicar, but Christ's Vicar, I answer Christ is both God & man, and he holds himself Christ's Vicar, even as Christ is God, and full little would he thank him that holds him Christ's Vicar, only as he is a man: But I answer further, that whoever reads his own decrees & public constitutions, shall easily see that he calls himself ordinarily the Vicar of God, and suffers others so to style him: and that the world may see they have not reformed it, the Pope that now is, Paul the 5. hath suffered one of his own creatures in a Book dedicated to him, to call him the Vicar of God. Thus Thus he will needs be God's Vicar, but his pride is well paid for, for as he will be God's Vicar against God's will, so God makes him bear the devils mark, in the number of the beast against his own will.

If therefore it be so likely that Rome is Babylon, and her doctrines and deceits, superstitions, and Idolatries, the fornication of that whore of Babylon, then we easily believe this to be true, that oft times did Babylon allure him with her enticements, & woo him to her spiritual fornications: so hath she done many more, and prevails with too many.

But what, with him? No, he will have none: it is well said. Oh that you would do as well, that is the worst we wish you Jesuits, though you wish us nothing but fire and gunpowder.

Oh that you would turn into yourselves and see your error in believing her, and in being deceived with her enchantments, and drunk with her fornications that you would no longer be the sons of her that is the mother of abominations least you be also children of abomination:

Oh that you would forsake her and discover her skirts, and tear her in pieces as she hath deserved, and then return to be the children of the Church, and servants of the living God! this is that we wish you from the Lord, whom we also pray that thou whosoever thou art, that wrote this & all other of the faction in the world, may have grace to perform that which here thou promisest. No no, though heaven and hell should meet I will none, I will none ungracious strumpet get thee gone.

Well then, if he will have none of Babylon's dainties what will he have? for he saith he thirsteth, and must have his thirst quenched, but how?

Quench me with blood sweet son, with milk good mother

But alas these are children of Babylon, they will not be healed: for loe he sings his old song again, he must have blood, he must have milk: loe here the hunger & thirst of a Papist, it is for milk as well as blood: out Savior proclaimeth to the world, blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness. I would here ask a reasonable Papist, a brief question, whether this righteousness can be attained by any means, but by the blood of the Mediator: If he think it may, let him that saith so, take time to consider of it, and he will answer otherwise: But if not (as if Christians they must needs answer) then what a kind of thirst is that, that thirsteth for the milk of a creature, as well as for the blood of the Mediator: but whilst they take time to answer this question, let us go forward, and trace this Jesuit to his unhappy journeys end.

That is,

Now if you please to observe a little, you shall see a new piece of Popish devotion: his ground already • aid is, that he must have milk from the mother: blood of the son.

But how will he come by them? he hath found a ready way, he will make the Son mediator to his mother, and the mother to her Son: Christian Religion hath ever taught, that the Son is our Mediator to the Father: and Popish Religion hath long taught that the Mother is a Mediator to her Son: But now they begin to reach that the son is also a mediator to his mother: what will it come to in the end?

And here observe, that as ever heretofore when there was any honor in precedence, the mother had the first place: so now when it is a burden and a duty, the son must have it, but not till then, for so now he saith.

First indeed he entreats the Son and then the Mother: but what entreats he him? to be a means: to whom? to his Mother▪ for what? for her milk: so that upon the matter, her Milk is it that is first in his thoughts, its that he longs for principally, and Christ Jesus shall be preferred to go a message to his mother and to entreat for him, • hat he may have it: as though he had said, O Jesus my soul so thirsts for milk, that I cannot be without it: now because thou hast rebuked me for my presumption, in offering to take it as boldly as thy blood: I have therefore no other way but to entreat thee to be a means to thy mother, that so by thy mediation and her mercy I may obtain it, therefore I beseech thee Jesus say to thy mother, &c.

Is not Christ honored and well advanced by Popery that makes him mediator to a woman for her milk, and for the benefits and merits of it, and that for such a one as will not be content with the benefits and merits of his own blood shedding: But behold good Reader seriously what divinity here is! A Christian man in his devotion may (saith this Jesuit) desire Jesus Christ to go entreat his mother for him, & to compaline that his poor brothers soul thirsteth, desiring her to quench and comfort him with her milk: what is this we hear? Is Christ a mediator to a creature? and for something in that creature to quench the spiritual thirst of the soul? If this be true, then what meant Christ to say, Come unto me all that be weary, and I will ease you: for if he send them that be thirsty and weary to his mother to be eased, surely in that word, Christ either spake too much of himself, or too little of his Mother.

If Christ held that they might come only to himself, then it appears the Jesuits Religion and his be contrary: if he knew that they might come to her, as well as him, or to her by him, then what meant he to say Come unto me, and not rather Come unto her or unto me▪ what can they, what dare they say? was he undutiful to his mother? or envied he her dignity, or forgot he her when he thus spake? or was he swayed with too much self-love? If none of these without blasphemy may be imagined, then what may be said, that there were any such thing due to her, and he knew it not? If this also be impossible, then there remains but one, that he named himself, but excluded not his mother, he bids come to him, and forbids not to come to her: I answer, first here he bids us come to himself, let them show where he bids us go to her, if he nowhere bid it, it is as good as forbidden: aga • ne, he that in one case of truth said, I and my Father are one, would not have spared in this case if it had been true, to have said I and my mother are one, and he who out of his holy humility, and knowing the difference of the fathers deity of his own humanity, freely confessed my father is greater then I, would never have scorned (if it had been true) to have acknowledged, my mother is as great as I: whereas contrariwise, leaving ou • her and all creatures in the world, he saith directly, Come unto me: And whereas he came to fulfill all righteousness: and the fifth commandment we know commands as well reverence to Parents, as obedience: therefore doubtless he who went home saith the text and was obedient to them, would also most readily have yielded her this reverence if it had been due unto her, or if it might lawfully have been given her: But he knowing the contrary, doth in this case pass by her, and commands Come unto me: If yet they will reply and say, he saith indeed come to him, but meaning to send us from himself to her for ease and comfort, who is the Mother of mercy and grace: I answer so indeed, is she called in their service book, but God in this book takes that name to himsele only, and gives it to no creature, therefore let them answer it that give it to her: Again, the ground of this re-plication is false, for as he saith Come to me, and names no other, so neither sends he us to her for ease, but saith plainly and directly, and I will ease you. Further, they not only make Christ a Mediator to his Mother, and that for spiritual ease and comfort, but they do it in such a fashion, as they make Christ one that either is not able or not willing to help us himself: for it he were, then why do they say, that he complains to his mother, that we thirst & for the ease of our souls desires her to yield her milk? If here they were asked this question, I wonder how they would answer it? If Christ be not willing or nor able to ease the thirsty soul, then how is he a perfect Savior? If he be, then how is it likely that he would send him that humbleth his soul to him for help, to another to be eased, seeing he asketh of him, who said, Come unto me all that are weary, doth he ask that that Christ hath to give, and is it likely that he will deny it? doth he ask that that Christ hath no • to give, and is it probable that his mother hath it? then they may as well say that she hath more grace and mercy, or more power & ability then Christ himself hath: let thē answer these questions, how they will, here will be found strange divinity, which we see is currāt in the Romish Church.

But whilst they prepare their answer, let it please the reader to observe how contrary the Romish doctrine is to the doctrine of Christ, and of the holy scripture.

Christ saith of himself as man.	Romish doct. makes him say.
My father is greater then I	My mother is in some respects greater then I.
Christ saith of himself as God	Romish dost. makes him say.
I and my Father are one.	I and my mother are one.
Christ saith.	Romish doctrine makes him say.
Come to me all that are weary, I will ease you.	Come to me & I will send you to my mother for ease.
The scripture saith.	Romish doctrine saith.
Christ is the mediator betwixt God and man.	Christ is the Mediator betwixt Man and Mary.
The scripture saith.	They make him say.
No man cometh to the father but by me.	No man cometh to my mother but by me.
The scripture saith	They make him say.
Whatsoever you ask my father in my name he will give it you.	Whatsoever you ask my Mother in my name she will give it you.

These and such like oppositions are common betwixt Christ's Gospel and Romish divinity, may not this give strong suspicion that their Religion is Antichristian, which in the foundations of it are so repugnant to Christ's, as these and others which stand confirmed with more authority then yet these do? well, thus Christ is made a Mediator to his Mother, now the Jesuit proceedeth, and to make him amends, he maketh the mother a mediator to him.

That Christ Jesus hath the ransom of sinful souls in his hands is good divinity, and we heartily embrace it, wishing it were as heartily and truly (without Equiuocation) intended by this Papist: if he and all other Papists do so hold it, we heartily rejoice, but then we desire them to answer to a few questions.

Who payeth this ransom? is it not Christ? who accepts it? is it not God the father? is it not mercy, grace & love, that either the one will accept it, or the other pay it? can any pay it but the one? can any take it but the other? are not thē they the foūtains & fathers of mercy, which have done so? if all these be true, then what a Religion have they, who in their liturgies & daily prayers, call a creature the mother of mercy, and mother of grace, oftener then either God the Father, or Christ the Redeemer, or both put together, we desire some conscionable papist to answer us seriously: was the Virgin Mary a Creator or a creature? If a creature, was she anymore then an excellent creature, set apart for the most excellent use in the world? & was it not in God's election to have chosen any other woman, at his own good pleasure to have been the mother of Christ? and was it not his own free mercy, that he regarded the low estate of her his handmaid? if this be so, then did she anything in our salvation, which any woman had not done, if God had taken her to be his mother, was there anything in her to move God to choose her, which was not God's own gift in her and to her? she may be then a vessel of grace, but she can be no way a fountain of grace: for what had she but she received it: but if (as they say) she be the fountain of mercy and mother of grace, then she gives but receives not, as the fountain receives from no other, but hath of it self, and sends out to others: & the mother takes not of her children, but layeth up for them, Now if it be as their Liturgy saith; it is, that she is the mother of mercy and grace, &c. Then sure she hath the ransom in her hands: but if it be in Christ's hands, as here they say it is, then how is she the mother of mercy? hardly would these be reconciled, but that they have equivocations, reservations, or distinctions, that will make anything seem good enough to serve their turns.

Thus then they have not only made Mary Mediator to Christ, which is common in their Religion, but (which was scarce ever heard of before) they make Christ their mediator to her, her to him for his blood, but first him to her for her milk: Now to leave this point, observe (in one word) how in these two messages of mediation, here is no difference, but she that is a creature and saved by her son, is made to speak to him in the same terms as he to her, and with no other words or signs of reverence: and her son and savior, yea God himself made to speak to her with the same reverence as she doth to him: as though there were no difference betwixt him and her, and as though he being God and her savior, was as much beholding to her for her milk, as she being a creature is to him for his blood: Loe what popish devotion is here? now if they be ashamed of this, then why are they not ashamed of the other? But they are far from that, for where are the intreatings, the cries, the humble requests and submissive beseechings to him for his blood? here be none such: but contrariwise as though there were no difference in the world, betwixt either the persons entreating, which are Christ and Mary, or the things desired which be his blood and her milk, he saith to Christ.

And to her he saith:

Thus Popery makes of Christ and Mary, one no greater a person then the other, & of his blood and her milk, one no greater a matter then the other: Christ with no more reverence to be implored then Mary, his blood with no more vehemency to be desired, with no more difficulty to be obtained then her milk: If this doctrine may be defended under pretence of devotion, then will not there want a color for any blasphemy: But the Jesuit goeth forward and saith to Christ.

It may be doubted in whose name he speaketh these words, whether in his own, to both Christ and his mother, or in Christ's name to his mother, and in hers to him: if in the first, they contain blasphemy, if in the second absurdity: for if he suppose the virgin Mary saith thus to Christ.

It is foully absurd to imagine that she being so dignified as she is (yea rather as they hold almost deified) should make an if, or a question whether Christ's blood excel the rest or no: and much more absurd is it to make Christ seem to be ignorant of of his mothers power and state how great it is: be it more or less. But if so be he speak these words himself to thē both, then behold the heinous injury done to the precious blood of the mediator. Concerning which this wicked papist makes as much & equal doubt, whether it excel the blood of other creatures, as he doth: whether the milk of the Virgin Mary excel the milk of all other women: let all Christian men shrink and tremble at so great a blasphemy, for all the learned Papists in the world may be challenged to prove (if they can) out of God's word and the grounds of religion, that she was anymore thē another holy woman, (saving this prerogative, that she was his mother according to the flesh) or anymore then a Saint of God sanctified by the spirit, and saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, whose mother she was in regard of his flesh: or that her milk had any virtue in the world, but to nourish the body as doth the milk of other women, their children: for was not he a man like unto us in all things (sin excepted) and if Christ take it no prejudice to himself, to be like unto men, shall it be a wrong to her to be like to other women? Nay we dare go further and ask them, if God have vouchsafed once in the whole New Testament so much as to name the milk of the Virgin Mary? whereas almost in every Chapter he extolleth the blood of Christ, and is ever magnifying the virtue, merits, and efficacy of the same: if this be so, then what shall we say to that Religion and to those men, who make it as questionable, whether Christ Jesus his blood excel the blood of other men, as whether the Virgin Mary's milk exceed the milk of other women? is this Romish religion? is this popish divinity? then see what followeth: But it cannot be proved either to reason or to faith that her milk excelleth other women's: in any spiritual or corporal virtue or operation: therefore it is not to be prou • ed that Christ's blood is more precious then other men's: See here my dear countrymen, how you are misled, see what doctrine you are fed withal by your teachers! open your eyes and be no longer deceived; offer not this injury to him that gave his life for you, to make this unequal comparison: if they will not teach you holy and sound divinity, then hate them, and learn from us, or rather with us, from the holy scriptures, that his blood is the price of our redemptiō: but as for her milk we know no such thing, since she lived on earth: acknowledge with us that it is a fundamental ground of Christian faith that his blood is more worth then ten worlds: but that her milk is now of any vallue, can nether be persuaded to reason nor believed by saith: and yet dare this malignant sinagoue make that as likely as probable, as certain as the other: If enemies of Religion take hold here, and say, that therefore the ground, of our Christianity are uncertain, and so blaspheme the blessed blood of our Savior, we can say no more but our Church is innocent, our hearts are free, our hands are clear of it: woe be to them by whom the offense cometh. But now let us see how the Jesuit concludes, and whether his end be any better then his beginnning.

That is:

Now comes he to his conclusion, but alas his iniquity is as much at the last as at the first: for still he persists in his impiety, without repentance, without remorse, without sorrow or sense of the evil he hath done, for still he sings his old song:

His soul thirsteth, but for what? for milk and for blood: but first for milk and then for blood: If this be tolerable divinity, nay if this be holy devotion, then what did our blessed Savior mean to cry out to all weary and thirsty souls, If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink: I wish the Jesuits would tell us what they think, whether he did well or no, to leave out the Virgin Mary: for if this divinity of theirs be good, then he ought to have said, If any man thirst let him come to my mother or to me to drink: and surely if her milk be thus equal in vallue, price and merit to his blood, then we do no longer marvel that they teach how the Virgin Mary did rise from the dead, and was assumed into heaven corporally, that as Christ rose & ascended to apply & make good the merit of his death so did she also to make effectual the merit of her milk. But then good Paul how far art thou to blame, that esteemest all things in the world dung and dross, and only that thou mightest know the virtue of the resurrection! for then it seems, thou wilt give little • or nothing to know the virtue of her assumption: But it may be thou art half an Heretike, and believest not any such assumption: but if thou couldest be taken within the reach of the holy inquisitiō, thou shouldst pay well for such thy heretical incredulity: If now thou wert alive thy better and more holy brethren the Jesuits, could reprove thee for many indiscrete passages, and teach thee better divinity then thou seemest to know, for whereas thou durst say, thou esteemedst to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, they can tell thee thou art far short in thy duty, and but cold in zeal in respect of them, for they stand in doubt whether to esteem now the blood of his wounds, or the milk of her Paps: and whereas thou wilt give all to know the virtue of his resurrection, they can but wonder at thy ignorance, who carest not to know the virtue of her resurrection & ascension also: Be thou content to know the one, they for their parts will know both: and if thou be so precise for thy Master, that thou canst not be content to say, that he purgeth our sins, but must exclude all other, and say, that he by himself purgeth our sins: know thou that they dare be so bold as to put out that word by himself out of the text: and when they read thy Epistles they are half ashamed to see what a bloody man thou art, for thou art all in blood, blood, insomuch as twenty times at least thou art still upon blood as though there were no salvation but by blood, and as though blessed Mary's milk had no merit at all. It seems that as thou wert a persecutor, and delighted in blood afore thy conversion, so thou bears still a bloody mind: but now behold these meek, & mild and merciful men (the Jesuits) a generation that loves no cruelty, nor seeks to shed no blood (as most nations of the world can well bear witness) these sweet and gracious fathers being possessed with a better spirit, are weary of blood and do rather choose and desire milk to quench the spiritual thirst of their souls.

If they would utter what their profane harts think, or discover openly what they mutter amongst themselves, we should here them publish even such divinity as this is: (a taste whereof, besides the present poems, you shall read anon.)

But now for his conclusion, this blaspheming Jesuit dare proceed and turn his speech to God and not fearing the commandment that forbids him to take God's Name in vain, under pain of standing guilty, at the bar of God's justice, he dare offer to abuse the name of God, with such a prayer as this.

O Lord thou must pardon me though I cry aloud, for it is not blood will serve my soul, I long for milk, and am so a thirst, that I may not keep silence: and why Lord shouldest thou so long keep me a Pe • ioner in this case? I am better then the nails, yet they had blood enough: I am not so vile as clouts, yet they wanted neither milk nor blood.

What kind of men are these Jesuits, or what a God is their God, to whom they dare present such a prayer as this? surely they think as basely of him as they do highly of themselves, or else they never durst thus insult over him, & thus abuse him, as after he hath told them plainly, that his blood is drink indeed, and commanded them that are a thirst to come and drink of that well of water of life, to come and tell him to his face that their souls thirst for milk, & they must have it? belike these crawling frogs think that they have such a God as they may leap and play upon at pleasure: But O thou that dwellest in heaven langh them to scorn, have them and their wickedness in derision: and either work them to repentance and visible conversion, or bring them to vengeance and just confusion.

The Jesuit concludes with a comparison of himself to body, and the clothes that touched him in his infancy and death: & indeed the first comparison is not much unequal, for the Jesuits are most like to nails & launces in Christ's body; for seeing the holy Ghost tells us that wicked men by their sins did and do pierce Christ: then the Jesuits who by their Atheismes, cruelties, perjuries, equivocations, treasons and manifold impieties, have been sharper nails and launces in Christ's body, and greater dishonorers of his Religion, then any other sort of men (if the voice of all Christendom, & the testimony of their own brethren be true) thē the Jesuits I say are not unfitly resembled to nails & launces: and indeed they are thorns in the eyes, and pricks in the side of all princes and states where they come: less marvel though they be like the nails and spear in Christ's body! therefore let the Jesuit please himself in this comparison, as long as he will, we envy it not.

But for the second, that he is better then the clothes that were about these two blessed bodies, I say but this: that either the Jesuits are far more holy then the Prophet Isaiah, or else he far more humble in his own eyes then they: for he professeth in his own & the churches name, that they were no better then the filthiest clout that ever was, even a menstruous cloth, But saith the Jesuit, I am better then the best cloth that ever was: for though we hold that God hath given lasting virtue to his Word and Sacraments but none that we know to rags, or clouts: yet we acknowledge that as far as clothes may one excel mother those that touched the bodies of our Loid and his mother, are the most precious, and if we could be sure we had them, we would esteem them above cloth of gold: we therefore wonder how a man coming before the Lord his God, dare in his prayer make himself better then those clothes, especially hearing the Prophet cry before him, O Lord all our righteousness is like a menstruous clout. If our best be so filthy, what is our nature, what is our sin? if he answer that this is but a cavil, for he means that he being a man he is therefore capable of grace and salvation, which the clothes are not, I think so also: But why then doth he envy that milk and blood should touch them? If he mean the material and real milk and blood that were in the bodies of Christ and his mother, then he is more then mad, to envy the nails, the launce, the clouts, for that they did touch them, and yet he cannot, and if he complain that he may not, we ask him why then did not the Apostles take more careful order to gather up and preserve that milk and blood, or if they did not, at least why did they not complain of the want of them, as he doth here? surely either they had too little devotion, or the Icluirs too much superstition.

But if he mean the virtue, merit and efficacy of the blood and milk, then let him answer us two short questions. First, what spiritual virtue and power had that milk, what did it work in our salvation, (more then the milk of another woman could) what did it merit for us? what the blood did we know and most willingly do acknowledge: but what the milk did or can do, if the Jesuits can tell and teach us, we will not refuse to learn: But supposing that it had as much virtue as the blood (as the Jesuit affirms, but far be it from us once so to think) then secondly we ask him whether he think the Nayles, Launce, and Clouts, were partakers of the virtue and merit of that blood, if he do, let him show where he received such divinity: if not, then to what end complains he to God in such a fashion.

Lord I am better then the Nayles and Clouts, and yet they had Blood and Milk enough, but I die for thirst.

If this be not to take God's name in vain, and that in a high measure, we appeal to all Christian men of reasonable judgment.

And thus at last are we come to an end of this Jesuitical Gospel, the impiety whereof I now remit to the censure of the Christian world.

And for my conclusion, least any should say that this is but one private Jesuits deed, and therefore may not preindice the whole society of Jesuits, and much less the Religion of Popery.

To these I answer, 1. the book is allowed and hath been twice printed, and stands approved by Posseuine, amongst good and catholic authors. 2. Let them show what Jesuit or other popish doctor hath reproved, or what Inquisitor or other popish Magistrate hath censured this wickedness. 3. Which is worst of all, it is no more in effect then others of them have taught or approved, though not in so open, apparent, and foul a fashion, for let any Christian man judge what divinity is laid down in these points that follow.

1 The papists have a book called the Mariale, It hath been objected unto them that in this book it is thus said: Solomon saith the name of the Lord is a strong tower Pro. 18. 10. But Solomon knew little of the Virgin Mary, let us therefore say, the name of our Lady is a strong tower, let the sinner fly unto her, and he shall be saved: and again: thou art a sinner, fly then to the name of Mary, that alone shall serve to heal thee: and again:

The Lord was with Mary, and Mary with the Lord, in the same labor and same work of our redemption for the Mother of mercy helped the Father of mercy, in the work of our salvation: and thereupon was it spoken of the first woman, It is not good for man to be alone, let us make him a helper: But why then saith God, Isaiah 63. I have trodden the wine press alone, and of all people, there was no man with me: the book answereth, it is true Lord that thou sayest, there was no man with thee but there was a woman with thee, which bore all the wounds in her heart, that thou didst bear in thy body.

Loe here a piece of rare divinity! Solomon is blamed for ignorance, that he knew but little of the Virgin, & in a sort is rebuked for saying the name of our Lord, and not rather the name of our Lady is a strong tower: and though no man did, yet a woman (namely Mary) did help Christ to tread the winepress of God's wrath, and was fellow worker with God, in the work of our redemption.

This book stands vnconfuted, uncondemned, unreproved by the Jesuits or the Romish Church, till this day for ought that I can yet find, yet hath it been many years laid to their charge▪

2 Again the Papists have a book, they call it the Ladies Psalter, printed at Paris in the year 1520. or therabouts, wherein everyone of the 150. Psalms are in whole or in part turned from dominus to domina, that is, from God our Christ to our Lady, as

Thus I might go over all the Psalms, but as he began he ends in the last words of the last Psalm.

Let everything that hath breath praise our Lady.

Now this book stands not only uncontrolled, but rather even defended by the Jesuits, and those of the principal.

3 Again, a famous Friar & well approved amongst them, preached this doctrine in the pulpit (amongst many other, little better.)

A man may appeal from God himself to the Vitgin Mary, if any man feel himself grieved at the justice of God, seeing God hath divided his kingdom with her, for whereas God hath justice and mercy, he hath reserved justice to himself, to be exercised in this world as it pleased him: but mercy he hath committed to his mother: If therefore any man find himself agrieued in the court of God's justice, let him appeal to the court of mercy, of his mother.

This Divinity was so well relisht in the Romish Church, that after he had preached it, he published it under the Popes own Patronage: and the book was again printed within these three years: but what say the Jesuits to it, they testify that this book, is a learned and godly book, full of goodness and piety.

Fourthly, Horatius Turcellinus, himself a Jesuit of good esteem among them, writes thus.

Almighty God hath made the Virgin his mother, as far as he may lawfully, partaker of his divine power and Majesty.

Now surely if God have made her fellow with him of his divine majesty, less marvel if Christ have made her fellow in the work of redemption. And this book written by a Jesuit, hath public allowance, and is dedicated to Cardinal Aldobrandino.

Fifthly, a great Spanish Doctor, and professor of divinity of his order, writes thus.

We have often seen and heard of very many who in their extreme dangers have called upon Mary and presently were delivered: for oft times safety is sooner obtained by calling upon the name of Mary, then by calling upon the name of Jesus Christ the son of God.

And this book is both dedicated to Pope Clement the 8. & receives public allowāce by the Jesuits: his name is Chrysostom, as though he were a golden mouthed speaker: but if thi • • e his doctrine, that her mediation is as powerful, or rather more then is her sons, it is pity but he should be called and accounted a leaden mouthed wretch:

By all these & many more that (as the learned know) might easily be produced, it may appear that this blaspheming Jesuit Bonarscius, in this his detestable comparison, of her milk with Christ's blood, saith no more in effect then others both of this Religion and particular sect, and therefore it may be justly concluded, this is the doctrine and divinity not of him alone, but of the Jesuits, and of the popish Church it self, as long as it stands approved or not condemned by them: Now then if this be the divinity of the Romish Church.

• 1 That a Creatures milk may be mingled with Christ's blood in the matter & merit of our salvation.
• 2 That it helps and heals spiritual sores of the soul as well as the blood.
• 3 That though no man did, yet a woman did help Christ in the work of our salvation.
• 4 That the Psalms may be turned from Lord to Lady.
• 5 That a man may appeal from God to the Virgin Mary.
• 6 That God hath divided his kingdom with her, keeping Justice to himself, and surrendering Mercy to her.
• 7. That God hath made her partaker with himself of his divine power and Majesty.
• 8. That a man's prayers are often heard, rather by and through her, then Christ Jesus.

If these I say be the doctrines of the present Church of Rome, then let the Christian world be pleased to observe,

• 1. How far the present Romish Church, is degenerate from the ancient.
• 2. How great cause we and all Churches of God have to separate from such a synagogue.
• 3. How justly they may be pronounced Antichristian. who thus heinously disparage the Person and office of the Mediator.
• 4. How untrue is it that by any suggestion, that the present Religion of Rome is much reformed and refined at this day: for it is most certain in the former times these would have been condemned as blasphemies even in the Romish Church it self.
• And lastly you of this most honorable City, especially you the Lord Major, and your brethren, being one most worthy renowned Benches of the world, one of the greatest glories of this land, may here see what cause there is to hold the true Papists Heretics, considering the present Church holds not only these but many other fundamental errors, both for matter of faith, and of government: which shows them not only enemies to all true religion, but the subuerters, or at least the underminers of all civil states in the world, wherein they were ever suffered.

And considering that all means hath been used, to reclaim and reform her, but all is in vain, (for she is that Babylon that will not be healed) wherefore it is our duty to forsake her & leave her to the just hand of God.

Thus shall we follow the counsel of the Prophet in like case who saith: We would have healed Babylon, but she would not be healed: let us forsake her and go every man to his own Country, for he • Judgment is come up to Heaven and lifted up to the Clouds.