A FRIENDLY ADVERTISEMENT TO the pretended Catholics of IRELAND: Declaring, for their satisfaction; That both the King's SUPREMACY, and the FAITH whereof his Majesty is the Defender, are consonant to the doctrine delivered in the holy Scriptures, and writings of the ancient Fathers. AND CONSEQVENTLY, That the Laws and Statutes enacted in that behalf, are dutifully to be observed by all his Majesty's subjects within that Kingdom.  
By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP, Knight, one of his Majesty's justices of His Court of Chief Place in IRELAND.  
IN THE END WHEREOF, IS ADDED An Epistle written to the Author, by the Reverend Father in God, JAMES USHER Bishop of Meath: wherein it is further manifested, that the Religion anciently professed in Ireland is, for substance, the same with that, which at this day is by public Authority established therein.  
DUBLIN, Printed by the Society of Stationers. 1622.   

TO THE HIGH AND MIGHTY KING, JAMES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF GREAT Britanne, France, and Ireland, Defender of the FAITH, etc.  
Civil justice (most Gracious Sovereign) and external Peace, be, as all confess, two things, in every Commonweal, much to be honoured and highly respected: but they are then, doubtless, of best and worthiest esteem, and most blessed of GOD, when, together with them, God's Religion flourisheth, and the Supremacy of Kings and Princes, 
Rom. 13 1.2. Tit. 3.1. Matth. ●2. 21. Deut. ●8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Levit. 26 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Deut. 7.11, 12, 13, 14, etc. 1. King. 2. ●, 4. 1 Chron. 8.7, 8, 9, 10.  within their own Dominions, is also, as one of his sacred ordinances, duly reverenced and obeyed. For, in the diligent observance of God's ordinances, added to civil justice and external Peace, it is (as your Majesty best knoweth) that the solid, durable, and complete Happiness of every Kingdom, especially that professeth God and his word, consisteth. Howbeit, concerning points of civil justice, and, external Peace, I shall not need, here, to speak any thing: because in those two points, and generally in all matters Temporal (as they be called) the pretended Catholics of this your Majesty's Kingdom, do already, of themselves, willingly profess and yield a very good conformity, without any opposition or contradiction. I wish, they did also show, (as of right they ought, and upon better information received, I trust they will) the like good conformity, as touching the two other points (which be, indeed, points of the greatest & highest importance) namely, concerning your Majesty's Supremacy, and the Religion: in which two points, it is, that their great defect, and unconformitie, appeareth.  
The cause hereof, they allege to be their Conscience, and so I also conceive it: But what manner of conscience it is, themselves should more seriously consider. For if it be (as it is indeed) not a right, but a wrong and an erring conscience, all men will grant, that such a conscience ought to be rectified and reform, and not persisted in. If then, matter sufficient to satisfy their consciences, in these points, shall be showed unto them, it is as much as they can desire: and from thenceforth, they must either be conformed, or else be held utterly unexcusable, as having after that, nothing further left to allege or plead for themselves in the case. This therefore is the thing that I have here attempted & endeavoured to do & perform, as I was able, and as my other employments in the affairs of the Commonweal, would permit me. I confess, that it might have been much better done by sundry, and innumerable others, that be far more learned, and have also much more leisure for these things than I: and that much more might likewise have been spoken in every several and particular point, then is here by me delivered: But as I could not, nor desired to speak all, but so much as might suffice; so neither do I doubt but there will here be found matter sufficient, (if not redundant) to give contentment & satisfaction to the conscience of any, that will be reasonable and equal, and not suffer himself to be transported or carried away with prejudice, or with perverse or partial affection. The Work, is, I grant, in respect of me, in no sort worthy your Majesty's view or patrociny: yet in respect of the matter therein handled, it being the cause of no less than of God himself, and of his Church, and of all Christian Kings in general (if they all knew, or would take notice, of that which of right belongeth to them) and it being your Majesties own cause more specially and particularly: I thought it meetest, and my bounden duty, to dedicate it (as here in all humble submission I do) to your most excellent Majesty. The Almighty evermore keep and preserve your Highness, to the great glory of his Name, the further comfort of his Church, and of all your Majesty's Dominions, the most ample propagating of his religion, and the confusion of all false and Antichristian Doctrines, and to your own everliving honour in this world, and everlasting felicity in the world to come, through jesus Christ. AMEN.  
Your Majesty's most humble subject, and servant, (though unworthy) Christopher Sibthorp.   

The Preface, TO THE HONOURABLE, Worshipful, and the rest of the pretended Catholics within the Realm of Ireland.  
IT is clear, and out of all question (noble Lords, and worthy Gentlemen) that the one side, namely, either the Protestants, or, the Papists, be, and must needs be, mightily mistaken, and strongly deluded; whilst they be both so confident, and yet so contradictory and repugnant in their several Religions & opinions: but where, and on which side, this strong Delusion is, 
2. Thess. 2.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. Paul hath foretold long agone, and it will hereafter be more fully declared. In the mean time, some peradventure will take exception to this Work, for that it is not done by a professed Divine, but by one of another profession: Indeed, I must confess, that in respect of learning, and all other abilities, and conveniences, it might, by many degrees, have been much better performed by such a one, then by me, who am the meanest of many thousands. For which cause it was, that I solicited, and that very earnestly, a learned professed Divine of my acquaintance, to have undertaken the Work; but He whom I thus requested, finding himself to be otherwise much busied and employed, had no leisure to intend it: by reason whereof, the burden of it then returned and rested upon my weak self. Howbeit, as I presume nothing of myself (for neither is there any cause I should) so neither do I distrust or despair of the strength of the Almighty: whose direction and assistance I therefore most humbly implore to enable me, in this so weighty a business, wherein I am, otherwise, of myself, utterly unable, and altogether defective.  
Now then, howsoever it is granted, that it might have been much better done by a learned professed Divine: yet thereupon it followeth not, that therefore it is either unlawful or unbeseeming Me, or a man of another profession, to intermeddle in it. For, first, it is well known that many (with whom nevertheless I neither do, nor is it meet I should, compare myself) have written, and that very commendably, even concerning Divinity, who were themselves no professed Divines. Secondly, I must crave leave to say, that I find not Popery, how subtle or sophistical soever it be, to be of any such puissance, but that a man of mean learning, armed with the strength of the divine Scriptures, may easily ruinate and overturn it. Thirdly, those that oppugn the Religion, & His Majesty's Supremacy, what do they else but oppugn therewithal (as they must needs, at least inclusively) the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, whereby they are both established? And what reason then, can be showed, why he that is a Lawyer by profession, may not defend and maintain the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, in those two great points especially, wherein they be so unjustly and causelessely oppugned? But when I consider myself further to be a servant (though unworthy) to his most excellent Majesty, and that in so high and eminent a Court as His Majesty's Bench is; beside my profession, the duty of my place also tieth me to defend his Majesty's Supremacy, as being a thing properly appertaining to his very Crown and Regal dignity. And doth not, moreover, the Oath of Supremacy to His Majesty, which I have taken, necessarily bind me hereunto? Yea even for this very cause, that I am a subject to his Majesty, though there were no other reason, do I hold myself in duty, tied, to my power, to uphold and maintain that his Regal Supremacy. For if every good child will maintain the right and Authority of his Father, and every good servant the right and Authority of his Lord and Master, ought not every good subject to maintain the right and Authority of his Sovereign Lord and King? And as touching the Religion, if there were no other reason but this, that I am a Christian by profession (though no professed Divine) do I hold it for that very cause, not only well beseeming me, but my duty likewise, according to such measure of knowledge and ability as God hath given me, to defend and maintain the true and Christian Religion I profess, against that which is untruly called the Christian and Catholic, and is, indeed the false, erroneous, and Antichristian. For whereas some have a conceit, that not Lay men at all, but Clergy men only, and such as be of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, should meddle with the Scriptures, and matters of Religion, it appeareth to be a very vain conceit, and an untrue opinion: because S. Paul directly requireth, even of Lay christian's (as well as of others) that the Word of Christ should Dwell in them, 
Coloss. 3.16.  and that not poorly, or in a small or slender measure, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, richly, plentifully, 
Primas. in hunc locum. Heb. 5.12. Heb. 3.13. Rom. 15.14. 1. Thess. 5 11.  or abundantly. Whereupon Primasius saith, that, Hence we learn, that the Lay people ought to have the knowledge of the Scriptures, and to teach one another, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly. And therefore are they further expressly charged, to admonish, exhort, and edify one another: 
jude vers. 3.  yea, to contend, and not only to contend, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, earnestly to contend for that faith which was once given unto the Saints. And doth not God himself also command thus? Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, 
Levit. 19.17.  but Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin to be upon him. Agreeably whereunto, would not S. james likewise have all Christians to labour the conversion of such as be in error, and go astray? telling them for their better encouragement in this matter, that, if any do err from the truth, 
jam. 5.19, 20.  and another convert him, let such a one know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and cover a multitude of sins. You see then what duties, in respect of the good of others, as well as of himself, be required even of a lay person, in matters concerning God and his religion. And indeed, very strange it were, if lay Christians should be tied in charity to take care of men's bodies, and yet should in no sort be permitted to have any care, or to show any Christian charity or affection, in respect of their souls, and the good and safety of them. It is true, that no man may take upon him the office and function of Bishops, Pastors, or other Ministers of the Word, without a lawful calling or ordination first had and obtained: but although a lay man may not therefore preach, minister the sacraments, nor do any such acts as be proper and peculiar to those that be Ecclesiastical Ministers, yet in such things as be not proper and peculiar unto them, but be acts and duties common with them, to other Christians, a Lay man may lawfully intermeddle. It is likewise true, that the knowledge of God's Word (and consequently of Divinity) doth in a more exact, and more plentiful, and fuller manner and measure, and chiefly, belong to those that be professed Divines and of the Ecclesiastical Ministry: but thereupon it followeth not, that therefore it belongeth only to them. As also, although those of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, are to teach and instruct the Lay people out of the Scriptures, and that the Lay people are to learn what they rightly teach from thence: yet neither doth it thereupon follow, nor is that any argument, or impediment, but that the Lay people may nevertheless read, and get knowledge in the Scriptures, and thereout learn what good they can also, even by their own industry, diligence, and endeavour. We read of Aquila, and Priscilla his wife, that they were by their Trade, Tentmakers: and that Apollo's was a man eloquent and mighty in the Scripture●▪ yet so skilful, learned & expert were those two, 
Act. 18.2, 3.24, 25, 26.  name●ly, not only Aquila, but Priscilla also his wife, in the Word of God, as that they took unto them the same Apollo's, and expounded unto him The Way of God more perfectly. All men know, that Kings, Princes, and such like civil Magistrates, be none of that Order of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, and yet of them it is specially required, that they read the Scriptures & Book of God, and that they be very diligent and conversant in it. For God expressly requireth of a King, 
Deut. 17, 18, 19, 20.  that, When he shall sit upon the Throne of his Kingdom, He get him the Book of his Law, and chargeth him to read therein, all the Days of his Life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to Keep All his Words and ordinances, not turning from them, either to the right hand or to the left: That so he may prolong his Days in his Kingdom, He and his Sons after him. And to josuah, a civil Magistrate, he likewise giveth this charge and commandment, saying: Let not This Book of the Law, depart out of thy mouth, but Meditate therein Day and Night, that thou mayst Observe and Do according to All that is written therein: 
josh. 1.8.  for then shalt thou make thy Way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success. Was not the Treasurer to Candace (Queen of the Ethiopians) also a Lay man, 
Act. 8.27, 28, 29, 30. etc.  and not of the Order of the Ecclesiastical Ministry? and yet did he read Esaias the Prophet, (which is a part of the holy Scriptures) as he was returning homeward, and sitting in his Chariot, and was in no sort reproved for the same, but well allowed therein, and had a blessing thereupon sent unto him from God. Is it not likewise recorded of those noble Christians at Berea, to their great honour, that they received the Word of God with all readiness of mind, 
Act. 17.11.  quotidie scrutantes Scripturas, searching the Scriptures Daily? And were not Lay persons also comprised amongst those to whom Christ jesus himself said thus? Scrutamini Scripturas: 
joh. 5.39.  Search the Scriptures. Yea, doth not God himself further give a direct commandment that the Book of his Law, and of the Religion and ordinances therein contained, 
Deu. 31.11, 12. ●3. Et josh. 8.34, 35.  should be read, published and made known to All, even to Men, Women, and Children? And doth he not moreover say, of that his Word, commandments, and ordinances, in this sort? They shall be in thy heart: 
Deut. 6.6, 7.  and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children: and shalt talk of them, when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. Yea, is he not pronounced blessed, 
Psal. 1.2.  that hath his delight in the Law of the Lord, and that doth meditate therein Day & Night? Timothy, even whilst he was a child, was conversant in this Book of God, the holy Scriptures: for so S. Paul expressly testifies of him, 
2. Tim 3 14, 15, 16, 17.  that he knew the holy Scriptures of a child, and for his further encouragement therein, saith, that those holy Scriptures be able to make him Wise unto Salvation. S. john also writeth one of his Epistles (which is a part of the sacred and canonical Scriptures) expressly and by name, 
The second Epistle of S. john, vers. 1.  to an elect Lady and her children: which he would never have done, if it had not been both lawful and laudable, even for women and children also that be of capacity, as well as for others, to read the Scriptures, and to know them. How shall a young man cleanse his Way? 
Psal. 119 9  even by taking heed thereunto according to God's Word, saith the Psalmist. According whereunto, it is again required of all, 
Eccles. 12.1.  that they remember their Creator in the days of their youth. Origen also, from his childhood was taught in the Scriptures, 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 3.  and learned them without Book, and questioned with his father, Leonides, an holy Martyr (who joyed therein) about the difficult sentences of the same. Macrina, S. Basils' Nurse, likewise taught him the Scriptures, 
Basil. epist. 74▪  of a child. And S. Hierome writeth of Paula a Gentlewoman, how she set her maids to learn the Scriptures. Yea, many of his writings be directed to women, commending their diligence and labour in the Scriptures, and encouraging them therein, as namely to Paula, Eustochium, Salvina, Celantia, etc. Theodoret also testifieth of the Christians that lived in those ancient times, thus: 
Theodor. de curand. Graecorum affect. lib 5.  You shall every where see (saith he) these points of our faith to be known and understood, not only by such as be Teachers in the Church, but even by Cobblers, and Smiths, and Websters', and all kind of Artificers. Yea, all our women, not only they which are Booke-learned, but they also that get their living with their Needle: yea, ●●●id-servants, and waiting women, and not citizens only, but husbandmen also of the country, be very skilful in these things. Yea, you may hear amongst us, Ditchers, and Neatheards, and Woodsetters, discoursing of the Trinity, and of the creation etc. S. Chrysostome likewise exhorteth all sorts of men, 
Chrysost in Gen. hom 7.  to read the Scriptures, and to call their neighbours to the hearing of them. He also taketh away the vain pretences and excuses of them, 
In Gen hom. 21  who alleged that they were secular and Lay men, and had wife, children, and family to look to, and desireth them that they would not so deceive themselves, saying: that They which be entangled with such cares, have the more need to seek remedy by reading the holy Scriptures. 
Comment▪ in Matth hom. 2. In Epist. ad Heb Hom. 17.  Again, he saith: It is no excuse, but a fault, to say, I have not read what S. Paul saith. And therefore he saith further: Audite, obsecro, seculares omnes etc. Hear, I beseech you, all ye that be secular or lay-men: provide you Bibles, 
In Epist. ad Coloss. Hom. 9  which be medicines of the soul: if you will nothing else, yet, at least wise, get the New Testament, the Apostle, the Acts, the Gospels, which be continual and diligent Teachers. It is then more than manifest, that the reading, searching, and knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, is permitted and belongeth not only to those that be of the Order of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, but even to those also that be not of that Order: as namely, to Kings, Princes, civil Magistrates, to old, to young, 
Coloss 3.16. Hebr 5.12. Heb, 3.13. Rome 15.14. 1. Thess. 5.11. Levit. 19.17. jam. 5.19, 20.  to men, to women, to children, and generally to all sorts of people, and that to this end, to benefit others, aswell as themselves, as they shall be able. For, as God giveth not worldly wealth or earthly blessings and gifts, to any man for his own private use and behoof only, but that he should communicate and distribute of the same unto others: so neither doth he give his spiritual gifts or graces to any, to hide or keep the● only to himself, but to extend and impart them to the profit also of others. 
Luk. 8.16.  As likewise no man lighteth a candle, to put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give light to others that be in the house, aswell as to himself. Yea, the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one, to this very end, 
1. Cor 12.7.  to profit others withal aswell as himself, as S. Paul again directly teacheth. Although then every man cannot be a professed Divine, yet it is evident, that eveey man ought to be a professed Christian. Yea, Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words (saith Christ) of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, 
Luke 9 26.  and in the glory of his Father, and of the holy Angels. And S. Paul saith likewise, that, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 
Rom. 10.10.  and with the mouth confesseth unto salvation. So that we must not only believe in Christ with our heart, but we must also confess or profess him and his religion, with our mouth, and (which is yet more) we must practise Christianity in our lives and conversations, and endeavour also so much as in us lieth, to have the same observed and practised by others. Wherein there is no cause to fear those proverbes, of, Ne suitor ultra crepidam, and, Tractant fabrilia fabri, and such like, which cannot here be rightly used or applied: because the knowledge of God, and of his Word and Religion, is not like the case of other arts, sciences, trades, and occupations in the world, but is a thing to be learned and professed by all sorts of people, of what worldly calling or profession soever they be, as now I trust you sufficiently perceive.  
But consider yet further, by the controversies that are between the Protestants and the Papists, how much even the learned professed Divines themselves, be divided in opinions: In this case, what shall we do that be Laymen? shall we be of no religion, until these be agreed? But when will that be? or, what if in the interim, any of us in such a case should die? were it not extremely perilous? or, shall a man at all adventures, betake himself to one of the two Religions, not caring, or, not knowing whether it be right or wrong which he betaketh himself unto? were not that overgreat levity, a blind resolution, and a strange inconsiderate rashness? Yea, do we not all say and hold, that extra veram Ecclesiam non est salus, out of the true Church there is no salvation? There is then (so far as I perceive) a direct necessity laid upon as many of us as be able to make search, not only to search, but to find out also, whether of these be the true Teachers, and which is the right faith, and the true Church, and to join ourselves thereunto. For which purpose, ought we not studiously and diligently to read and revolve the Scriptures? For is there any other sure rule of truth, beside them? or, any other infallible or better judge, for the deciding of these controversies, than God himself, speaking unto us in those his sacred and divine Writings? But to take away all doubts, let it be examined; Would any then have the Church to be the judge? Why the Church itself is the thing that is chiefly in question: the grand and principal Question between the Protestants and the Papists, being, Whether of them is the true Church: and when the Church itself is in question, she is not to judge, but to be judged, as even Bellarmine also himself declareth. 
Bellar. de no●. Eccl. cap. 2.  Or, would any have Councils to be this judge? Godly Councils that be assembled in the name of Christ, and aim only at truth, and that have the Word of God only for their rule and direction, be, I confess, much to be honoured and respected: but Councils, at all times follow not, nor do according to that rule; whereupon it cometh to pass, that they sometimes err and go astray, and consequently cannot be infallible judges. For, first, it is granted aswell by Papists, as by Protestants, that Provincial Councils may err, even in matters of faith: and why then may not general Councils also possibly err in matters of faith sometimes? For is not the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, (if he so please) as well able to keep a Provincial Council at all times, from erring, as a general? What then is the difference? or wherein doth it consist? Will any say, it consisteth in this, that in a general Council there is a greater number or multitude, then is in a Provincial? But truth goeth not always by multitudes, or the greatest number, but is sometimes found in the lesser number, and in few against many, as in times past it was found in one Michaiah, against four hundreth. For which cause it is also written: 
1. King. 22.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c  Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, nor agree in a controversy, to decline after many, 
Exod. 23.2.  to overthrow the truth. Neither indeed do the Popish Teachers themselves hold, the reason of their supposed non-errabilitie of general Councils, to be, because of the greater number or multitude, but because of the promise of the holy Ghost made unto them: which holy Ghost they nevertheless cannot deny to be promised aswell to a Provincial as to a general Council: yea, Where but Two or Three be gathered together in my Name (saith Christ) there am I in the midst of them. 
Matt. 18 20.  Seeing then it is granted that a Provincial Council may err, notwithstanding this promise of the holy Ghost, it must be granted, that a general Council may sometime also err, by the same reason that a Provincial may, notwithstanding that promise. For as touching the reason that some bring, that if a general Council may err then the whole Church may err & fail in faith; it is no consequent: inasmuch as all the Bishops and Pastors within Christendom (without exception) be not always present at a general Council, much less be all the faithful throughout the whole world there present: and therefore also doth even Panormitan himself reject that reason and inference, as frivolous; For (saith he) though a general Council represent the whole universal Church, yet, to speak truth, the universal Church is not there precisely, 
Panor de elect. & electi potestate ¶ significasti.  but by representation: because the universal Church consisteth of All the Faithful; and this (saith he) is the Church which cannot err. Whereby, it is not impossible that the true faith of Christ may abide in one person only: therefore the Church is said, not to fail, or, not to err, if the true faith remain in any one. And thus saith Pighius also, 
Pigh hierar. Ecclesiast lib. 6. cap 5. & 4.  though an Arch-Papist; Certum est, Concilia non esse universalem Ecclesiam: it is a thing certain, that Councils be not the whole, or, universal Church. 
Lib. 6. cap. 7.  Where he further affirmeth those two Councils of Constance and Basil, to have erred, notwithstanding they were general Councils. Yea this is so clear a case with him, that General Councils may err, even in matter of Faith, that he saith again most directly and expressly, thus: 
Lib. 6. cap. 13.  In fidei definitionibus, errasse etiam universalia sanctorum Patrum Concilia comperimus. Testimonio sunt de universalibus Concilijs, imprimis Ariminense, Vniversale haud dubie, etc. Insuper Ephesinum secundum, & ipsum Vniversale, etc. Testimonio, inquam, haec sunt, errare posse etiam universalia Concilia, etiam legitimè congregata. We find that even general Councils, of holy Fathers, have erred in their decrees or determinations of matters of faith. Witness hereof concerning general Councils, is especially the Council of Arimine, a general Council without doubt, etc. And moreover, the second Ephesine Council, which was likewise a general Council, etc. These, I say be Witnesses, that even general Councils may err, though they be never so lawfully assembled. For, although most true it is, that the holy Ghost cannot possibly err, and that the same holy Ghost is promised and given to godly Councils, as likewise he is to every godly man & faithful member of Christ: yet it pleaseth the holy Ghost, not to extend and show forth his vigour, force, and power at all times, but sometimes to withhold it, and so to leave men to themselves: in which case it is then, a very easy matter, for Councils either General or Provincial, as also for any other godly man, or particular member of Christ, to err, sin, or go astray; neither is it God's Spirit which doth disagree from his Word. And consequently, whosoever teacheth any thing concerning Faith and Religion, not according to God's Word, but out of his own brain and fancy, must be supposed, to speak, not by God's spirit (whatsoever he pretendeth) but by his own, 
Chrysost de sancto & adorando Spiritu.  as S. Chrysostome also informeth us. Wherefore, in vain it is, for men, or, Councils, to say, they be undoubtedly guided by the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, unless they have the Word of truth, for their rule and direction, and can so prove the spirit, whereby they speak and decree, to be God's Spirit, and not their own. But again, ye know, that in Councils (aswell General as Provincial) things be carried and overruled by the most Voices: and where things be so carried and ruled by the greater number of voices, there it is experimentally found to be a thing very easily possible, for the most voices or greater number, sometimes to overrule the better part, being the lesser. and consequently, Councils, whether general or particular, because they may sometime possibly err, can not be held for any absolute and infallible judge, or, infallible rule of truth, in these controversies.  
Or, would any think the Bish. & Pope of Rome to be an infallible judge? Why in the gloss upon the Pope's own Law, that opinion also is rejected, saying thus: Quaero de qua Ecclesia, 
Caus 24. quest. 1. § à recta in gloss, ¶ Novitatibus.  intelligas, quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare? Si de ipso Papa, certum est quod Papa errare potest. Respondeo: Ipsa congregatio Fidelium, hic dicitur Ecclesia. I demand of what Church it is meant, when it is said, as here, That the Church cannot err? If of the Pope himself, it is certain he may err. I therefore answer, that the whole company of the Faithful is here meant by the Church. Where, beside that you see what Church it is that cannot err, you see it directly affirmed, that certum est quod Papa errare potest: 
Gers in tract. an liceat in causa fidei, a Pontifice appellare.  it is a thing certain, that the Pope may err. Gerson also, the Chancellor of Paris, telleth us, that, tam Papa quam Episcopus, deviabiles à fide, aswell the Pope as any other Bishop, may go out of the way of Faith. Alfonsus, that wrote so earnestly against Luther, yet touching this point, said thus: Non credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem Papae assentatorem, 
Alfons. advers. haeres lib. 1 c. 4. Sul. praelo Ascentiano, An. Dom. 1534.  ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare possit. I do not believe that any man is such an impudent flatterer of the Pope, as to attribute this unto him, that he cannot err. Which words were in his first edition, but are not now in the last: but yet even in his new copies, although he qualify his terms, he holdeth the same opinion, very directly, saying: Omnis homo errare potest in fide, 
Alfons lib. 1. cap. 4.  etiamsi Papa sit: Every man may err in faith, yea even the Pope himself. And again he saith: that, Papa in fide errare potest, ut melius sentientes tenent, 
Alfons. lib. 1. cap. 2.  etiam ex hijs qui Papatui plurimùm favent: inter quos est Innocentius ejus nominis quartus, in cap. 1. de Summa Trinitate: The Pope may err in matter of faith, as the better opinion is, even of them that favour the Papacy most of all: amongst whom is Pope Innocentíus the fourth of that name, writing upon the first chapter De Summa Trinitate. Well therefore doth Erasmus also, confute this new conceit & strange opinion. For, If it be true (saith he) which some say, 
Erasm. annot. in 1. Cor. ex cap. 7.  that the Bishop of Rome can never err, judicially: what need is there then of General Councils? Why are men skilful in the Laws, and learned in Divinity; sent for to Councils, if he, in his speakings, cannot err? To what purpose be so many Universities troubled with handling Questions of faith, when thc truth may be had from his mouth? Yea, how cometh it to pass, that the Decrees of one Pope be repugnant to the Decrees of another? What Wresters of Scripture then, do some Papists in these later times, here appear to be, that abuse it to give an infallibility of judgement, and an immunity or privilege from error, to the Pope of Rome? Arboreus, a Doctor of Paris, and one not of the meanest Sorbonists, confesseth likewise and teacheth this truth, saying: Papa in fide errare potest: 
Arboreus, in Theosoph. li. 4. cap. 32.  Et tota mihi aberrare via videtur qui aliter sentit. Assentantur sanè Romano Pontifici, qui faciunt eum immunem à lapsu haereseos & schismatis. The Pope may err in faith: And he seemeth to me to be in an extreme error that thinketh otherwise. Surely, they do but flatter the Bishop of Rome, that make him free from falling into heresy and schism. And how can it in reason be otherwise? For if Provincial Councils (wherein be many Bishops) may err in matter of Faith (which is a thing that the Popish Writers themselves do grant): yea, if General Councils may possibly err in matter of Faith (which is also a thing confessed by some of the Popish Divines, and cannot justly be denied by any) is there any likelihood that any one Bishop, singly considered by himself, should be so privileged, as that he could not possibly err? Yea, even a general Council, namely the Council of Basil, saith: Saepe experti sumus & legimus Papam errasse: We have often found it by experience, 
Concil. Basil. epist. Synodal. 3. de authorit. Consil. supra Papam.  and know it also by reading, that the Pope hath erred. And again they say: Cum certum sit Papam errare posse. Forasmuch as it is a thing certain, that the Pope may err. Whereupon it must be concluded, that therefore the Pope also cannot be held for an unerrable, or infallible judge.  
Shall then the ancient Fathers, be this judge? They are, I grant, in all respects, to have that due reverence that belongeth to them: but themselves will by no means assume that high honour to themselves, to be infallible judges, or such as cannot possibly err. Yea, they acknowledge that they may err, and therefore would have no man further to believe them, than there is warrant for what they write and speak, in the Canonical Scriptures. I cannot deny (saith S. Augustine) but that there be many things in my Works, 
Dist 9 negare. Aug ad Vinc. Vict.  as there be also in the Writings of my predecessors, which justly and without any rashness may be reproved. And when S. Cyprian was objected against him, he answered thus: I am not bound by his Authority: For I do not account Cyprians Writings as Canonical, 
Aug cont. Crescon. lib. 2. c 32.  but weigh them by the Canonical Scriptures: and that, in them, which agreeth with the Canonical Scriptures, I allow to his praise; but that which agreeth not, by his favour I refuse. Again he saith: 
Aug Epist. 112. ●d Paulin.  If any thing be proved by the manifest Authority of the divine Scriptures, which in the Church be called canonical, it must be believed without any doubting: but as for other testimonies, thou mayst believe them, or not believe them, according as thou shalt see cause to trust them. And therefore he giveth this prerogative to the sacred and canonical Scriptures, that, 
August. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 11. cap. 5.  amongst all the Writings in the world, they only cannot err; and that all other may err. For which cause he saith again thus: Solis eye Scripturarum libris, qui jam canonici appellantur, 
Aug Epist. 119.  didici hunc timorem, honoremque defer, ut nullum eorum Authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimè credam. I have learned to yield this reverence and honour to the canonical Scriptures Only, that I most firmly believe, no Author of them to have erred any thing in their Writing. Yea, the Writings of all others, he saith, are to be read, non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, 
August cont. Faust. li. 11. c. 5. Epist. 48. Depecca. merit & remiss li 1 ca 22. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31.  not with a necessity to believe them, but with a liberty to judge of them. For, The Authority of the sacred Scriptures cannot deceive. And by those Books (saith he) de caeteris literis fidelium, vel Infidelium liberè judicemus. We may freely judge of the Writings of all other men, whether they be Christians or Infidels. And this freedom or liberty S. Augustine again challengeth to himself, in quorumlibet hominum Scriptis, 
Aug. de nat. & gra. cont. Pelag. cap. 61.  in the Writings of all men whosoever, and addeth this reason once more, Quia solis canonicis debeo sine ulla recusatione consensum: because I owe my consent without any refusal (saith he) to the canonical Scriptures only. Yea, it is manifest, that not only singly or severally, 
Euseb lib. 7. cap. 5.  but jointly also with one consent, many ancient Fathers together, have erred. For example, with S. Cyprian, in his error of rebaptisation, many of the ancient Fathers then living, yea even great Councils also took part. Again, did not all these, justine, Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius, Severus, Apollinaris, and others, hold the Chiliastick error, otherwise called the Error of the Millenarians? In the Question also concerning Antichrist, although very many ancient Fathers, with one joint consent, held, he should come of the Tribe of Dan, yet doth Bellarmine himself, 
Bellarm. de Antichristo cap. 12.  for all that, hold this to be an opinion not certain, because it is not well and sufficiently proved by the Scriptures: for, the texts of Scripture which are wont to be alleged for maintenance of that opinion, himself answereth, and showeth that they prove no such matter. And therefore Turrecremata also saith thus: 
Turrcer. in C. Sanct Rom. d. 15. n 12.  The Writings of the Doctors are to be received with reverence; yet they bind us not to believe them in all their opinions, but we may lawfully contradict them, where by good reason it appeareth that they speak against the Scripture, or the truth. And thus also speaketh Marsilius: 
Marsil. Defence. p. 413.  that he will receive whatsoever they bring consonant to the Scripture; but what they bring dissonant from it, he will reject, with reverence, upon the Authority of Scripture, whereunto he will lean. Yea, whereas some suppose, that the ancient Fathers (because they lived much nearer to the times of the Apostles, than the late Writers) did therefore see more and further into truth then the late Writers: Andradius holdeth the contrary, saying; 
Andrad Defence. Trid. l. 2.  God hath revealed many things to us that they never saw. Agreeably whereunto, Dominicus Bannes, another learned Popish Writer, likewise saith thus: It is not necessary, that by how much the more the Church is remote from the Apostles times, 
Do●●. Ba●n. 22. pag 58. & 59  by so much there should be the less perfect knowledge of the mysteries of faith therein: because after the Apostles time, there were not the most learned men in the Church, which had dexterity in understanding and expounding the matters of faith. We are not therefore involved in the more darkness, by how much the more, in respect of time, we be distant from them: but rather the Doctors of these later times, being godly and insisting in the steps of the ancient Fathers, have attained more express understanding in some things than they had: for, these, be like children standing on the shoulders of Giants, who being lifted up by the tallness of the Giants, no marvel though they see further than they. Seeing then the ancient Fathers have erred, and may err, even in the opinion of Papists as well as of Protestants, it must be concluded, that therefore they also cannot be this infallible judge.  
What then? May-Traditions not written, or not specified in the sacred Scriptures, alleged to be Apostolical, be held to be any infallible judge, or any infallible rule of Faith? I answer, no. For, first, how can a man be assured that those Traditions be Apostolical, which be alleged and affirmed so to be, when he seeth no proof or evidence for them, in any of the Writings of the Apostles, or in any of the sacred and canonical Scriptures? If you say, that some of the ancient Fathers do testify them to be Apostolical: That is no sufficient proof, that therefore they came originally, and assuredly from the Apostles: because even those ancient Fathers themselves, taking them upon report of others, might possibly be deceived: And so precious is men's faith, and so dear unto them, is, and aught to be, the salvation of their souls, as that, in those regards, no Authority or testimony of men, without the Authority and testimony of God therewith concurring, can give them an undoubted or assured satisfaction. For our Faith is not to be builded upon the credit, Authority, or testimony of men, but upon the testimony and Authority of God himself. Irenaeus, in Eusebius, 
Euseb lib. 5. cap. 20.  declareth what manner of Traditions, those were which Polycarpus delivered, and said, he had heard and received, from the Apostles, and testifieth of them, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all consonant to the Scriptures. Traditions of this sort, namely which be consonant and agreeable to the holy Scriptures, we refuse not, but willingly embrace: but such Traditions as be dissonant and repugnant to those holy Scriptures, there is ever just reason to refuse: or, if they be not thereby warranted, none is necessarily tied or bound to believe them to be undoubtedly divine and Apostolical. It was not therefore without good cause, 
Coloss. 2.8. 2. Thess. 2.1, 2, 3.  that S. Paul himself gave caveats even touching Traditions, and matters delivered as coming originally from the Apostles: because sometimes some things were reported to come originally from them, which indeed did not so come. A clear example whereof, 
Euseb lib 3. cap. 19.33 39  Eusebius showeth in Papias, who was himself so deceived, under the name and supposition of Apostolical Traditions, and thereby also occasioned others to be deceived. This Papias was scholar to john the Apostle, & schoolfellow to Polycarpus before mentioned, and for the credit of his Traditions, said thus: I am not delighted with them that make mention of strange precepts and commandments, but in them that teach those things that be true, and bring such things as are delivered by the Lord to our fidelity, and came from the truth itself. So when any came that was a Disciple of the Elders, I enquired the words of the Elders; What, Andrew, What, Philip, What, Thomas, or any other of the Disciples of the Lord said: and he saith moreover, that he laid up all those things well in his remembrance. Howbeit (notwithstanding all this his care, diligence, and vigilancy about Apostolical Traditions) he brought in (as Eusebius saith) sundry paradoxes, and strange opinions, and such as were full of fables, amongst which was the Chiliastick opinion. Yea, this great liking and affection to unwritten Traditions, deceived not only Papias, but (as Eusebius witnesseth) it gave occasion of the Chiliastick error unto diverse Ecclesiastical persons also after him. And he addeth the reason: because, saith he, they pretended the antiquity of that man. Clemens Alexandrinus also was much addicted to unwritten Traditions, and therewith likewise much deceived: affirming and teaching, by reason thereof, very erroneous, strange, and untrue opinions: as namely, 
Clem. Strom. lib. 1. & 6.  that Philosophy did in times past, justify or save the greeks: that Christ preached only one year: 
Clem Strom. lib. 2.  that the Apostles after their death preached unto the dead, which with the Apostles descended into the water, and being made alive, 
Lib. 7.  ascended thence again: that Christians may not contendin judgement, neither before the Gentiles, nor yet before the Saints: and sundry other errors. Yea he there further mentioneth a certain kind of Gnostici, of whom he delivereth this description, 
Lib. 6.  saying: that the knowledge which maketh a true Gnostick, is that which cometh by succession unto few from the Apostles, and is delivered without writing etc. Where may appear, whence the heresy of the Gnostics (which was afterward condemned by the Church) did spring and had his original, namely out of unwritten Traditions supposed to be Apostolical. Yea, sundry other Heretics also, boasted of their doctrines and opinions, 
Clem. Strom. lib. 7.  as if they had received them by tradition from the Apostles. For Valentinus alleged himself to be scholar to Theodatus, who was familiarly acquainted with S. Paul: The Marcionites boasted, that they had the Disciples of Mathias, to their Master, 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 28.  and taught the doctrine by them delivered. Artemon likewise boasted of his doctrine, as if it had come unto him undoubtedly by tradition Apostolical: But Eusebius, for all that, sheweth that it was not so. Excellent therefore, and ever memorable, is that speech of Irenaeus touching this point, where he granteth, that The Apostles did, indeed, at the first, preach the Gospel, 
Iren. lib. 3. ca 1.  by word of mouth, but afterward (saith he) by the will of God, they delivered it in writing, that so being committed to writing, it might be for ever after that, the foundation and pillar of our faith. So that now, and ever since that time, 
Hieronym. in Matth. 23.  we must hold as S. Hierome also teacheth and holdeth, saying thus: That which hath no Authority of the holy Scriptures, is as easily contemned as allowed. And again he saith directly, that such things as men invent and devise of themselves, 
Hieronym. in Agg. cap. 1.  without the Authority and testimony of the Scriptures, as it were by Tradition Apostolical, the Sword of God striketh down. Yea some Traditions mentioned in ancient Fathers to be Apostolical, even the Papists themselves do not observe: as namely, 
Tertull. de c●rona Militis nu. 3.  the temper of Milk and Honey given to them that be newly baptised: abstaining from washing an whole week after: oblations for the Birthday, yearly: not to fast, nor kneel (in prayer, or worshipping of God) on the Lord's day, nor between Easter and Whitsuntide. All which be mentioned in Tertullian. S. Basil likewise mentioneth it, as an Apostolical tradition, for Christians, 
Basil. de Spiritu sancto. c. 29.  between Easter and Whitsuntide, to pray standing: S. Hierome also mentioneth it, as an Apostolical Tradition, 
Hieronym. in Dialog. cont. Lucif. c. 4.  the Temper of Milk and Honey, as also on the Lordsday, and throughout every Pentecost, neither to pray on the knees, nor to fast. If then some Traditions affirmed by ancient Fathers to be Apostolical, be nevertheless not observed in the Popish Church itself, which is a thing very manifest: why should any Traditions be urged or obtruded upon the Protestants, under the name of Apostolical, and by them necessarily to be held and believed, which be not found specified in the undoubted Word of God, the sacred and canonical Scriptures, but have only the Authority of some men, without the Authority of God's word to testify the same? Yea as touching all points necessary to salvation, the holy Scriptures themselves be abundantly sufficient: so that, for that purpose, there is no need of any unwritten Traditions, as even the ancient Fathers themselves do also testify. 
Athan. contra gentes. Chrysost. hom. 1. ad Tit. & oper. imperf. in Matt. hom. 41.  The holy Scriptures inspired from heaven (saith Athanasius) be sufficient for all instruction of truth. Whatsoever is requisite to salvation (saith Chrysostome) all that is fully laid down in the Scriptures. In the two Testaments (saith Cyril) every word (or thing) that pertaineth to God, 
Cyril. in Levit. lib. 5.  may be required and discussed. There were chosen to be written (saith Augustine) such things as were thought sufficient for the salvation of the faithful. 
Aug. in joh. tract. 44.  The Canon of the Scriptures (saith Vincentius Lirinensis) is sufficient, 
Vincent. adver. haeret.  and more than sufficient for all matters. What need then is there of any more speech in a matter so clear and evident? Concerning this point therefore, Inasmuch as it is very apparent, that some errors & heresies have arisen out of Traditions, said and supposed to be Apostolical, and that under that pretence and name, sundry men in ancient and former times have been deceived, and may now, much more, by that means, in these later times (so far remote from the times of the Apostles) possibly be deceived: it must be concluded, that Traditions Apostolical (as they be called) not warranted nor specified in the divine Scriptures, cannot be held for any infallible judge, or, infallible rule of truth, in this case.  
Seeing then, the Church, who is herself in question, may not be the judge, but must be judged of, and that by the Scriptures: for in such a case where the Church itself is in question, even by Bellarmine's own acknowledgement, 
Bellarm. de no●is Eccl. cap. 2.  the Scripture is better known then the Church, and therefore must be the judge of it: and seeing also, that, not Councils (whether General or Provincial) nor Popes of Rome, nor ancient Fathers, nor unwritten Traditions said to be Apostolical, can be this infallible judge; what remaineth, but that God himself, speaking unto us in his sacred and canonical Scriptures, is, and must be held to be the only infallible judge, in this case? Or (which cometh all to one effect) if we will have visible and mortal men to be the judges, The infallible Rule, whereby they are to judge, and to be directed, appeareth to be the very same sacred and canonical Scriptures, wherein God speaketh. And this also do the ancient Fathers themselves, yet further directly teach and affirm: For S. Augustine saith; The Scripture pitcheth down the Rule of our Faith. 
De Bono Viduit. c. 1. tom. 4. Tertull. cont. Hermog. Chrysost hom. 13. in 2. cor. Gre●. Nyss. Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hieros.  Tertullian likewise calleth the Scriptures, the Rule of faith. S. Chrysostome calleth them, a most exquisite Rule, and exact Square and Balance to try all things by. And Gregory Nyssen also, calleth them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a strait and inflexible Rule. By this Rule of the Scripture than it is, that not only Bishops, Pastors, and Clergymen, but even every man else that is able to make search and trial, is to try and examine these differing and contradictory doctrines and positions, between the Protestants and the Papists. For how otherwise shall we certainly know, what is right, & what is wrong in them? or how otherwise shall we be able to discern the true Teachers (which we are to reverence, honour, and embrace) from the false Teachers, (which we are to renounce and detest)? Neither is this any disorderly, immodest, or unseemly course (whatsoever Rhemists or other Papists say to the contrary) but very requisite and necessary, as you see, in this case especially, where the learned professed Divines themselves be at such variance: Yea, it is a thing not only permitted and allowed, but commended and commanded also in Gods own Book. For, when Christ jesus biddeth aswell lay persons, as others, for trial and finding out the truth, in a doubtful matter, to Search the Scriptures, is not that a sufficient commandment? 
joh. 5.39.  And when those noble-Christians at Berea, 
Act. 17.11.  did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, search the Scriptures, (and that daily) thereby to try and judge, whether those things were so or no, which their Preachers & Teachers had taught & delivered unto them, & be, for the same, so highly commended by the holy Ghost; Shall any be so unadvised, rash, or presumptuous, as to say or think it to be, either unlawful or unlaudable for them that be learners and hearers, so to do? Is not all the immodesty, pride, & arrogancy in them rather, which will not suffer or allow their Doctrines to be thus tried and examined by the Scriptures, but (as if they were Lords over men's faith) will have men to believe them, 
2. Cor. 1.24. & 4.5.  whatsoever they teach (be it right or wrong) without any further search, enquiry, or examination? May not men most easily be thus deluded & deceived? Against which, 
Matth. 24.4.  doth not Christ himself say? Take heed that no man deceive you. Again doth he not say? Take heed and beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, 
Mat. 16.6.12.  that is, of their Doctrine, as it is expounded in the same chapter. And doth not S. Paul likewise bid the people, to Try or examine all things, 
1. Thess. 5.21.  touching men's doctrines, and to hold fast that which is good? Doth not S. john again say thus unto them in plain terms? 
1. joh. 4.1.  Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no: for many false Prophets be gone out into this world▪ Chrysostome in his days, answering the objection of such as said, they could not tell what religion to be of, because there were so many differing opinions of it, saith: that seeing they have the Scriptures which be so true and plain, 
Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 33.  it will be an easy matter, thereby for them to judge: for, tell me (saith he) hast thou any understanding or judgement? for it is not a man's part barely to receive whatsoever he heareth. Say not then, I am a learner, and may be no judge: for that is but a shift. And this also S. Basil teacheth. 
Basil. Ethic. de sin 72 pag. 432. Orig. in jesus Nave, Hom 21.  Origen likewise teacheth the same, saying: Me dicente quod sentio, Vos discernite & examinate si quid rectum est, aut minus rectum. Whilst I speak what I think, Do you judge and examine, what is right, and what is not right in it. 
Ambr. de Virgin. lib. 3 cap. 1.  S. Ambrose likewise saith thus: We justly condemn all new things which Christ hath not taught: for, Christ is the Way to the faithful: If therefore we ourselves preach any thing which Christ hath not taught, Do you (saith he) judge that abominable. In like sort speaketh S. Cyril, saying: Concerning the holy and heavenly mysteries of faith, 
Cy●●l. catech. 4.  we must not deliver any thing, though never so small, without the holy Scriptures: neither may we be led away with probabilities, and show of words: nor yet believe me (saith he) barely saying these things unto you, unless you also receive the demonstration thereof from the Scripture. For, the security of our faith ariseth from the demonstration of the holy Scripture. Here than you plentifully perceive, that even lay persons are to judge and discern of the Doctrines of men, although not by any private spirit of their own, yet by that divine Spirit that speaketh in the holy Scriptures, the only infallible rule of true Religion: the voice and judgement of which divine Spirit there speaking, we ought to obey and yield unto. Let not therefore any reason drawn from possibility of errors or heresies, which men may fall into, by misunderstanding of the Scriptures, & taking them in a wrong sense, alienate you from reading of them: for if this should pass currant, and be held for a good and sufficient reason, than neither should Clergymen, or, Ecclesiastical Ministers be permitted to read the Scriptures, because there is a possibility for them also, in the reading of them, to misunderstand them, and to take them in a wrong sense, and so to fall into errors or heresies, as we see indeed, that some of them heretofore have done, and still do. And as for the objection of difficulty or obscurity in the Scriptures, 
Chrysost Hom. 3. in Laz.  S. Chrysostome hath answered it long agone, saying: that therefore God penned the Scriptures, by the hands of Publicans, Fishermen, Tentmakers, Shepherds, Neatheards, and unlearned men, that none of the simple people might have any excuse to keep them from reading them: and that so they might be easy to be understood of all men; the Artificer, the householder, the widdow-woman, and him that is most unlearned. And further he saith: that, the Scripture when it speaketh any thing obscurely, 
Chrysost Hom. 9 in 2. cor.  expoundeth itself in another place. And so also saith S. Augustine: that▪ there is almost nothing in these Obscurities, 
Aug de doct. christ. lib. 2. cap. 6.  but in other places a man may find it plainly delivered. In like sort speaketh S. Hierome, 
Hieronym. come in Esai· c. 19  saying: It is the manner of the Scripture, after things obscure, to set down things manifest, and that which they have first spoken in parables, to deliver afterward in plainer terms. And so testifieth S. Basil also: 
Basil. Regul. contract. qu. 167.  that, the things that be doubtful, and in some places of Scripture seem to be spoken obscurely, be made plain by those things which be evident in other places. And therefore none of us that be lay-men, upon any pretences of difficulty or obscurity whatsoever, must be deterred or discouraged from the diligent reading and searching of these sacred, divine & canonical scriptures, that so we may at last, thereby find out the certain and undoubted truth in these Controversies that so deeply concern us, and be of so great and high importance. But these things be more fully handled afterward, and therefore I here forbear to speak any further of them. In the mean time, you see that which I cannot conceal or deny, namely, that in these Controversies I hold with the Protestants against the Papists▪ which nevertheless I hope ye will conceive that I do, not in any partial, worldly, or sinister regards, but for that upon trial and examination of these matters by the rule of the divine and canonical Scriptures, I find the truth to be on their side: and so I rest assured, that even yourselves also will find it, if all partiality and prejudicate conceits being laid aside, ye will be pleased to ●udge of them (as of right ye ought, and in reason I hope ye will be moved to do) by that only infallible rule I grant, 
Sl●id commentat.  that the name of Protestants is not very ancient, as being given of later times to those Christians that have protested against the errors & abuses in Popery: yet that hindereth not, but that the Faith & Religion by them professed, may be nevertheless (as it is) the most ancient, Apostolic, Catholic, Christian, & Divine. As likewise the name of Papists is not very ancient, as being also of later times given by their adversaries unto them (for that they depend so much upon the Pope▪ & his doctrine, decrees, & designs): yet do the Papists nevertheless hold, the faith and religion which they profess to be very ancient, yea the most ancient, and the Apostolic, Catholic, and Christian. Howbeit, both these Religions (they being so repugnant & contradictory one to the other) cannot be right, but one of them must needs be wrong, and that is Popery, as this Book declareth: That which we mean and comprehend under the name of Popery, being nothing else but the errors, heresies, and corruptions which the Church of Rome holdeth, and be accrued and grown unto it, since the first institution and planting of it by the Apostles. For what the Church of Rome rightly holdeth or believeth, the Protestants impugn not, nor have cause to impugn, but they only impugn her errors, heresies, and corruptions. As for the term of Catholics, which Papists have put upon themselves, their calling themselves so, doth not therefore prove them to be so: for the Arrians in times past, likewise called themselves Catholics, who were nevertheless not so, but Heretics in very deed. But as we dislike not, but well approve of that name of Catholics, when it is rightly used and applied, and given to those to whom it properly belongeth: so do we prefer the name of Christians, 
Act. 11.26.  before it, as being indeed the more ancient, and the more honourable name, it being derived from Christ himself, the Head of his Church, and the Author of the Christian religion. Who be the right Catholics, and the true-Christians, & who not, yea, which be the Christian, and which be the un-Christian, and which be the Antichristian people, doth afterward appear, that so every man may know, what name doth rightly & properly belong unto him, and may rank himself in his due place. For whosoever knoweth Antichrist well, will abhor & detest him, and will love, honour, and adhere unto Christ & the purity of his religion, so much the more. If then the Pope of Rome shall here appear unto you to be (as he is) the grand Antichrist foretold in the Scriptures, I doubt not but you will speedily renounce him, & his Antichristian Supremacy, & his Antichristian Religion, together with all his seducing and Antichristian Teachers, and wicked and Antichristian courses against the Church of God. For no true-Christians aught, nor will, give any better respect to Antichrist, especially after that they once know him & have him discovered & manifested unto them. God therefore open & reveal his truth, more & more unto us all, and incline all our hearts and affections to embrace it, & evermore to walk in the ways of it. AMEN.   

An Alphabetical Table of the principal matters handled in this Work, following.  

A  
ANtichristianisme, a mystery of iniquity, and not any open hostility, or professed enmity against Christ and Christianity, pag. 208. pag. 39 & p. 61.62. pa. 285.286. pag. 394 395. etc.  
Antichristianisme, began in the Apostles days▪ pag. 280.321.  
What manner of adversary, the special and grand Antichrist is, pag. 285.286. and pag. 394, 395.396. pag. 334.335  
Antichrist is the false●Prophet amongst Christians, and not amongst the Turks, and other Infidels of the world. pag. 341. &c  
Miracles, signs and wonders, done in the Antichristian Church, to seduce and deceive people with all. pag. 280.281  
What manner of miracles or wonders they be, that be done in the Antichristian Church. pag. 280.281.282. pag. 306.307. pag. 341. pag. 98.99  
A difference between Christian, un-Christian, and Antichristian people. pag. 286  
Antichrist is not one singular or particular man, that shall continue just three years and an half: but is a State or succession of men, that is to have continuance for many hundreth years in the world pag. 312.313.314▪ 315.316.317.318.319.320.321. etc.  
Antichrist is to sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Church, and amongst those that profess Christ and Christianity▪ p. 283.284  
The special and particular place where the grand Antichrist is to sit, is not Constantinople, nor Jerusalem, nor any other City, but Rome. pag. 283.284.285. pag. 246.247.248. p. 377. &c  
That the Pope of Rome is the grand Antichrist, showed out of 2. Thes. 2. pag. 279.280.281. &c  
The Pope of Rome further showed to be Antichrist, out of Rev. 13. pag. 325.326.327.328.329.330.331.332 &c  
Again, the Pope showed to be Antichrist, and the Popish Church to be the Antichristian, out of 1. Tim. 4. verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. pa. 353 354.355. &c  
Sundry objections of the Papists, concerning Antichrist, answered. pag. 377.378.379▪ 380, 381.382, etc.  
That Papal or Popish Rome is the whore of Babylon, showed out of Revel. 17, pag. 244.245.246. &c  
The Roman Empire, standing in the height and glory, was the let or impediment, that Antichrist could not show himself in his height until that impediment was removed, pag. 304.305. pag. 391.392 393  
That Antichrist is come long sithence, pag. 391.392.393, 394. pag. 43.44 etc. pag. 61.62  
Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, pag. 396.397.398▪ 399.400 etc.  
The reason why men are so seduced and misled by Antichrist. pag. 307.308  
The most fearful and woeful estate of those who receiving many admonitions to the contrary, will nevertheless live and dye in obedience to Antichrist, and his religion, pag. 309▪ and p. 397, etc.  
Assurance of salvation in this life, and how it is 〈…〉, and m●y be obtained. pag. 158.159▪ 160.161. &c   

B  
IN what sense some ancient Fathers call Peter Bishop of Rome, and whether he were properly so to be called. pag. 90, 91, 92  
How unlike the Bishop of Rome is to S. Peter. pag 92 93, 94▪ &c  
Who that Beast is, that is mentioned in Rev. 13▪ and in divers other places of the Revelation. pag 308.309. pag 325, 326, 327 328, etc. and pag. 249.250.251.252.253   

C  
WHere our Church was during the reign of Popery, pag. 36.37, 38  
Counsels, aswell general, as Provincial, may err in matter of Faith, as well as in matter of fact. pag. 50, 51, 52, 54 etc. See also the Preface.  
What Church that is whereof it is said, that it cannot err: and when, and how far it may err, and how far not. pag. 81 82. See also the Preface.  
Concerning universality, antiquity, perpetuity, visibility unity, succession of Bishops, and doing of miracles: whether all these be in the Popish Church, and whether they be inseparable marks of the true Church. pag. 83.84 85. etc. to the end of that chapter.  
Chastisements and afflictions in this life, be sent of God upon his children, out of his love toward them, for other good ends and purposes, and not to satisfy the severity of his justice by that means, for their sins and the punishment thereto belonging. p. 125. &c  
There is no just cause to be showed, why the pretended Catholics should refuse to take the oath of Supremacy, or refuse to come to our Churches. Their objections and reasons answered, p. 1, 2, &c p. 407, etc. See also throughout the whole book for this purpose.  
Concerning auricular Confession, and to whom confession of sins is to be made, and that it ought to be free and voluntary, and not forced or compelled. pag. 302, 303, etc. pag. 253, 254   

D  
FOr whom Christ Died, and to whom he is a Redeemer. pag. 187, 188, 189, &c  
Every sin Deadly in his own nature, although all sins be also venial and remissible in respect of God's mercy, grace, and bounty, except the sin against the holy Ghost. pag. 114, 115   

E  
THe Emperor in ancient time, had the Supremacy, and not the Pope. pag. 30  
The Emperor in times past, had power to place and displace Popes. pag. 27  
The Emperor in ancient time, banished, imprisoned, and otherwise punished, aswell Bishops of Rome, as other Bishops. pag. 22  
He did make Laws concerning Ecclesiastical causes, and religion. pag. 24 As also Commissioners in an Ecclesiastical cause, and the B. of Rome himself was one of those Commissioners. pag. ibid.  
An appeal to the Emperor in an Ecclesiastical cause, pag 24  
General Councils in ancient times, called by the Emperor and his Authority. pag. 24  
The Christian Emperor did, and was to meddle in matters of the Church, and concerning Religion, pag. 25  
The Christian Emperor in ancient time, did nominate and appoint Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces, and even the Bishop of Rome himself. pag. 25  
Emperors in ancient time, did ratify the decrees of Councils, before they were put in execution. pag 28  
Miltiades, Leo, and Gregory, all Bishops of Rome, in their several times, subject to the Emperor, and at his command. pag 24.26  
Ancient Fathers, Popes of Rome, and Councils (aswell general as provincial) may err, even in matter of faith, aswell as in matter of fact. pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. &c See also the Preface for this point.  
The Roman Empire, dissolved, ever since the Emperors have ceased to have the sovereign command and rule of Rome, and that the Popes have gotten to be the heads and supreme Rulers of that City, and to be above the Emperors. pa. 331.332, and pag. 391.392.393  
The Pope of Rome hath no power or authority from Christ, to Excommunicate any. pag. 299 &c  
Excommunications (be they never so just and lawful) be, by God's law and appointment, of no force to depose from Earthly kingdoms, or to dissolve the duty and allegiance of subjects. pag. 299, 300, 301, &c   

F  
Our Forefathers and ancestors, not to be followed in any vices or errors they held. pag 34 35  
Foretold, in the Book of God, that an apostasy from the right faith, and a mystery of iniquity (otherwise called an Antichristianisme) should come upon the Church: and that so the Church by degrees, should grow corrupted and deformed. pag. 35, 36▪ 280  
Foretold also how long the Church should lie in those her corruptions and errors, and when she should begin to be cleansed and reform. pag. 35, 36  
What is to be thought of our Forefathers that lived and died in the time of Popery. pag 39.40 41, 42  
Foretold that a strong delusion to believe lies should possess them of the Antichristian Church, because they received not the love of the truth, extant in the divine Scriptures. pag. 307, 308  
Men are justified in God's sight and before his tribunal, by Faith only; and good works be the fruits and declarations of that faith pag. 99, 100, 101, etc. to the end of that chapter, and pag. 116, 117, 118, etc. to the end also of that chapter.   

G  
God is not the author of sin, pag. 168, 169, etc.   

H  
NOt Protestants, but Papists, be the Heretics, pag. 72. and Schismatics. pag. 37, 38. pag. 413.414, &c  
Not the Pope, but Christ only, is the Head of the universal militant Church, as well as of the triumphant. pag 94 95, 96, 97, 98   

I  
WHo is to be the infallible judge of controversies in religion: or (which cometh all to one effect in the conclusion) what is the infallible Rule, whereby men must judge, and be directed for the finding out of truth in those controversies. pag. 49, 50, 51, etc. See also the Preface for this matter.  
The Implicita fides of Papists reproved. pag 78 79, 80   

K  
KIngs have the Supremacy over all manner of persons, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil, within their own Dominions. pa. 1. to p. 5  
Their Supremacy in all kind of causes, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil. pag. 5, &c  
Kings and Princes, although they have the Supremacy, yet thereby claim not, nor can claim, to preach, to minister the Sacraments, to excommunicate, absolve, or to consecrate Bishops, or to do any other act proper to the function of the Ecclesiastical ministers, pag. 32 &c  
Kings and Princes be, notwithstanding their Supremacies, under God, and subject to him and his word. pag. 33  
Even heathen Kings may command and make Edicts and Proclamations, for God and his service. pag. 7. &c  
Christian Kings and Queens are by God's appointment to be nursing fathers, and nursing mothers to his Church and Religion. p. 7.  
The authority of a Christian King in respect of contemptuous, disorderly, and unruly persons, requisite and necessary in the Church as well as in the Commonweal. pag. 6, &c  
Kings and Princes may command and compel their subjects to external obedience, for God. pag. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  
Christian Kings may make laws about matters Ecclesiast. p. 7, 8.24  
He may make Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes. pag. 24  
He may have Appeals made unto him in a cause Ecclesiastical ib.  
He may nominate and appoint Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces, pag. 27. Counsels and Convocations to be assembled by his authority, and the decrees thereof, by him to be ratified and confirmed, before they be put in execution. pag. 26, 27, 28  
Christian Kings do punish offenders in Ecclesiastical causes, not Ecclesiastically, but Civilly. pag. 6 7.32  
Subjects ought not to rebel against their Kings and Princes, though they be adversaries to the Christian Religion, and though subjects have power & force enough to do it. pa. 20, 21, 22.299, 300  
Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome, as their Ambassadors. pag. 22  
How thankful subjects ought to be unto God, for Christian Kings and Princes. pag. 33  
The power of the Keys most grossly abused by the B of Rome, to work his own exaltation above Kings and Prince's pag 299, 300, 301, &c  
The Keys of the kingdom of heaven no more given to S. Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles. pag. 292, 293, 294, 295   

L  
NO Licentiousness or impiety in the doctrine of justification by faith, or in the doctrine of predestination, or assurance of salvation, or in the doctrine of redemption, or in any point of the religion of the Protestants, but the clean contrary, pag. 99, 100, &c pag. 153, 154. etc. pag. 125, &c pag. 404, &c  
Lay persons may and aught to read the Scriptures, and thereby to examine and try the doctrines of men, whether they be right or no pag. 73, 74, 75, 76. etc. See also the Preface.  
It is impossible for mere men, by and in their own persons, perfectly to fulfil the Law of the ten Commandments, and so to be justified: yea, the Law was given to other uses and ends. pag. 108, &c  
No such place as Limbus Patrum. pag. 130, 131, 132   

M  
MIracles, signs, or wonders done in the antichristian Church pag. 98, 99 pag 306, 307, pag 280, 281  
men's Merits deserve not salvation, but damnation, p. 110, 111, 112 113, etc. pag 366, 367   

N  
THe Name of Christians, the most ancient and the most honourable. See the Preface, toward the end.  
The Name of Catholics, to whom it rightly and properly belongeth. pag. 63, 64   

O  
THe Oath of Supremacy to the King, explained and declared to be just and lawful. pag 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. to the end of that chapter.   

P  
THe Pope got his supremacy over Emperors and Kings, partly by fraud, and partly by force. pag. 27, 28  
The Ecclesiastical supremacy, when it was first affected by a Bishop, was oppugned even by some of the B. of Rome themselves, p. 13, 14, 15. Divers general Councils also against it. p 16, 17  
The Pope's Supremacy, what a wicked founder it had, and how wickedly it is still maintained and upheld. pag. 12  
Three Texts of Scripture usually alleged, for maintenance of the Pope's supremacy, abused, & answered. p. 11, 12, p. 291, 292, &c  
Excommunication, and the power of the K●yes, abused by the Pope, for establishing & maintenance of his supremacy. p. 299, 300, 301  
Divers writings forged under the names of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, and other ancients, for the upholding of the Pope's new Supremacy. pag. 12  
The Donation of Constantine also forged for that purpose. ibid.  
Miracles, signs, or wonders also done for that end. p. 341, 342, &c  
Popery is a corruption of the most ancient and Christian Religion, and is to the Church, as an infection or disease is to the body of a man, or as a plague or pestilence is to a City. pag. 38  
Pope and Popery exclaimed against long before Luther or Calvin were borne. pag. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, &c  
The Pope's excommunications and curses to be contemned. pag. 44, 45 299  
Popes of Rome have erred and may err, even in matter of faith and judicially. pag 51, 52, 53, 54. See the Preface also.  
No such place as Popish Purgatory. pag. 125, 126, etc. to the end of that chapter.  
That there is a Predestination is confessed both by Protestants and Papists: the doctrine whereof being rightly understood, is very sweet and comfortable, and is so far from introducing any inconvenience, licentiousness, or impiety, as that it inferreth the clean contrary. pag. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158  
Predestination dependeth not upon the will of men, but upon the will of God. pag. 178.179, 180, &c  
Vocation, justification, sanctification, and all saving graces, be consequents and effects of Election or Predestination to life everlasting. pag. 154, &c pag. 198, &c  
Predestination dependeth upon God's foreknowledge: and what that foreknowledge is. pag. 194, 195, 196, &c  
Faith foreseen, and good works foreseen, be not the cause of Predestination, but the effect and a consequent thereunto. ibid.  
The doctrine of Predestination teacheth no dissoluteness or carelessness, but the clean contrary. pag 154, 155, etc. p. 199, 200, &c  
Predestination teacheth no man utterly to despair, though he be exceedingly wicked and impious for the present (inasmuch as there is a possibility to be converted, so long as life lasteth) as likewise it teacheth no man rashly or unadvisedly to presume. p. 157, 158, 198, 200, &c  
The Popish Mass, and Popish Priesthood thereto belonging, both abominable. pag. 217, 218, 219, &c  
What manner of Primacy it was, that Peter had amongst the Apostles. pag. 295, 296, &c  
Popish Priests be not the Ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist, and therefore to resort to them, as if they had commission or authority from Christ to give absolution or forgiveness of sins, is wicked and in vain. pag. 302. etc.   

Q  
ALl Questions and controversies concerning faith and religion, to be decided and determined by the sacred and canonical Scriptures, pag. 49, 50, etc. See also the Preface, throughout.   

R  
THat there is a Reprobation, aswell as an Election, and what it is. pag. 165, &c  
Reprobation and Election, both at one time: and the cause why this man in particular wus chosen, and that man refused, is Gods own mere will and pleasure. pag. 196, 197, 198  
None can certainly determine of himself beforehand, that he is a reprobate, though he be for the present exceedingly wicked and ungodly, because God may possibly call and convert him, before he die. p. 157.158. p 199, 200  
Rome apparently proved to be the whore of Babylon. p. 246, & o.  
Bellarmine himself & other Papists, confess Rome to be the whore of Babylon. pag. 247  
The evasion they make, that only heathen Rome is there intended, is showed to be very vain and false. pag. 247, 248, 249, &c  
Some special spiritual whoredoms, that is, Idolatries of the Romish Church. p●g. 258, 259, 260, &c  
Who is the Rock and foundation, whereupon the Church is builded pag. 292, 293. etc.   

S  
THe Spirit that speaketh in the sacred Scriptures, is not a private or humane spirit, but a divine spirit, even the Spirit of God. And by this Spirit speaking in those Scriptures, is every spiri● speaking in men, to be tried. pag. 53, 54  
Exposition of one place of Scripture, must be such as agreeth with the rest of the Scriptures. pag. 58 59  
A rule to know, when a man speaketh by a private Spirit of his own, and when not. pag. 53.54  
The true Church to be tried and known by the sacred and canonical Scriptures. pag. 59, 60, 61, 62  
Some books held by the Papists to be canonical Scriptures which the ancient Church held not to be so. pag. 65 66  
The public prayers and Service in the Church, should be in such a tongue as the people might understand. pag 67  
The originals of the Scripture incorrupt, and to be preferred before that which is called S Hieromes Translation, and all other Translations whatsoever. pag. 67 68 69.70  
The English Translation of the Scripture is rightly justified, against the unjust exceptions of Papists. pag. 71  
Not any humane learning, or private spirit of any man, but God only and his Spirit, is the opener and unfolder of the true sense of the divine Scriptures. pag. 73, 74  
Lay people may and aught to read the Scriptures. pag. 73, 74, 75 76, 77. See also the Preface.  
That there be but two Sacraments of the new Testament properly so called: and that Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Orders, and Extreme unction▪ be not Sacraments, properly. pag. 204, 205, 206, 207 208, 209, 210, &c  
That the Sacraments do not give grace ex opere operato, by the very work or action done by the Minister, but grace cometh and is given another way. pag. 215, 216   

T  
TRaditions not specified in the Scriptures, affirmed to be Apostolical, there being no assured proof that they came undoubtedly and originally from the Apostles, be not to be urged or imposed upon the faith of men. pag. 57, 58, &c  
How men in ancient time were deceived by Traditions, said and supposed to be Apostolical. See the Preface.  
That these Traditions be needless, because the sacred and canonical Scriptures, without them, be perfectly and completely sufficient for all instruction of truth, concerning divine and heavenly matters. pa. 57, 58.64, etc. See also the Preface.   

V  
THat the Bishop of Rome, if he were a good and orthodox Bishop, is no more the Vicar of Christ then other Bishops are. pag. 97  
To what Use and end God gave his Law of the Ten Commandments, pag. 151.152. it being impossible to be exactly and perfectly fulfilled by men, by reason of the weakness that is in all flesh: and ●hat God therein is neither cruel, tyrannical, or unjust. p. 151, 152. and pag. 108, 109, &c   

W  
GOod Works, be the effect and fruit of a justifying faith, and do not justify in God's sight. pag. 101, etc. p 112 &c  
There is a reward belonging to good Works, but it is a reward of bounty and grace, and not of merit or due desert by men, pag. 113, 114, etc.  
Good Works be the way that men must walk in, towards the kingdom of God, but they be not the cause of their coming thither. pag. 105, etc.  
Good Works, and a good life, and godly conversation must be observed, but not to purchase or merit heaven thereby (for it cost a greater price) but for other godly uses and ends. pag. 110.111. 112, etc. pag. 121.122.123, 124▪ pag. 151.152  
●o good Works in God's sight and censure before faith received. pag, 147  
●●od Works done after faith received, do not merit at God's hands, ●or justify in his sight. pag. 148.149.150  
corks of supererogation most abominable. pag. 151.152  
corks of men's own invention and devising done for and in the ●way of God's service and religion, not commanded by him, nor warranted by his Word, whatsoever good intention is pretended, ●e nevertheless not good nor approved in his sight and censure. pa. 145.146   
FINIS TABULAE.   

ERRATA.  
Page 1 in marg. 1. Pet. 5.12. for 1. Pet. 5.1, 2. pag. 3. l. 1. audience, for erudiens. p. 10. l. 6. kno● for knew. p. 11. l. 17. otger for other, p. 27. l. 25. Grantzius, for Crantzius. p. 74. l. 10. hirdly for thirdly. p. 96. l. 19 (always) to be blotted out. p. 109 l. 22. Clesiphontem, for Ctesipho●●●● p. 111. l. 29 manifested, for magnified p. 116. l 18. read, in this sense p. 128. l. 28. able to dye, 〈◊〉 able to do it p. 130. l. 31. highest, for highest. p. 139. l. 37. (himself) to be blotted out. p. 148. ● marg. Psal 3.12 for Phil 3.12. & ib. Gal. 5. 1●. for Gal. 5.17. p. 159 l 4. sim, for sum. p. 177. l ● h●●gh, for though p. 190. l. 28. blood, for beloved p. 193 l. 1. sins, for sin. p. 200. l. 14 (of) to 〈◊〉 blotted. p. 207. l. 13. outward, for inward. p. 211. l 31. end, for and p. 212. l. 25 popist, for ●●●pish. p. 216. l. 1. in marg. Graces, for Grace. p 222. l. 7 member, for members. p. 231. l. 25. Tra●●substation, for Transubstantiation. p. 232. l. 6. aswell sense, for aswell as sense. & l. 7. Transubsta●●tiation, for Transubstantiation. p 239. l. 30. manet, for manent. p 43. l 13. of, for of. p. 184. ● marg▪ Io●. 4.10. for 1. joh. 4.10. & joh. 4.19. for 1. joh. 4.19. p. 253. l. 8. it, for is and l. 26. & ● (in good measure) to be blotted p 254. l. 26. Espencaelus, for Espencaeus. p. 256 l. 6. continua●●● for countenance. p 263. in marg. Exod. 23.8. for Exod 32.8 p. 271 l. 28 due, for done. p. 283. l. ● read, Titus Vespasian and the rest, &c p. 296. l. 1▪ althought, for although & l. 25. Legal, 〈◊〉 Regal. p. 318. l. 3. fable, for fables. p. 331. l. 31. Imperio, for l. 'imperio. & l 37. had led, for han●● p. 332 l 1. for, for so p. 341. l. 6 no, for not. p. 343 l. 11. redigerint, for redegerint. and l. 9, & ● qurdringentoes, for quadringentos, & l. 23 Empires, for Empire. p. 361 l 9 Doranus, for Dor●●nus p. 380. l. 15 & 21. et, for est p 387. l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39●. l 5. Apostles, for Apostle. p. 393 l. 26. or three) to be blotted p. 395. l. 1, 2. (in the Church, relation to Antichrist, 〈◊〉 whose spirit they speak, as S. john affirmeth) to be blotted. p. 400. l. 20. true-Christians, 〈◊〉 true-Christian. p. 410. l 22. bni▪ for been. p. 243. l 4. here, for here p. 296 in marg l 6. petrus ●●●spondet, for unus respondit. p. 380. l. 20. Theodorum. for medorum. p 48 Finis libri primi▪ 〈◊〉 Finis primae partis hujus libri p. 63 l 26. that, for the. & l. 5. uphold, for hold. p. 64. l. 37. pr●●structae, for praestructa p. 27. l. 21. Minister, for Ministers. p. 69. l. 1. perish, for pass. p. 119. l ● for not p 16 l. 15. by them, for to them. p. 88 l. 4. strange, for strange p. 100 l. 5 truth, for trut●● p. 113. l. 26. (to) superfluous. p. 38●. l. 34. odoravit, for adoravit. p 345. l 19 velunt, for velut 〈◊〉 358. l 24. Apostolici, for Apostoli. p. 365. l. 3. after peace, add, and joy. p 375. l. 32. of prohibi●●●on, for of a prohibition p. 40. in marg. for, Cyprian in psalmo, ad quid justificationes meas 〈◊〉 assumis Testamentum meum per os tuum. read, Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium. p. 3●● l. 1. (hours) to be blotted. p. 401. l 26. licentiousness, for, covetousness.  
Other faults may also escape in the printing, which I desire the Reader to correct wit● his pen.   

THE FIRST PART of the BOOK.  

CAP. I.  
Concerning the King's Supremacy, and the Oath in that behalf to be taken.  
HIS MAJESTY'S Supremacy is chiefly considerable in two respects: namely, in respect of Persons, and in respect of Things or Causes. First then concerning his Supremacy in respect of Persons (Ecclesiastical as well as Civil) within his own Dominions, who can justly deny it him? Doth not S. Peter expressly require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King, 
1. Pet. 2.13.  that they should submit themselves unto him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
The King's Supremacy over persons Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil, declared.  as unto the chief, or supreme person, over them? It is evident, that he calleth the King chief or supreme, not only in respect of Dukes, Earls, or other temporal Governors (as the Rhemists would have it) but in respect of all the rest likewise, were they Bishops, Pastors, Clergy men, or whosoever: for, he writeth that his Epistle, not to Heathens, but to Christians; 
1. Pet. 1, 2.3. etc.  and amongst them, not to the Lay people only, but to such also as were Presbyters▪ and did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Pet. 5.12. etc.  Do the office of Bishops amongst them; requiring even them, as well as the rest, to yield their subjection and submission unto him. And doth not S. Paul also require the same subjection and obedience to be performed, by all manner of persons, to their King▪ and Princes? For thus he saith: Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers; for there is no power but of God: and, the powers that be, 
Rome 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  be ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves judgement, or, Condemnation. And again he saith: Wherhfore ye must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for Conscience sake. Now then, if every one must be subject to Kings, Princes, and these higher Powers, which thus bear the civil sword (as both these Apostles of Christ do here clearly testify) it is apparent, that Kings and Princes, and these higher powers, be, and must needs be granted to be supreme, to whom all the rest, within their Dominions, be thus required to be subject. Yea, S. Paul writing that his Epistle to the Church of Rome, and requiring every Soul therein, to be subject to these higher Powers, 
Rom. 1 7.  sheweth, that not only Lay people, but all within the Ecclesiastical order also, even as many as have souls, 
Rom. 13.1.  should be subject to these higher powers. And therefore S. Chrysostome, upon this place, saith directly: Sive Apostolus, 
Chrysost. in Rom. 13. Hom. 23.  sive Evangelista, sive Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris, etc. Every soul must be subject to the higher powers, yea, though you be an Apostle, or an Evangelist, or a Prophet, or whosoever you be. And he further addeth, saying; Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subiectio: For neither doth this subjection overthrow piety or godliness. And so saith Theodoret likewise upon this Text: 
Theodor. in Rom. 13.  Sive est Sacerdo● aliquis, sive Antistes, sive Monasticam vitam professus, us cedat quibus sunt mandati Magistratus; whether he be a Priest or a Prelate, or profess a Monastical life, he must submit himself to those, to whom Magistracy is committed. Theophilact upon the same Text, 
Theoph in Rom. 13.  speaketh in like sort; Vniversos erudit, sive Sacerdos sit ille, sive Monachus, sive Apostolus, ut se principibus subdant, cuiusmodi subiectio nil prorsus est Dei sublatura cognitionem: S. Paul instructeth all (saith he) whether he be a Priest, or a Monk, or an Apostle, that they should subject themselves to Princes; which kind of subjection will in no sort take away the knowledge of God. Likewise speaketh Oecumenius: Instruens omnem animam, & audience, ut licet Sacerdos quispiam sit, licet Monachus, licet Apostolus, potestatibus subijciatur; 
Oecumenius in Rom. 13.  That S. Paul teacheth and instructeth every soul, that though he be a Priest, though a Monk, though an Apostle, he must be subject to these higher Powers. Bernard also, writing to the Archbishop of Senona, allegeth this Text, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: and addeth further, 
Bernard. Ep. 42.  Si omnis anima, & vestra: quicksands vos excepit ab universitate? If every soul must be subject, then must your soul also: for who hath excepted you from this universality? Yea Aeneas Silvius (who was himself afterward a Pope of Rome, called Pope Pius the second) alleging this Text, saith, 
Aen●s Silvius lib. 1. de gestis Basil. Council.  Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit; nec excipit animam Papae: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; neither (saith he) doth he except herein, the soul of the Pope himself. And Gregory (who was also himself a Pope of Rome) in an Epistle to the Emperor Mauritius, in the person of Christ, 
Gregor. epist. li. ●. C. 100.103.  saith thus unto him, Sacerdotes meos manui tuae commisi; I have committed my Priests to thy hand. And in another Epistle he saith, that Dominari non solum militibus; sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit: God hath made the Emperor, ruler, not only over Soldiers, but over Priests also. He further calleth the Emperors, his Lords, & saith, that Potestas super omnes homines, dominorum meorum pietati, coelitus data est: Power over all men, is given from heaven, to the piety of my Lords. And this supremacy doth also Optatus expressly acknowledge, saying, Super Imperatorem non est, nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem: 
Optat. contra Parm lib. 3.  Above the Emperor is not any but God only, that made the Emperor. And this again did all the ancient Christian Church acknowledge in Tertullians' time, saying thus, 
Tert. ad Scapul.  Colimus Imperatorem, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem: We Christians honour our Emperor, as the man next unto God, and inferior only to God. Again he saith, that they held their Emperors to be under the power of God only: à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, from whom they be the second, 
Tert. Apolog. cap 30.  and after whom they be the first. King's therefore, who have the like preeminence & authority within their kingdoms, that the Emperors had within their Empire, must, of all that will be right and Orthodox Christians be acknowledged to have the Supremacy, or (which is all one) the supreme government, over all persons, within their own kingdoms and dominions, of what sort soever, whether they be Lay or Ecclesiastical. And this is further confirmed by the sixth Toletan Council, which speaking of Chintillanus the King, saith thus; 
Concil. Tolet. 6. cap. 14.  Nefas est in dubium deducere eius potestatem, cui omnium gubernatio superno constat delegata judicio: It is an heinous offence to call his power into doubt, to whom it is apparent that the government of all is committed by God's appointment. How intolerably injurious then, is the Popish Clergy, which will not acknowledge this subjection? but if it so fall out that any of them be Robbers, Traitors, Rebels, Murderers, or how great offenders soever in a Commonweal, yet hold themselves nevertheless free, by reason of their Order, from trial, for those offences, in King's Courts. This, you see, is directly repugnant to the Institution and word of God, and to the opinion and practice of the Primitive and ancient Church, and was moreover long sithence condemned (as it was well worthy) by Marsilius of Milan▪ as a new devise, and not so new as pestiferous, 
Defensor. pacis part. 2. ca 23.  occasioning the ruin of States, and inducing a plurality of Sovereignty's in one kingdom: yea, from hence all scandals grow, and which standing (saith he) civil discord shall never have an end. Is not then the position of such Priests and Jesuits as Emanuel Sa is, justly to be condemned; 
Ema. Sa. Aphor.  who, in his Aphorisms, at the word Clericus, affirmeth, that, Clerici rebellio in Regem non est Crimen loesae Maiestatis, quia non est subditus Regis: The Rebellion of a Clergy man against the king, is no Treason, because he is not the king's subject. And so likewise saith Bellarmine; Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum Superiores: 
Bellarm. de Cler. cap 28.  Kings be no longer Sovereign's or superiors to Clergy men. Do not these appear to be most gross, disloyal, and detestable opinions? But thus a New King is raised over the Pope's Clergy, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They have a King over them, which is the Angel of the bottomless pit, who in Hebrew is called Abaddon, 
Rev. 9.11.  and in Greek Apollyon, that is in English, a Destroyer: namely, the degenerate Bishop of Rome, (that grand 〈◊〉, as 〈…〉 proved) who hath thus bereft and robbed King● of 〈◊〉 natural borne subjects, and of their ancient Supremacy, and most rightful authority over them.  
2 That the King is a Governor within his own kingdoms and dominions, is a matter so evident, as that it needeth no proof: for he is called Rex à Regendo, ● King in respect of his rule and government. 
1. Pet. 2.13, 14.  And S. Peter (agreeing hereunto) teacheth, that not only the King, but even other Magistrates also that be under the King, be Governors▪ and instituted for the punishment of evil doers, & for the praise of them that do well: S. Paul also speaketh the like of Princes or Governors that bear the sword, that, They are not to be feared for good works, but for evil: 
Rom. 13.3, 4.  wilt thou then be without fear of the power? Do well (saith he) so shalt thou have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God for thy good: But, if thou do evil, then fear, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, to take vengeance on him that doth evil. You here then clearly perceive, that Kings and Princes be Governors: and 〈…〉 before that they be supreme; which being put together, necessarily concludeth them to be, under God, the supreme Governors, within their own Dominions. Now that their government and authority extendeth to causes Ecclesiastical as well as 〈…〉▪ is a thing likewise very manifest: for as there is here no exception of any person, 
The authority of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical, declared.  so is there also no exception or difference put, of any cause; but whosoever transgresseth or offendeth, or doth evil, be it in what kind of cause soever, he is here made subject to this sword, power, and authority of Kings and Princes, 
Rom. 13.4.  and punishable by it. And doth not very reason itself also persuade this? For even in Christian States, it is possible for Bishop● and other Ecclesiastical ministers, to transgress and offend, as touching the execution and administration of their Ecclesiastical offices and functions, as well as other men may in their offices and places. As for example, If they or any of them would not suffer a child, or any other, to be baptised which were not to be denied baptism; or if they should excommunicate any, upon mere spleen and malice, without any just cause; or if after a just excommunication, the person excommunicate should afterward publicly testify his repentance, and thereupon desire to be reconciled and received again into the Church, and yet for all that, should most unjustly be held out, and be denied absolution or reconciliation: Do not these and such like offences, though committed by Ecclesiastical persons, and in causes Ecclesiastical, deserve punishment by the Civil Sword, and authority of a Christian King? If you say, That such an offendor may be censured by such as be Clergy men, and have Ecclesiastical authority over him: That hindereth not, but that a King may nevertheless punish him also civilly, especially where the Laws of the kingdom do so permit or appoint: For in such cases, without any wrong or injury, may one and the self same offence be punished both ways, viz. both Civilly, and Ecclesiastically. Yourselves do know, that Bishops and Clergy men cannot (by virtue of that their Ecclesiastical office and authority) punish any offenders civilly, but only Ecclesiastically, as namely, by deprivation, or excommunication, or such like censures of the Church: But Kings and Princes punish offenders in ecclesiastical causes, after another sort, namely, not ecclesiastically, (as Bishops do) but Civilly, as by corporal imprisonment, pecuniary punishment, and such like temporal pains belonging to their authority. So that both Civil and Ecclesiastical authority, do and may well stand together, without doing any wrong, yea, as friends and helpers the one to the other. But to illustrate this matter yet further; Admit Clergy men have excommunicated a man, or sentenced him to be deprived, or pronounced him to be an Heretic, or done all they can, against him, by the power of the keys, and of the Church censures, and that nevertheless he still, and evermore, persisteth a scorner and contemner of all that they can do against him: Is it not meet and requisite (think you) that such a one should be punished civilly, and by the King's authority? For what other remedy is there left in such a case? You see then, how expedient and necessary the government and authority of a Christian King is, even in respect of the Church, and Church affairs; as well as of the Commonweal, and Commonweal causes: and that in respect of offender's in Ecclesiastical causes that be unruly, wilful, obstinate, and contemptuous, the Church hath as much need of him, as the Commonweal. Whilst therefore the king punisheth offenders in Ecclesiastical causes, not ecclesiastically and by Church censures (as Clergy men do) but civilly, and by a regal power and authority, it is such a clear & evident a right, 
Even Heathen and Pagan Kings have the authority to comm●nd, & to make laws & proclamations for God & his service: albeit they do not always extend it▪ and use it accordingly. Esra 7.1.21.23.26.27. Dan. 3.29. Dan. 6.26. Euseb lib 8. c. 19 & lib. 9 c. 9 etc.  as none can with any colour of reason gainsay or disallow. Yea, even Heathen and Pagan Kings have this power and authority, to make laws and proclamations for the worship and service of the true GOD, and to inflict punishment upon the breakers & violaters of those their laws and proclamations; although they do not always put that their power and authority in execution for God, as they ought, but most commonly abuse it against him: And yet sometime, we see, they do extend it, and put it in execution for God, as it is evident in the examples of Artashast King of Persia, Nebuchadnezar King of Babel, and Darius' King of the M●des; as also by some other Heathen Emperors mentioned in Eusebius. If then (as is manifest) Heathen and Pagan kings have this power and authority (albeit they do no● always extend it, and put it in execution for God): by what right or reason can it be denied to Christian Kings and Princes, so to do? Yea, by Gods own most gracious providence, Christian Kings and Queens are to be nursing fathers and nursing mothers to his Church and Religion: 
Esay 49.23.  for so the Prophet Esay directly witnesseth. And therefore is it, that they not only may make Laws for Christ (for so S. Augustine likewise saith, that, Serviunt reges Christo, leges ferendo pro Christo, 
Aug. epist. 50.  Kings serve Christ, by making laws for Christ) but they may also command, and externally compel, their subjects, if they stubbornly be Re●●sants and wilful, 
2. Chro. 14.4.2.  to become obedient in that behalf. For so did the godly and religious Kings of judah: 
2. Chr 33.16.  as for example, King Asa, King Manasseth▪ and king josiah. 
2. Chr 34.33.  The Donatists, were the first, that denied this authority of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical: 
Aug. in li. 1. ca 6. cont. Epist. Parmenian.  Against whom therefore S. Augustine disputeth at large in sundry places. Why do the Donatists (saith he) acknowledge the force of the laws to be justly executed against other malefactors, and deny the same to be done against heretics and schismatics; seeing that by the authority of the Apostle, they be alike reckoned with the same fruits of iniquity? yea if a King should not regard such things, why then (saith he) doth he bear the sword? 
Aug. in Evang. joan. tract. 2.  Again he saith: Mirantur quia commoventur potestates Christianae adversus detestandos dissipatores Ecclesiae: Si non ergo moverentur, quo modo redderent rationem de Imperio su● Deo? They marvel that these Christian Powers be moved against the detestable wasters of the Church: If they should not be moved against such, how should they render an account to God of their rule or government? Thinkest thou (saith he to Vincentius) that no man ought to be forced to righteousness, 
Aug. epist. 48.  when as thou readest, that the Master said unto his servant, 
Luke 14.23.  Compel all that you find to come in▪ etc. Where is now (saith he to Bonifacius) that which these Donatists harp at so much, 
Aug. epist. 50.  viz. That it is free for a man to believe▪ or not to believe? what violence did Christ use? whom did he compel? Behold Paul for an example: 
Act. 9.4.19.  Let them mark in him, first, Christ compelling, and afterward teaching; 
Acts 22.7. etc.  first striking, and then comforting. Let them not mislike that they be forced, but examine whereto they be sorted▪ And citing that part of the second Psalm (Be wise ye kings, understand ye that judge the earth, 
Psal. 2.10, 11▪  Serve the Lord in fear) he saith thus: How do kings serve the Lord in fear, but when they forbid and punish with a religious severity, those things which be done against the commandments of God? 
2. Kin. 18 4.  As Ezechias did serve him, 
2. Kin. 23.3, 4, 5, 6. etc.  by destroying the groves and Temples, builded against the precept of God: As josiah did in like manner: As the king of Nineveh also did, 
jon. 3.6, 7, 8, 9 Dan. 3.28.29.  forcing the whole City to please God: As Nebuchadnezar likewise did, restraining all his subjects from blaspheming God, 
Dan. 6.26. etc.  with a dreadful law.  
3 As for the reason of Gaudentius: that the peace of Christ invited such as were willing, but forced no man unwilling▪ the same S. Augustine again answereth it, 
August. cont. 2 Gaudent. epist. lib. 2. cap. 17.  & speaketh on this manner▪ Where you think (saith he) that none must be forced to truth against their wills, you be deceived, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; which maketh them willing afterward, which were unwilling at the first. 
jon. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  Did the Ninivites repent against their will, because they did it at the compulsion of their king? What needed the king's express commandment that all should humbly submit themselves to God, but that there were some amongst them, which never would have regarded nor believed God's message, had they not been terrified by the king's Edict? This princely power and authority, giveth many men occasion to be saved, which though they were violently brought to the feast of the great Housholder, yet being once compelled to come in, 
Luke 1●. ●3.  they find there good cause to rejoice, that they did enter, though at first against their wills. And when Petilian also objected that no man ought to be forced by laws, to godliness, S. Augustine still answereth, and saith, Preposterous were discipline, to revenge your ill living, 
August. contra litera● Petiliani lib. 2 cap. 38.  but when you first contemn the doctrine that teacheth you to live well: And even those that make laws to bridle your headiness, are they not they that bear the sword (as Paul speaketh) not in vain, being God's ministers and executors of wrath on him that doth ill? Yea S. Augustine teacheth further directly, that it is the office & duty of Kings and Princes, to compel their subjects, 
Aug. ad Vincen. Epist. 48. Retract 2.5.  although not to faith, yet to the outward means of faith; which is coming to the Churches and assemblies of God's people, there to hear the word of God read and preached, and to do other Christian duties there used: For howsoever, it be granted that God only worketh faith in men's souls, and not Men, nor the power of Kings; 
Christian kings may compel their subjects, though not to faith, yet to the outward means of faith. And it is the body only, and not the soul or conscience, that they command and compel.  yet thereupon it followeth not, but that Kings may nevertheless command and compel them to external obedience, and cause them to present their bodies, in those Churches and assemblies where the ordinary means of faith and salvation is to be had. And as for God's inward working upon their souls, and his blessing upon that outward means, when they be in those Assemblies, Kings and Princes do, and must, leave those things unto God alone, as being things not included within their power to give, nor within the power of any earthly creature whosoever. Some of the Donatists, in ancient time, rather than they would be forced from their fancies, were so wilful, unnatural, and impious, as that they slew themselves: 
August. in Epist. 50. & 204.  yet did this nothing hinder the Church of God, but that Donatists for all that, were compelled, by virtue of Prince's laws, to their due obedience, without any respect, or regard had, to such their wicked and desperate doings. I was once so minded (saith S. Augustine) that I thought no man ought to be forced to Christian unity, 
August. Epist. 48. & Retract. lib. 2. cap. 5.  but that we should deal by persuasion, strive by disputing, and conquer by reasoning, lest they proved dissembling Catholics whom we know to be professed Heretics: But afterward, as himself showeth, he altered this opinion, upon better advisement; teaching, That as it is fit, that men that be in error touching Religion, should be admonished, instructed, and dealt withal by persuasion: so, if they neglect, scorn, or contemn admonitions, and instructions, or do grow wilful, stubborn, perverse, and obstinate, upon no ground of reason, they are justly worthy to be punished according to the laws. For, what a vain & idle thing is it for any to say. It is against their conscience to come to our Churches, there to hear God's word read and preached, to pray unto God with us, to thank him for all his benefits, to be present and partakers of his Sacraments, and of other godly and religious exercises there used; and yet can show no reason at all for this their doing? A blind conscience (such as this, and every other is, that hath not any good reason to show for itself) is to be corrected and reform, and not to be followed. And therefore doth S. Augustine yet further, say expressly, touching this matter: That it is enjoined Kings from God, ut in Regno suo bona iubeant, 
August contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 51.  mala prohibeant, non solum quae ad humanam societatem pertinent, verum etiam quae ad Divinam Religionem: that in their Kingdoms, they should command good things, & forbid evil things; not only such things as belong to humane society, but such things also as belong to God's Religion. Can any thing be more plainly, or more directly spoken for this purpose?  
4 It is true, that the Oath of Supremacy, containeth in it, not only an affirmative clause▪ that The King is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness' Dominions and countries, etc. but a negative clause also, viz. that No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or or aught to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm etc. And why should we not all frankly and freely acknowledge this? For (beside that the effect of this negative clause, is included in the former affirmative) what hath any foreign Prince or Prelate to do, within any the King's Dominions, without his leave and licence? For, as touching the Bishop of Rome (otherwise called the Pope) concerning whom all the scruple is made: his authority is by Act of Parliament directly banished and abolished out of all his Majesty's Dominions. So that by any humane Law, or constitution, of force in this kingdom, he neither hath, nor can challenge any authority at all; much less a supremacy, amongst us. How then doth he claim it? Or which way can he have it? Is it by any Divine Institution? That hath been often pretended (I know) but could never yet be proved, nor ever will be. For as for those three Texts of Scripture which be usually alleged, namely, the one in Matth. 16▪ Tu es Petrus & super hanc Pet●●● etc. and Luk. 22. Ora●i pro te Petre, 
Se● these Texts fully answered in the third part of this book, Cap. 2. sect. 5.  etc. and joh. 21. Pasce oves meas etc. They have been often heretofore, as they be again afterward, examined, and clearly showed, to make nothing for him, in respect of any supremacy, either Civil or Ecclesiastical. In the mean time, will you be pleased to hear, what some great learned men, even of former times (when Popery was not altogether so gross and bad as it is in these days) have written of this matter? Cusanus a Cardinal did himself dispute in his time, against them that thought the Pope to have more power and authority then otger Bishops; Oportet primum, si hoc verum foret, 
Cusanus de Cath. Concord. lib. 2. cap. 13.  Petrum aliquid à Christ● singularitatis recepisse, & Papam in hoc successorem esse; sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit, aliis Apostolis: First, if this were true, then must Peter have received something singular from Christ, and that the Pope be his successor therein: but we know (saith he) that Peter received from Christ no more power or authority, than the rest of the Apostles. Aeneas Silvia● likewise, who was afterward himself a Pope of Rome, 
Aeneas Sil. li. 1. de gestis Basil. Council.  hath written a Book of the Acts and proceedings of the Council of Basil: and first handling that Text, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, etc. he saith thus; A quibus verbis ideo placuit e●ordiri, quod aliqui verba haec ad extollendam Romani Pontificis authoritatem, solen● 〈…〉 sed, ut statim patebit, alius est verborum Christi sensus: Of which words, it therefore pleased me to begin, for that some are wont to allege these words for the extolling of the authority of the Pope of Rome: but, as shall by and by appear, there is (saith he) another sense or meaning of those words of Christ. john Gerson also, Chancellor of the University of Paris, 
Gerson Serm. pro viagi● Reg. Rom. direct. 1.  inveighing against flattery and flatterers of the Pope, saith, That this offence was given by such, as would prove his jurisdiction from certain Texts of Scripture; as, Tu es Petrus, super hanc Petram, etc. and, Oravi pro te Petre, etc. and such like: which Texts (saith he) be taken by these flatterers, gross, & non secundum regulam Evangelicam, grossly, and not according to the rule of the Gospel. Observe well these speeches; for they tell you, how much these Texts of Scripture, both heretofore have been, and still be, herein abused: it being indeed a thing certain, that neither to the civil Supremacy, nor yet to the ecclesiastical, the Pope can make any good title. In times past he claimed the one, or, at least a great part of the Empire, by a pretended gift or donation of Constantine the Emperor. But that supposed donation and conveyance, 
Valla. Cont. Don. Constant. Volateran. in vita Const. Antonin. 1. part l. 8. c. 2. Ser. iniquit. Catal. in practic. cancel. Apostol. Balbus de Coron. ad Carol. 5. Concil. Carthag. 6. c. 3. Concil. Aff●is. c. 101. & 105. & 92. Concil. Milevit. c. 22. Bellarm de Rom. pont. lib. 2. cap. 14.  hath been long since showed to be a forged and counterfeit thing, and that, not only by Protestants, but by Papists also: as namely, by Valla, by Volateran, by Antoninus, Catalanus: by Canus also, loc. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 5. and by Pope Pius the second, as Balbus witnesseth, and by sundry others. In like manner he claimed, in ancient time, an ecclesiastical supremacy, by a supposed Canon of the Council of Nice: but that was also, upon examination, found to be a forged and counterfeit Canon; and so discovered and made evident to the world, by the sundry Bishops of those times, assembled in Counsels. And diverse other forged Authors, they likewise allege for this purpose: as for example, certain Decretal Epistles under the name● of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Sixtus, Tele●phorus, Higi●s, Pius, Anicetus, Victor, etc. of which Epistles, Bellarmine himself speaking, saith, Nec indubitatas esse affirmare audeam, that neither durst he affirm them to be undoubted or uncounterfeit. Such forged, suspicious, and counterfeit writings therefore can make no good or sure title to the Pope, but, chose, do make the matter the more evident and the more odious against him. Yea, even the title & appellation of universal Bishop (wherein consisteth the sum and substance of the ecclesiastical Supremacy he claimeth) did two Bishops of Rome themselves in ancient time, oppugn & stand against, when it was first affected by john, the Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople: for, first, Pelagius, and then Gregory the great (both Bishops of Rome) withstood it. Let no Patriarch (saith Pelagius) use so profane a Title. Again (he saith) God forbid that it should ever fall into the heart of a Christian, to assume any thing unto himself, 
2. Tom. Concil. in Decret. Pelag: 2.  whereby the honour of his brethren may be debased: for this cause, I, in my Epistles, never call any by that name, for fear lest by giving him more than is his due, I might seem to take away even that which of right belongeth to him. For (saith he) The Devil our adversary goeth about like a roaring Lion, exercising his rage upon the humble and meek hearted, and seeking to devour, not now the sheepecoats, but even the principal members of the Church. 
Tom. 2 Concil. edit. Bin. pa. 693.  And again (he saith) Consider (my brethren) what is like to ensue, etc. For he cometh near unto him, of whom it is written, This is he which is King over all the children of Pride: which words I speak, with grief of mind, in that I see our brother and fellow Bishop, john, in despite of the commandment of our Saviour, the precepts of the Apostles, and Canons of the Church, by this haughty name, to make himself his forerunner, that is, the forerunner of the King of Pride, (namely, of Antichrist.) And he further addeth, that hereby john went about to attribute to himself, those things, which properly belong to the head himself, that is, to Christ, and by the usurpation of this Pompous Title, to bring under his subjection▪ all the members of Christ. And therefore (he saith) They must beware that this Tentation of Satan prevail not over them, either to give, or to take this title of universal Bishop. Gregory the great, was likewise very vehement and earnest against it. 
Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 34.  By this Arrogancy and Pride, (saith he) what else is portended, but that the time of Antichrist is now at hand? in that he imitateth him, who making light of that happiness which he possessed in common with the whole army of Angels, would needs aspire to a singularity above all the rest. Again he saith, All those that have read the Gospel, know well, what the Lord said unto Peter, 
●pist. 32.  &c howbeit, he is not called the universal Apostle: and yet behold, my fellow Priest, john, seeketh to be called the universal Bishop. I am now forced to cry out, O the times, and o the manners of men. Europe is now exposed for a prey to the Barbarians: and yet, the Priests, who should lie along in the dust, upon the Pavement, weeping and rolling themselves in ashes, seek after names of vanity, and boast themselves of their new found profane Titles. And again he saith: What wilt thou answer unto Christ, 
Epist. 36.  who is the true head of the universal Church, in that day of judgement, seeing that by this name of universal Bishop thou seekest to bring under, all the members of his body, unto thyself? whom dost thou imitate herein, save only him, who in contempt of those legions of Angels, which were his fellows sought to mount aloft to the Top of Singularity, 
Epist. 34. & 38.  where he might be subject to none, and all others subject unto him? Again, he saith, The king of Pride is at hand, and (which I dread to speak) an army of Priests standeth ready to receive him: For they that were appointed to chalk out the way of meekness, and of humbleness, do now become soldiers unto that ne●ke of Pride, which lifteth it self up. And again, he saith, 
Epist. 24. Observe well this reason, amongst the rest. Lib. 6. Ep. 30.  Not to speak of the wrong, which he hereby doth unto other Bishops; If there be one called universal Bishop▪ then must the universal Church go to the ground, if he which is universal happen to fall: but never may such foolery befall us, never may this weakness come unto my ears. And again, he saith, I speak ●t confidently, that whosoever calleth himself, or desires to be called universal Priest is, in that his elation of mind, the forerunner of Antichrist. And, a great deal more doth he write to this effect, against it. But notwithstanding that both these Bishops of Rome, were herein thus earnest and vehement, yet nevertheless after the death of this Gregory the great, Sabinianus succeeded, 
Paul. Diacon. lib 4. de gestis Longobard cap. 37. Ab. Vsperg. Chronic. Platin. Boniface 3. Otho: Frising. li. 5. c. 8. Chron. etc.  who was Bishop but for a very little space; & then came in Boniface the third, to be Pope of Rome, who obtained of Phocas the Emperor (who was a Traitor and murderer of his predecessor, and liege Lord, the Emperor Mauritius) that new and proud title of universal Bishop, or headship, over the whole Church: For so also testifieth Paulus Diaconus, Abbas Vspergensis, Platina, Otho Frisingensis, Marianus Scotus, Sabellicus, Blondus, and other Historians. So that this appeareth to be, then and in those times, a very new device, and a new matter, not heard of before in the Church, and consequently could not be a declaration of a thing ever before acknowledged, 
Bellarm. de pont. Rom. cap. 17. justinian. in Epist. ad joh. 2.  as Bellarmine would most strangely persuade. Howbeit, he allegeth, that before that time, justinian called the Church of Rome, the head of all the Churches: And this is true, but, in that sense in which he called also that other, namely, the Church of Constantinople, 
Idem Co: de sacros. Ecc.  by the same name, saying likewise, that Constantinople is the head of all other Churches▪ both which he so calleth, in respect they were patriarchal Sees, and consequently every of them, Head of all the other Churches that were under them, in those their several Patriarchships. But (saith Bellarmine) the Patriarch and Bishop of Rome, was called Universal or Ecumenical Bishop, before Phocas his time: whereunto is answered, that so were also the other Patriarches, as well as he: 
justin. Co: de summa Trinit. lib. 7. De Episcop. audientia 2. certissime & Novel. 3.5.7. Idem Novel 2. & sequent. Council Calced. Council Nic. 2. Act. 2.  for so did justinian, call Epiphanius (the Bishop of Constantinople) sometimes ecumenical, and sometimes (which is all one) universal Patriarch. So doth he also call Anthemius, and Menna, in his Novels. And the Council of Chalcedon likewise, in sundry places, calleth Menna, ecumenical Patriarch: And so were other of the Patriarches also, called, in respect of the general charge which jointly together they had over all the Churches, and in respect also of all those particular Churches which were severally belonging to each of them, in right of those their several Patriarchships. Wherefore the taking of this Title from the rest of the patriarchs, within their several Patriarchships, and the peculiarising and appropriating of it to one Bishop or Patriarch alone, as namely to the Bishop of Rome, thereby to give him the headship, and supremacy over all the Bishops in the world, doth still appear to be, not until this time of that abominable Traitor and murderer, Phocas, who bestowed it upon him, about the year of our Lord 606. Such a wicked Founder, and Author of it, hath the Pope's Ecclesiastical Supremacy: which as it had his original from a Traitor; so is it still continued, upheld, and maintained (if ye well observe it) by Treason and Rebellion.  
But to make this yet more manifest, ye may remember, that the Christian Churches were, 

Conc. Nic. ca 6.7 Conc. Constant. 1. can. 5. Conc. Chalced. Actio. 16.  
The Decrees of ancient general Counsels, against the Pope's Supremacy.   in ancient times, divided amongst four or five patriarchs: as, of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: who, in those ancient times, were all of equal authority amongst themselves, and had every one their several bounds & limits, beyond which they might not go. This is evident, even by diverse general Counsels: and first, by the first general Council of Nice, holden anno 325. wherein were 318. Bishops. The words of that Council (Can. 6.) be these: Let the ancient customs continue in force, that are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, That the Bishop of Alexandria have the government of all these: for as much as, the Bishop of Rome also hath the like custom. And so likewise throughout Antioch, and in other Provinces, let the Churches have their Prerogatives upholden by them. Where, we see, that the several patriarchs, and by name, the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Rome, had their limits and bounds set them, which they might not exceed: for, the ancient rights and customs, touching the bounds & limits of Alexandria, be there confirmed, because the Bishop of Rome (who was another of the patriarchs) had the like custom, as touching bounds and limits set and appointed to him, within his Patriarchship. This then showeth, That the Bishop of Rome his government, in those times, extended but to the precincts of his own Province likewise, and no further: For had it stretched over all the world, then could not from thence any good pattern have been drawn to confirm and fortify the like at Alexandria; which was not to extend itself, over all the world, but to keep itself within certain limits and bounds only. Yea, what resemblance or parilitie, was there, or could there be, between him that is an universal Bishop, and a Provincial? So that, if you will make the Bishop of Rome at that time to have an universal government over all the Christian world: you must conclude the same also for the Bishop of Alexandria, that he had so likewise; for there was parilis mos, the like usage, in both, as the very words of the Canon itself affirm. But if you will say (as you must needs) that by this Council of Nice, the Bishop of Alexandria had his limits and bounds confirmed to him, by the pattern and example of the Bishop of Rome (for, that, is the pattern there proposed, for Alexandria): then must you also grant (according to right and truth,) that the Bishop of Rome, aswell as the Bishop of Alexandria, and the rest of the patriarchal Bishops in those times, had likewise every one of them their several limits, bounds, and precincts, set them, beyond which they might not pass, nor extend their authority. And this you may yet further see by Ruffinus, lib. 1. cap. 6. and by the Council of Africa, cap. 92. & 105. etc. very clearly, for your better satisfaction.  
Again, the first general Council of Constantinople, held about anno 381. and consisting of 150. Bishops (Can. 2. & 3.) And the Council of Ephesus also, held about ann 431. (Ca 8.) do both show, that the Provinces of the world were in those times distinguished and distributed, and the Bishops and patriarchs so restrained to their own several precincts and limits, ut nullus Episcoporum alienam invadat provinciam, that no Bishop or Patriarch might invade or intrude upon another's Province or precinct. It is true that the Bishop of Rome had the honour of the first place: 
Concil. Constantinopol. 1. canon. 5. & Concil. Constantinopol. 6. canon. 36.  the Bishop of Constantinople had the second place: the Bishop of Alexandria the third: the Bishop of Antioch, the fourth: and the Bishop of Jerusalem, the fifth. But this precedency or priority of place (all men know) is such, as may be among those that be otherwise Equals amongst themselves, and proveth only a priority of order, but no priority of Dominion, or of a Princely power, or Monarchical authority, in any one of them, over the rest. Yea, the general Council of Chalcedon also, held about ann. 451, wherein were 630 Bishops (Act. 16.) hath these words: Following the Decrees of the holy Fathers, and of those 150 Bishops assembled under Theodosius the elder, of blessed memory, in the royal City of Constantinople, and acknowledging the same: We also Decree and ordain the same things, concerning the privileges or preeminences of the said Church of Constantinople, which is new Rome. For our fathers gave those preeminences to the seat of Elder Rome, because that City had the Empire: And the 150 Bishops, moved with the same consideration, gave the same preeminences to the most sacred seat of New Rome; thinking it reason, that the city which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, should have equal preeminences with Elder Rome, and in Ecclesiastical matters, should be advanced Equally with her, being (in place) the next unto her. It is true, that the then Pope of Rome, by his Legates or Vicegerents, did what he could, to withstand and hinder this Decree: but, for all that, it prevailed and was of force, as even Cardinal Cusanus himself affirmeth; thereby proving a General Council to be above the Pope, 
Cusan. Concord. li. 2. c. 34. & 20.  and the Decrees thereof to be good and available, though the Pope never give his consent unto them. Yea, the sixth general Council of Constantinople (Can. 36.) did also long after, confirm and ratify this Decree, and accordingly made another Decree to the same effect, saying thus: Renewing the Decrees of the 150 Fathers, that met in this royal City of Constantinople, and of the 630 Bishops assembled at Chalcedon: we likewise decree that the Sea of Constantinople, have equal Privileges with the seat of Elder Rome, and in Ecclesiastical matters, be advanced equally with Rome▪ being the next unto it. By all which, it is apparent, that the Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople, was, within his Patriarchship, to have as great privileges, preeminences, and authorities, as touching Church affairs, as the Bishop of Rome was to have within his Patriarchship.  
And as you may observe by these Counsels, that the Primacy, which the Bishop of Rome at the first had and obtained, was only a Primacy of honour, or of Order, or, of place; and not any Primacy of Princely or Regal power over the rest of his fellow patriarchs: so you may also perceive, that even that Primacy was not given him, as belonging to him in any right from S. Peter, (as he now strangely claimeth) but by reason only of the City or place whereof he was Bishop; namely, for that Rome was then the Imperial City, or, seat of the Emperors. But the Bishop of Rome contented not himself with this Primacy of honour, or of order, or precedency of place, but afterward clymbed higher, even to a Primacy of Princely power and Monarchical authority, and that not only over his fellow-Patriarches and Bishops, but over all Emperors also, and Kings and Princes which be his Superiors: and over all General Counsels likewise (his Pride, 
The Pope's Supremacy over Counsels, is of a very late standing, condemned by Counsels.  and ambition, having no mean, nor measure, in it). And yet is this his claimed Supremacy over Counsels also, but a new devise, and of a very late standing in the world. For, Counsels, until of very late times, were held, both for opinion and practice, to be above the Pope, and the Pope's authority: as is apparent by the Council assembled at Pisa, about the year of our Lord 1408. two striving at that time, 
Naucl. gener. 47  for the Popedom, viz. Gregory the 12, and Benedict the 13. This Council proceeded against both these Popes, deposed them, condemned them both for heretics and schismatics, and required all Christians, not to take them for Popes, or to yield obedience to them: which Council is also by Io: Gerson much commended. 
Gerson de Au: Papae. C●●●il. Constan. Sess. 5.  Likewise in the Council of Constance (which was called about Ann. 1414.) was Pope john the 23th deposed: and for confirmation thereof, it declareth the right and authority of a Council, to be above the Pope. The Council of Basil likewise deposed another Pope, namely, Eugenius the fourth, 
Concil. Basil. Sess. 38. & 33.  where again the authority and power of a Council above the Pope, is expressly ratified and confirmed, and he affirmed to be an heretic, that shall say to the contrary. How then can Jesuits, and others, avoid the note and name of heretics, which, in these latter times, contrary to the practice and decrees of these former general Counsels, dare and do affirm, the Pope to be above all general Counsels, to be supreme judge over all, and not subject to the judgement of any, upon earth? Is not this intolerable pride, and most abominable licentiousness and lawlessness in the Pope of Rome? and most gross, notorious, and palpable flattery, in his followers? The Pope's Supremacy ecclesiastical then, which he claimeth over all Bishops and Counsels, and the civil Supremacy, which he likewise claimeth over all Kings and Emperors, appeareth to be not only a mere Novelty, but a thing also extremely injurious to all Bishops and Counsels, and to all Kings, Princes, and Emperors also; and is therefore justly worthy of all to be detested and rejected.  
6 For, must not the Supremacy civil, which he also claimeth over Emperors, Kings, and Princes, to depose them from their Crowns and Kingdoms, 
The Pope's Supremacy over Kings & Princes, most abominable. Prov. 8.15.  and to assoil their subjects of their allegiance, be a most strange and a most damnable impiety? when God himself saith thus: By me, King's reign, and not by the commission or permission of any Pope: and when, in Daniel, a voice from heaven, proclaimeth, That it is not the Pope, but, The most high, that beareth rule over the kingdom of men, 
Dan. 4.29.  and giveth it to whomsoever he will: and when moreover, not the Pope, but God himself, is he, that is entitled, 
Revel. 19.16.  King of kings, and Lord of lords? Besides, it is a thing clearly out of the commission of the Apostles, and consequently out of the commission of all Bishops, and other Ministers of the Gospel; for they be the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
Matth. 16.19.  (and not of earthly kingdoms) that be committed unto them: And therefore it is not within the compass of this their Divine and Ecclesiastical commission, to meddle with any earthly matters; much less, with earthly kingdoms, or to depose any Kings from their Thrones, or to give away their kingdoms, or to disannul the duty and allegiance of subjects, which by the law of God and Nature they owe unto their Sovereigns. Did any Apostle, yea or all the Apostles together, in ancient time, take upon them, to depose Nero, or any other Emperor, were he never so great a persecutor, or were he never so wicked? Or did any Bishops in the ancient Church, take upon them, to depose any of them that were heretical Arrian Emperors in their times, and persecuters of the Oxthodox and right believing Christians? Yea, did any Bishop, or all the Bishops in the world together, take upon them to depose the Emperor julian, though an Apostata, though a man Anathematised, though a most impious person, and a scorner of Christ, and of all Christian Religion? By this one precedent then of julian the Apostata, (if there were no other) you may easily perceive, that no excommunication, or, Anathematization, nor any power of the Keys whatsoever (committed by Christ to Bishops & Ministers of the Gospel) have any force included in them to depose Emperors, Kings, and Princes, be they never so wicked, or adverse to Christ or Christianity: yea, that Bishops in no sort, neither directly, nor indirectly, or, in ordine ad Spiritualia (as they speak) or for advancement of any pretended, or Revera Catholic cause, have any such authority. For julian still remained an Emperor, and his Christian soldiers and subjects (notwithstanding that he was so great an enemy to their Religion) were nevertheless obedient, dutiful, and serviceable unto him, 
Aug in Psa. 124.  as S. Augustine also showeth and affirmeth. So far off were they from rebelling, or withdrawing their allegiance from him: and so far off also were the Bishops of those times, from persuading, abetting, or counselling any such wicked matter unto them Yea, whereas Bellarmine, and some other Papists, affirm, 
Bellarm lib 5. ca 7. de R●m. Pont.  that the Christians in the primitive and those ancient Churches, were therefore obedient, because they wanted sufficient power and force to withstand, their wicked Emperors: do they not herein speak, more like politic Atheists, than Christian Divines? Where is Obedience for conscience sake, (which God requireth of all Christians, 
R●m. 13.5.  as S. Paul witnesseth) if such Popish doctrine as this, were true? But beside, 
Tertull. in Apolog. cap. 37.  Tertullian expressly confuteth it, witnessing, that such was the affection and disposition of the Christians in those times, being led thereunto by duty & conscience, as that they neither taught nor put in practice, any course of disloyalty or disobedience, or bare arms against their Emperor, albeit they had (as he there showeth) sufficient force to have done it. Yea, the Christians in those times, notwithstanding all their great number & strength, & their sufficient power to rebel (if they had been so ill disposed) were nevertheless so far from rebelling, or procuring rebellions to be made, against the Emperor of their times, that chose, they were quiet, and suffered all things patiently, and prayed for him, that Almighty God would grant unto him▪ A long life, a secure reign, safety in his Court, valiant Soldiers, a faithful Counsel, dutiful subjects, 
Tertull. Apolog. cap. 30.  a quiet kingdom, and all those blessings and comforts, that his heart could desire. Sigebert, 
Sigebert. Chron. An. Dom. 1088.  mentioning the Pope's proceedings against Henry the Emperor, diverse hundred years since, saith thus: Be it spoken with the leave of all good men; This novelty, that I say not, heresy, had not as yet sprung up in the world, that God's Priests should teach the people, that they owe no subjection to evil Princes: 
New & Traitorous opinions.  and, though they have sworn allegiance to him, yet they owe him no fidelity; nor shall be counted perjured, that devise against the King: yea, That he that obeyeth him, shall be counted for excommunicate; and he that doth against the King, shall be absolved from the guilt of wrong and perjury. 
Vincent. in spec. Histor. lib. 15. cap. 84.  Vincentius likewise testifieth the same matter. Where you see, how directly they both condemn these traitorous and rebellious positions of Popery, which be, at this day, by too many amongst them, cherished and maintained for points of Catholic doctrine: and that, notwithstanding the pretence of the Pope's authority, and of a Catholic cause, they be long since condemned, and accounted and recorded to be mere Novelties, if not Heresies. Now than you perceive, I trust, that as the Pope hath no Supremacy lawful, in Ecclesiasticis; so, much less hath he any Supremacy lawful, in Temporalibus, within the King's Dominions, or elsewhere, within the Dominions of any other King. And I assure myself, that such are your loyalties, 
Gre. Vesper. haeretico polit. pag. 159. Marian. de rege & regis Institut. cap. 6. etc.  and such the odiousness and apparent untruth of the traitorous and rebellious positions, delivered in these later times by Jesuits and such like Popish Teachers, against Kings, for maintenance of the Pope's pride; that ye unfeignedly and utterly abhor & detest those positions of theirs, together with their practices, as they are indeed justly worthy: I would ye did also detest the rest of their false doctrines, as I hope, upon better information, ye will, even for truth's sake, and the safety of your own souls.  
7 But to proceed: what clearer or greater argument can there be against the Pope's Supremacy, and to declare the Supremacy of the Emperor, than this, that the Emperor, in ancient time, exiled, banished, imprisoned, and otherwise also by his Authority, 
Theod. hist. lib 2. ca 16. Niceph. lib. 26. ca 17. Platina. Sige●ertus & t. Theodor. lib. 1. cap. 19 Rom. 13.4.  punished, even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves, as well as other Bishops? and when the Emperor said moreover thus: that, If any did grow tumultuous or unruly, Illius statim audacia, Ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur, his boldness shall forthwith be repressed by the sword or execution of God's Minister, that is, of myself. For, as S. Paul saith, the Emperor, King, or Prince, or any of those higher powers that bear the civil sword, is God's Minister, and a revenger unto Wrath, to him that doth evil, whosoever he be. Yea, such was the demeanour and loyalty, which even Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, performed to the Emperor, that when the Emperor had commanded a law to be published, which Gregory himself misliked, yet nevertheless he obeyed the Emperor's commandment, 
Grego Ep. lib. 2. cap. 100 & 100L  as a good subject unto him: Ego quidem iussioni tuae subiectus, eandem legem per diversas Terrarum partes transmitti feci: 
Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome, subject to the Emperor, and at his command.  I being subject to your command, (saith he) have caused the same law to be transmitted through divers parts of the earth. By which one example of Gregory (if there were no more spoken) you may perceive, that for the space of many hundred years after Christ, even unto his time, and in his time, the Bishops of Rome themselves were subject to the Emperors, and at their commands. Which doth yet further appear by this, tha● even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome, as their Ambassadors: as for example, 
Anastatius. Platina. Lib. pontiff. Diaconus.  King Theodorick sent john Bishop of Rome, Ambassador to the Emperor justinian. And King Theodatus, about the year 537, sent Pope Agapetus, as his Ambassador, likewise to the Emperor, about a Treaty of peace. But yet, together with the Supremacy of Emperors, let me show unto you more fully, their Authority in Ecclesiastical things or causes (for, of their Authority in civil or temporal causes, there is no question made).  
8 When the Donatists therefore alleged, that Emperors were to meddle only with civil causes, and not with Ecclesiastical, or concerning God's Religion: 
Optat. contra Parm. l●b 3. It is a point of madness to say or hold, that a Christian King may not deal in matters Ecclesiastical, by the testimony of Optatus.  Optatus held this to be a point of madness, in Donatus, and those his followers; Ille solito furore accensus, in haec verba prorupit: Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia? Donatus, inflamed with his accustomed fury or Madness, (saith he) broke forth into these words; What hath the Emperor to do with the Church? Where you see, he calleth it expressly, a Madness, to hold that opinion. And this S. Augustine likewise censureth and condemneth, accounting it an absurd thing, for any to say thus, unto kings: Take ye no care in your kingdoms, who oppugneth the Church, and who defendeth it: who is religious, 
August. Ep. 50.  and who sacrilegious, etc. For if the King be to regard and punish by civil punishment, the offences done against the second Table, as disobedience to parents, murder, theft, trespasses, wrongs and injuries done by one man against another; is he not much more to regard and punish by civil punishment, the greater offences, namely, those that be done immediately against God, being breaches of the first Table, as Atheism Idolatry, false worship, wrong religion, heresy, schism, blasphemy, breach of the Sabbath, and such like? For is there any comparison or proportion between Man and God? But to declare this matter yet further by some particulars: 
A Christian King ma● make Laws concerning matters Ecclesiastical.  The Christian Emperors, in ancient time, made laws for God and his Religion, and caused them to be executed, and so dealt in matters Ecclesiastical as well as civil; as, beside that which is before spoken, is further evident, even by the Titles of the Civil law itself: viz. De summa Trinitate & fide Catholica: De sacrosanctis Ecclesijs: 

A Christian King may make Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes Optat. lib. 1. August. Ep. 162. & 16●. Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 5.  
A Christian King may have Appeals made unto him in a cause Ecclesiastical. Miltiades, a Bishop of Rome, subject to the Emperor, & at his command.   De Episcopis & Clericis: De Haereticis, etc. They likewise made Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes. For when Caecilianus, Bishop of Carthage, was accused by Donatus and some other of that faction, Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome, with a certain number of Bishops that accused him: And by his Commission (extant in Eusebius) authorised and appointed Miltiades, the then Bishop of Rome, and some others with him, for the hearing and ending of that matter. These Commissioners condemned Donatus, who appealed from their sentence, to the Emperor himself: which Appeal also, the Emperor, at last, received. Where, beside that you see, that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopal and Ecclesiastical cause, observe withal, that Miltiades, the then Bishop of Rome, was one of those Commissioners, (and therewithal you may note, that the Bishops of Rome, were then very clearly subject, and not superior, to the Emperor). So that a Christian King or Prince, not only may make Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes, but may also have Appeals made unto him, as is here apparent. Yea, even S. Paul himself Appealed, 
Act. 25.11, 12.  not unto Peter, (which no doubt, he would have done, if Peter had then had the Supremacy) but unto Caesar. The Council also of Africa would allow of no Appeals to the Pope of Rome, or beyond the Sea, but made a Decree directly against it, appointing Presbyters, Deacons, or other inferior Clerks, if they were grieved with the sentence of their own Bishop, to resort to the next Bishops: Quod si & ab●ijs provocandum putaverint, 
Concil. African. cap. 92.  non provocent nisi ad Affricana Concilia; vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum? Ad Transmarina autem, qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Affricam in Communionem suscipiatur; 
Appeals in ancient time, not allowed to be made to the Bish. of Rome.  And if they shall think fit to Appeal from them, let them not appeal but to Counsels within Africa, or to the Primates of their own Provinces: But he that shall think it fit to appeal beyond the Sea, let him be admitted to the Communion by none within Africa. This Canon, which was thus established in the African Council, purposely for the defeating and disannulling of the ambitious courses and claims of the Bishops of Rome▪ is again repeated and confirmed in the Milevitane Council. 
Concil. Milevit. cap. 22. Malmesbury lib. 1 de gest. pont. Angliae.  In the time likewise of King William Rufus, Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have appealed to Rome: But not only the King, but the Bishops of England also, were therein against him. And afterwards in the days of Henry the second, King of England, this Law was made: 
Hoveden. Hen. 2.  Si quis inventus fuerit, etc. If any shall be found bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope etc. Let him be apprehended, 

Theod. lib. 5. c. 7. Sozom. lib. 7. c. 7. Theod. li. 1. c. 7. General Counsels called in ancient time, by the Christian Emperors, and not by the Popes.  
Evagr. l. 1. c. 3. Conc. Calc. Act. 1. zon. tom. 3. pag. 39 Cusan. de Concor. lib 2. cap. 25. Socrat. lib▪ 5. in Prooemio.   and let justice be done upon him without delay, as upon a Traitor to the Law and kingdom. Again, it is there said, Generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam: That it was generally given in charge, that none should Appeal to the Pope. Moreover, the Christian Emperors in ancient time had the authority of summoning and calling Counsels: as for example, the first general Council of Nice, was assembled by Constantine: the second at Constantinople, was called by Theodosius the elder: the third at Ephesus, by Theodosius the younger: the fourth at Chalcedon, by Valentinian and Martian. And this is so manifest a truth, that Cardinal Cusanus, confesseth, and affirmeth, that the first eight general Counsels, were called by the Emperors. And so also witnesseth Socrates: that, Since Emperors became Christians, the businesses of the Church have seemed to depend upon their will: and therefore the greatest Counsels (saith he) have been, and still are, called, by their appointment. But here Bellarmine steppeth in, and would persuade, 
Bellar. de Concil. lib. 1. cap. 13.  that howsoever Emperors did call Counsels, yet it was done authoritate Papae, by authority of the Pope. A very strange assertion, 
Leo Epist. 9  and untrue: for even Leo himself, Bishop of Rome, in his time, made supplication to the then Emperor (Theodosius the younger): Supplicationi nostrae dignetur a●nuere, That he would be pleased to yield to his Supplication, for the calling of a Council in Italy. But the Emperor, for all that, contrary to the Pope's will and desire, and notwithstanding that his humble petition, caused the Council to be called and assembled, not in Italy, as the Pope desired, but at Ephesus. 
Leo Epist. 24.  Afterward again the same Leo Bishop of Rome, made a second supplication, alleging withal, the sighs and tears of all the Clergy, 
Epist. 26.  for the obtaining of a Council in Italy: He solicited the Princess Pulcheria, to further his supplication to the Emperor: 
Epist. 23.  He wrote to the Nobles, Clergy and people of Constantinople, to make the like supplication to the Emperor: and yet, for all this, he could not obtain it this second time neither; For although then a Council were granted, yet it was not in Italy, as the Pope would have had it, but at Chalcedon. It is then more than manifest, by this example of Leo, that Counsels in those times were assembled and convocated, not by the commandment and authority of the Popes, but of Emperors. Yea, by the subscription also to those constitutions, you may further discern, that the Pope in those times, had no authority to command the Emperor, but chose the Emperor had to command the Pope: for thus saith the same Leo to the then Emperor; Because (saith he) I must by all means obey your sacred and religious will, 
Leo Epist. 59  I have set down my consent in writing to those Constitutions. If then there were no other evidences or proofs, 
Leo a Bishop of Rome subject to the Emperor, and at his command.  do not these three former examples, viz. of Miltiades, Leo, and Gregory, (all Bishops of Rome in their several times) make plain demonstration, and openly proclaim to the world, that in those days, the Bishops of Rome, were, without all question or contradiction, inferior, obedient, and subject to the Emperors, and not superior to them? But yet further, ye know, that King Solomon removed the high Priest Abiathar, 
1. Kin 2.27.35.  and put Zadoc in his place. The Emperor, Theodosius the elder, 
Zozom. l. 7. c. 8. Plat. Sigeb. A Christian King may nominate & appoint Bishops of Dioceses & Provinces.  did likewise nominate and appoint Nectarius, to be Bishop of Constantinople. Honorius also appointed Boniface, to be Bishop of Rome. And other Emperors did the like. Is it not then lawful for King JAMES, our Sovereign Lord, likewise to nominate & appoint a Bishop of a Diocese or Province, and upon just cause again to remove and displace him? For as touching the sacration or consecration of Bishops, or other Minister ecclesiastical, otherwise called, the ordination of them by imposition of hands, the King meddleth not, but leaveth those kind of Acts, to be done by Bishops, and such to whom they belong. Yea, 
Malmesbur. de gestu Pont. Angl. lib. 1. pag. 205.  King William Rufus likewise in his days, nominated & appointed Anselmus to be Archbishop of Canterbury. And before him, King William the Conqueror used the like authority, nominating and appointing Lanfrancus to be the Archbishop, 
Ibidem lib. 1. pag 205.  as is also testified by the same Author. And even before the Conquest, King Edward the Confessor, appointed one Robert, 
Lib. 1. pag 204.  first Bishop of London, and afterward an Archbishop. And before that, King Alfred, 
Malmesb. de gest. Reg. Angl. lib. 2. pag 45.  nominated and appointed Asserio Bishop of Sherborne: and Denewulfus, Bishop of Winchester. And more than 200. years before that, 
De gestis Pont. Angl. lib. 2. pag. 242. & p. 257. Metrop. Grantz. lib. 2. cap. 29. The Christian Emperors, in ancient time, had power to place and displace Popes.  Edelwalk King of the South Saxons, appointed Wilfred to an Episcopal Sea. Grantzius speaking of the ancient times, saith thus: The Emperor placed a Bishop in Monster. And marvel not (saith he) that a Bishop was appointed by the Emperor: for this was the Custom of those times, when Emperors had power to place and displace Popes. And further, he saith: That whomsoever the Prince did nominate, that man was to be consecrated a Bishop by the next adjoining Bishops. And he addeth further: That concerning this jurisdiction, there was a long contention between the Papacy, and the Empire: This was the jurisdiction which the Two Henry's, the father and the son, and which the Two frederick's likewise, the grandfather and the grandchild, sought long to Defend and maintain: but the sword of the Church (saith he) prevailed, and forced the Emperors, to relinquish their right to the Church. Thus you see how, namely, That partly by fraud, and partly by force, the Popes, after much striving and contending, prevailed at last against the Emperors, and made them to lose their rights. And therefore, worthily, is that Statute, which giveth these rights again, 
The Act is of 1. Eliz cap. 1 in England, and of 2. Eliz. cap. 1. in Ireland.  to our Kings and Princes, entitled, An Act restoring to the Crown, the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same. The premises then well and advisedly considered, what is there in all the authority concerning Ecclesiastical causes, attributed or belonging to the King, that can justly offend any of you? For, I doubt not, but such authorities in Ecclesiastical causes, as were, in ancient time, yielded to the godly Kings of judah, or unto the godly & Christian Emperors, ye will well allow (as in all right and reason ye ought) unto Christian kings & Princes, within their dominions. And amongst the rest of their rights and authorities, this also was one, that the Emperors approved, ratified, and confirmed even the Constitutions and Decrees of Counsels, before they were promulged or put in execution. For so did Constantine, that Christian Emperor, 
Euseb. in vitae Const. lib. 3.  confirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Decrees of the Council. Again, Rogamus clementiam tuam (saith the Council to the Emperor Theodosius) ut per Literas tuae pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij Decretum: 
Conc. Const. 5.  

Conc. Chalced. Actio. 3.  
Emperors, and consequently Kings within their Dominions, are to ratify and confirm the Decrees of Counsels before they be put in execution.   We beseech your clemency, that by your Letters you will ratify and confirm the Decree of the Council. Sacro nostrae Serenitatis Edicto (saith also Martian the Emperor) venerandam Synodam confirmamus: We by the sacred Edict of our Serenity, do confirm the reverend Synod. This then is a right which must likewise be acknowledged due, and to belong to King JAMES our Sovereign Lord. What objection then, or exception, can be taken against his Majesty's Supremacy in any point? or why should not all his subjects most readily and willingly acknowledge it, and in testimony thereof take the Oath concerning the same, whensoever they be thereunto lawfully required? For, if any suppose (as some have done) that the King is therein called Supreme head of the Church, they are deceived: The words of the Oath at this day (to take away all offence that any might conceive in that point) being not supreme HEAD, but supreme GOVERNOR. And as touching this Title of Governor, within his own Dominions, none can, with any reason, gainsay it: inasmuch as, beside that which is before spoken, King Alfred, reigning long sithence, was likewise called, 
Aser. Menevensis praefat▪ ad Alfred.  Omnium Britanniae Insulae Christianorum Rector: The Governor of all the Christians within the Isle of Britanny. The Council also held at Mentz in Germany, the year 814, in the time of the Emperor Charles the great, 
Concil. Mogunt. in praefat. Bin. t. 3. p 462.  and Pope Leo the third, calleth likewise the Christian Emperor, (Carolus Augustus) Governor of the True Religion, and defender of the holy Church of God, etc. And a little after they say thus: We give thanks to God the Father almighty, because he hath granted unto his holy Church, a Governor so godly, etc. In the year 847. there was also held another Council at Mentz in the time of Leo the fourth, and Lotharius the Emperor: 
Bin. t. 3. p. 631.  where they again call the Emperor, Verae Religionis strenuissimum rectorem, a most puissant Governor of the true Religion. The like was ascribed to King Reccesumthius, 
Concil. Emerit. ex Garsia Lovisa sect. 23. Bin. t. 2. pag. 1183.  in a Council held at Emerita, in Portugal, about the year 705, in these words: Whose vigilancy doth govern both secular things with very great piety, and ecclesiastical by his wisdom plentifully given him of God. Where you see it expressly acknowledged that the King is a Governor, both in causes secular, and ecclesiastical. And this Council of Emerita had also good allowance of Pope Innocent the third, in his Epistle to Peter, Archbishop of Compostella, as Garsias witnesseth. 
Gars. in not in Concil. Emer.  So that the Title of Governor, even as touching matters ecclesiastical, as well as civil or secular, attributed to the King (he governing in them, after a Regal manner, and not in that Ecclesiastical manner which Bishops and Clergy men use) can no way justly be misliked, but must, in all reason, be well approved and allowed. Howbeit, I grant, that King Henry the eight, and King Edward the sixth, had that Title of (Head) in their times given unto them, but not, of the universal Church upon earth (as the Pope hath) but of the Church only within their own Dominions: and not within their own Dominions neither, in such sort and sense as the Pope taketh upon him to be Head over all the Churches in the world; that is, to rule and govern them at his own pleasure, and as he lift himself. Indeed Stephen Gardner, Bishop of Winchester, when he was in Germany, upon the King's affairs, was there a very ill Interpreter of that Title (Supreme head of the Church, within his own Dominions) given to King Henry the eight: reporting that the King might thereby, prescribe and appoint new ordinances in the Church, concerning faith and doctrine, as namely, forbid the marriage of Priests; and take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and in things concerning Religion, might do what he listed. This manner of declaring the King's power and authority under that Title, did so much offend the reformed Churches, 
Calvin. in Amos 7.13. Praefat. in Centur.  that Calvin, and the writers of the Centuries, did complain of it (and that justly and worthily) bearing that sense, but in no other sort or sense, did they dislike it. Yea, even that Title of Supreme head, being rightly understood, needed not to have offended any: for they had i● in no other sort or sense, than the King of Israel likewise had the title, of Head, 
1▪ Sam. 15.17.  of the Tribes of Israel; of which Tribes, the levitical Tribe, was one. Or, than Theodosius, that Christian Emperor, had the like within his Empire▪ of whom Saint Chrysostome saith, 
Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 2.  that, non habet parem super terram, He hath no peer or equal upon earth: and affirmeth moreover of him, that he was summitas & Caput omnium super terram hominum, the Head, and one that had the Supremacy, over all men, upon earth. Yea, by the Title of supreme Head, attributed to King Henry the eight, and King Edward the sixth, was no more meant, but the very same, that was afterward meant to the late Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, or to King james our now Sovereign Lord, under the title of Supreme Governor: for that they are both to be taken & intended in one & the self same sense, is very manifest, even by a direct clause in an Act of Parliament, viz. the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 1. in which also, is declared, 
Statute of 5. Eliz cap 1. Racked. Crown 8.  how the Oath of Supremacy, is to be expounded. And the words of that Statute, be these: Provided also, that the Oath (viz of Supremacy) expressed in the said Act made in the said first year (of her reign) shall be taken and expounded in such form, as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, published in the same first year of her Majesty's reign: that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her heirs and successors, none other authority, then that which was challenged and lately used by the noble king Henry the eight, and king Edward the sixth, as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear. Where first, you may observe, the Authority attributed to King Henry the eight, and to King Edward the sixth, and to Queen Elizabeth, as touching this point, intended and declared, to be all one. And secondly, you see it enacted, how the Oath of Supremacy, is to be expounded, namely, that it is to be taken & expounded, in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, published in the same first year of her Reign: The words of which Admonition therefore, as more amply containing the explanation of the same Oath, I have here thought good to add, for your better and most full satisfaction in this matter. The Title whereof, is this:  

An Admonition to simple men, deceived by the malicious.  
HEr Majesty forbiddeth all her subjects, to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the Oath of Supremacy, it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Realm, possessioners of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices, in the Church; wherein, her said subjects be much abused, by such evil disposed persons: for certainly, her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge, any other authority, then that which was, of ancient time, due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: that is to say, under God, to have the Sovereignty and rule over all manner of Persons borne within these her Majesty's Dominions and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soever they be: So as no foreign Power, shall or aught to have any superiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall accept of the same Oath with this interpretation, sense or meaning; her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such, in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner penalties contained in the said All, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.   
The words of that Admonition, being thus set down, I shall need to say no more. For hereby you see, I trust, very fully, the true, certain, and undoubted sense, scope, meaning, and interpretation of the Oath. Why therefore should any be so contentious, or malicious, as to wrest, or wring it, to a contrary meaning, or such as it never intended? For hereby appeareth, that, although the king be supreme Governor within his own Dominions, yet it is explained, That he is supreme Governor, under God: so that by reason thereof, the King neither doth, nor can take upon him, any authority over God's word or ordinances, to devise, alter, or frame religion as he list, as some very odiously and no less strangely, have inferred. Such thoughts be far from his godly mind. Neither when it is said at any time, That the King hath Authority or jurisdiction ecclesiastical, is any other thing meant thereby, but his jurisdiction or Authority in Ecclesiastical causes, and over ecclesiastical persons: and thereby is not meant or intended, (as some again very absurdly and malignantly have imagined) That the King hath any such authority as is merely Ecclesiastical, and proper to Bishops, Pastors, and such like Ministers of the Church, (as namely, to preach, to minister the Sacraments, to excommunicate, to absolve, to consecrate Bishops, or such like): for the exposition of the Oath (which is before delivered in the Admonition, and ratified by an express Act of Parliament) directly declareth the contrary to that conceit. And therefore his Majesty's authority in Ecclesiastical causes, must not be conceived to be any such, as is properly Sacerdotal or Episcopal; but such as is, rightly and properly, Regal and Imperial. Which Regal and Imperial Authority, ought no more to be denied unto him, then that which is merely and properly Sacerdotal or Episcopal, may be denied to Priests or Bishops. What should hinder then, but that ye all may (as ye ought) utterly renounce and forsake for ever, the Papal, and all foreign jurisdictions whatsoever, and further also promise (according to the tenor of the Oath), to your power, to assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities, granted or belonging to the King, his heirs, and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: considering that there is no Authority in these matters ecclesiastical, granted or belonging to the King, or united or annexed to his Crown, but such as appeareth to be lawful, and is rightly Regal and Imperial; and which, withal, in no sort wrongeth the authority of any other Church governors of God's institution whosoever. Yea, the King is so far from encroaching, or intruding upon, or impugning, or hindering any of the offices or authorities granted or belonging unto them from God, that chose, he leaveth all those rights and authorities wholly and entirely unto them to be executed: and (which is more) such is his most godly and Christian disposition, that to that their divine Calling, Ambassage, and Ministry, 
1. Thess. 5 12.  enjoined them from God, and by them sincerely and faithfully administered, himself, in his ow●● person, most readily, 
Heb 13.17.  and willingly, yieldeth both reverence, and, obedience; 
2. Cor 5.20.  as well knowing, that in respect of God (whose Ambassadors, 
Matth. 28.20.  and Ministers they be, and whose word and will only, they are to teach and deliver) the greatest King is but a subject: Howbeit, nevertheless, otherwise, and in respect of their own persons, it must be confessed, that they be subject unto him, and owe him obedience, and are in all duty and humility, to perform the same unto him. So that, I hope you now sufficiently perceive, that his Majesty's Supremacy under God, & his government and authority as touching causes & persons ecclesiastical (being such as is only Regal and Imperial, and no way derogatory, prejudicial, or injurious, to any Bishops, Pastors, or Ministers that be of divine Institution, or to their offices and functions, but rather very much helpful to them in their places) is so far from being to be disliked, that chose being rightly understood, it is ever to be allowed, and that with much praise & thanks unto God for the same, whose gracious ordinance it is, for the further good, & greater comfort and benefit, of his Church and Religion.   

CAP. II.  
Wherein is showed; That our Church was in the Apostles days, and in all times and ages since: howsoever, that which we call Popery, did as an Infection, or, Corruption, grow unto it, whereof, it was again to be purged, and so to become (as we call it) a reformed Church: and that all these things came thus to pass, in the Church, according to the Prophecies thereof formerly delivered in Gods own Book. AND, What is to be thought of those forefathers of ours, that lived and died in the time of Popery: AS ALSO, That long before the Days of King HENRY the eight, and long before LUTHER or CALVIN were borne, the Pope of Rome was complained of, and exclaimed against, and affirmed and published to be Antichrist: as also Popish Rome affirmed to be the whore of Babylon, mentioned in the Revelation of S. john.  
BEfore I enter to speak of the other particular points hereafter mentioned, it will not be amiss here to speak something, in a general sort, concerning God's Church and his Religion. For how confident and resolute soever, some take upon them to be, in that Popish Religion they hold and profess; yet is that no proof, that therefore they be right: for not only those of a right Religion, but those also of a wrong, be very resolute and confident, as appeareth by all Sectaries, Heretics, and schismatics, who be very pertinacious and resolute for the maintenance of their several errors and opinions. Neither is it a reason sufficient for them, to say, they follow the ways of their forefathers and ancestors, except they be sure that they went the right way: for we are not to follow our forefathers and ancestors, in any vices or errors they held, be they otherwise never so dear unto us. Walk not ye (saith God) in the ordinances of your fathers, 
Ezech. 20.18, 19  nor observe ye their manners, nor defile yourselves with their Idols: I am the Lord your God: walk ye in my statutes, and keep my judgements, and do them. Yea, ye may remember, that it is written thus of some people (who are therefore much reproved): So did their children, and their children's children: As did their fathers, 
2. Kin. 18.40, 41.  so do they unto this day. Where further it is said: that notwithstanding this following of their forefathers, and doing after their old custom, yet they obeyed not God. Nor is it sufficient for them to say, they follow the doctrine or direction of their Priests, Teachers, and Leaders, unless they be sure that they direct, and teach aright: 
Matth. 7.15. 1 joh. 4.1. Matth. 15.14.  for there be false Teachers as well as true Teachers, and some that be blind leaders of the blind, who cannot therein excuse the People, because, They both (as Christ himself affirmeth in that case) do fall into the Ditch. Neither is it a sure or sufficient ground for any of them to build upon, to say, that their Religion of Popery, is of a great & long continuance in the world. For, Paganism, and Mahometisme, have been likewise of very great and long continuance in the world, and yet are they never the truer, for all that. A Custom therefore▪ or Prescription, or Continuance, though it be for many hundreth years in the world, nor any Antiquity ye can allege, though you could allege it never so truly, is not sufficient in this case, unless it be the most ancient antiquity, extant in the days of the Apostles, and from their times deduced, and in the sacred and Canonical Scriptures to be seen, and there approved. For there is an Antiquity in Error, and wickedness, as well as in Piety and right Religion: and a Mystery of Iniquity, 
2. Thess. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 1. Tim. 3.16.  as well as a Mystery of Godliness: and, an Antichristianisme, as well as a Christianisme; and a growth, succession, and proceeding in them both: they both growing together, as Wheat and Tares do in a field, until they be separated. 
Matth. 13.30. 2. Thess. 2.7.  Which Mystery of Iniquity, otherwise called Antichristianisme (that ye may know of what Antiquity it is) S. Paul telleth you, that it began to work in the Apostles days, even in his time: 
1. joh. 2.18. 1. joh. 4.3. 2. joh. 7.  And so also doth S. john expressly testify, although it then climbed not to that great growth and height, that afterward, by little and little, and by degrees, it ascended unto. So that Mystical Iniquity, or (which is all one) Antichristian Errors and heresies, began (as you see) very early, and went on forward, endeavouring to corrupt and infect God's Church, and his Religion; and in continuance of time so increased and prevailed, as that at last, like a Leprosy, it overspread the whole Body: miserably defiling, polluting, and deforming it, and that for sundry Ages; even until the time appointed of God, came, wherein Antichrist, 
2. Thess. 2.8.  and that mystery of Iniquity, were to be discovered, and that the Church and Religion thereupon were to be reform by the Book of the Holy Scriptures opened, 
Revel. 10.2.8, 9, 10, 11.  and the true doctrine thereout, once again, preached and delivered to the world: which was not to come to pass, until the sixth Angel had begun to blow his Trumpet (as is showed in the Revelation of S. john); 
Rev. 9.13. etc. Rev. 10.2.8, 9, 10, 11.  that is, not till toward the latter end of the world. For under the blowing of the Trumpet, by the seventh Angel, the world is to end, (as appeareth in the same Revelation). 
Rev. 10.7. Rev. 11.15, 16, 17, 18.  Now then, what cause hath any, (knowing and considering these Prophecies in the Book of God, concerning the state of the Church) to marvel or wonder, that the Church and religion had such corruptions, and so many errors, by degrees, accrued unto it, and continued so long in them: or, where, our Church and Religion was, all that while? For this Prophecy and foretelling of these things, thus to come to pass, (namely, that the Church was to have these corruptions to grow upon it, and to be continued therein, for so long a time, and that, it was not to begin to be reform or purged of them, until the blowing of the Trumpet by the sixth Angel) giveth a full answer, solution, and satisfaction, to all those demands, and requireth every one to cease questioning, marvailing, or wondering any longer in that behalf. Would any then know, where our Church was all that while, and until they made an actual separation from the Popish Assemblies? The answer is very easy and apparent, namely, that it was, where those corruptions were, and even where the Papacy and Antichristianisme was. For God's people do sometimes dwell and be, even where Satan's Throne is: yea, Antichrist himself, being, at length, mounted aloft, and placed in his Throne, 
Revel. 2.13.  did then (as was foretold he should do) sit in the Temple of God, domineering over it. So that protestancy and Popery, that is, 
2. Thes. 2.4.  true Christianity and Antichristianisme, were then mingled together, with much grief and sorrow to the true Christians, until they, afterwards, through the cruelty and persecution of their enemies, and in detestation of their abominations, were forced to make, and did make an actual separation from them. Which thing also was foretold, that so it should come to pass: for a voice sounding from heaven, commanded them to, Come from them, to a more pure and heavenly-minded Church, and to Go out from amongst them, 
Revel. 11.12.  lest being partakers of their sins, they should also receive of their plagues. When they were thus commanded to depart, 
Rev. 18.4.  and to separate themselves, and to go out from amongst them, it is evident, that, before, and until this their departure, and going out from them, they were amongst them, and intermingled with them. Yea even in those times, namely, under the blowing of the Trumpet by the sixth Angel, when the Temple came to be measured, it is apparent, 
Rev. 11.12. etc.  that the false Christians (there noted under the name of Gentiles) were the most and greatest number, and did tread the rest that were the true Christians, under foot: so that, even then, (as there appeareth) there were some that were right and true worshippers of God, in that Temple. Yea, even during the time that they were thus intermingled together, did God, nevertheless distinguish, & put a difference between them: for he would have one part, namely Atrium, that is, The Court, or, outer part, (under which those false Christians, that is, the Antichristian people, are comprehended, which outwardly pretended to worship God aright, and yet were not the right and true worshippers of him indeed) to be excluded, and not to be measured, or reckoned as any part of the holy City, or holy Temple, that is, of the true Christian Church. 
Rev. 11.2.  Which I here observe, the rather, because some▪ upon this, That Antichrist was to sit in the Temple of God, very inconsequently, and no less untruly, infer, that therefore the Popish or Antichristian Church or people, be the true Church. For you see them here, directly excluded, from being any part of the holy City, or true Church. Albeit therefore both Protestants and Papists were in those times, thus, intermingled together, yet was not the Papacy the true Church, as is here apparent. For, indeed, Popery, to the Church is but as a corruption, contagion, or disease, is, to the body of a man, or as a plague or pestilence is to a City: and therefore they that made a separation from Popery, separated themselves, not from the Church of God, but from the disease, corruption, and contagion of the Church, and from the plague and pestilence in that City; and consequently cannot, but most unjustly, be termed schismatics: especially considering, that they also made this their separation, by the warrant of Gods own voice, and commandment from heaven, enjoining them thereunto, as is before declared. Neither would they have departed or gone out from them, that is, from the Papists, but that they, namely the Papists, had first departed, and gone, from the soundness, truth, and sincerity of the most ancient, primitive, and Apostolic Churches. Well therefore doth one use this similitude, 
M White, in his his Book, called, The way to the true Church.  that as when a fair pool of water, becometh, in time, corrupted, weeds do grow, mud increaseth, and Frogs be engendered in it, the owner thereof cutteth a channel, and leaving the corruption, draws the water to another place, and so useth it, without danger; and the Frogs remaining, can take no just exception for this departure and separation of the water from them, nor can claim the water to be theirs: so neither can the Papacy accuse us for our departure or going out of their defiled and deformed Church, sith God (the Lord and owner of his Church) would have us so to do, and so long as we left nothing behind us, but the mud, frogs, and weeds; and that which was the clear and pure water, before their coming, we still possess, hold and retain. You now see then, I hope, where our Church was, in all times and ages, even during all the time of the reign of the Papacy, and until we made an actual separation from it: And much more, I trust, you perceive it, since our separation. For the Protestants reform Churches, have ever since that time, been very visible, and still be (thanks be to God) very splendent, even to the eyes of the most malignant world.  
2 If any do further ask, as they are sometime wont to do, what is become of our forefathers and ancestors, that lived and died in the time of Popery: As we do and must leave them unto God, whose secret counsels and judgements, it is not fit for us to search into, or to determine of; yet this we say, That we hope well, and make no doubt of the salvation of many of them. First, because, for a long time, there were in the Papacy, both true Christians and false Christians, right worshippers of God and false worshippers, intermingled together, namely, until that time aforesaid of an actual separation: yea, the holy Scriptures, and Sacraments, (the public Ensigns of God's Church) were there, though much corrupted, & abused▪ Which Ensigns being displayed in the Popish Church▪ & nothing but Christianity there pretended (though indeed there was also direct Antichristianisme intermingled) it was an easy matter▪ for many simple souls, that were not able to judge and discern of these things, thereby to be deceived. For (as Chrysostome, or, whosoever was the Author of the imperfect work, saith) Antichrist sitting in the holy places of the Church, and possessing the Churches, 
In opere imperf. in Matth. 49.  was to have all that in show, which the Church of Christ hath in Truth: viz. Churches, Scriptures, Bishops, Clerks, Baptism, Eucharist, etc. So that many, no doubt, in those days, under colour of those Ensigns and shows, were (as they be also at this day) deceived; and, thinking all to be well, followed the Pope and Papacy: like those two hundreth, who in simplicity of heart, followed Absalon from Jerusalem, 
2. Sam. 16.11.  knowing nothing of his treason and rebellion intended. Or, like as if a close and hidden Traitor, being once, and of a long time formerly, in good grace and esteem with his King, should under colour and pretence of the King his Master's service, summon all his true subjects to follow him▪ pretending a Commission from him, for that purpose, which nevertheless included no such matter in it, as he pretended: In this case, even some good subjects, not knowing of his treason, and believing his Commission to be true, and to import as much as he divulged it for, and the pretender of it to be a right honest and loyal man, and to be still in good grace & esteem with his King; receiving no advertisement to the contrary, might possibly so far be deceived, as to follow him for a while, until the Treason were discovered, and therein might, so far forth, in some sort be held pardonable. So concerning such, as in those times followed the Bishop of Rome (who was once a good Bishop) pretending himself to be made Head, Ruler, and Monarch of the whole and universal Church upon earth, and that by warrant and Commission from Christ; when indeed, whatsoever he pretended, he had no such Commission from him: In this case, so long as they followed him, 
1. Tim. 1.13.  but in ignorance and simplicity, thinking all things to be right and well, and as they ought to be, and receiving no advertisement to the contrary; God might, and we hope he did, receive many of those to mercy. But such as knew the Pope to be an usurper, and a traitor to Christ, the only and true King and Head of the universal Church, or being advertised thereof, would nevertheless make no regard of any such advertisement or admonitions, but would, maugre all admonitions, wilfully persist and adhere unto him, and to his false and Antichristian doctrine, and designs; be not so excusable. And this kind of difference S. Cyprian maketh, when he saith thus: 
Cyprian in Psalmo, Ad quid justificationes meas, & assumis testamentum meum per os● tuum etc.  If any of our predecessors or Ancestors, either of ignorance or of a simplicity, have not held and kept that which our Lord taught them by his authority and example, him the mercy of our Lord might have pardoned and forgiven: But we (saith he) for our parts may not hope for the like favour, because we are now admonished and instructed by him. But secondly we answer, That though this mystery of Iniquity, did cast into the doctrine and Religion of Christ, a great deal of Poison, so that it hath infected with his venom, the most dainty meats, that God hath given for the spiritual nourishment of his people; yet did God give grace to some to abstain from it, to some others to cast it up again, to others to dissever it from the sound meat, to others to overcome it: 〈◊〉 that many escaped the danger of it. For example, how many of the common people were, in those times, never acquainted with those pestiferous distinctions of Merits, de Congruo, and de Condigno: or, with that distinction of Doulia, and latria, and huper doulia, &c: or understood them not, or else believed them not? For even at this day, they understand not these distinctions. Yea many of the common people will at this day say, that they serve God only, and not Images in any sort, howsoever their great Rabbis and Masters (in these distinctions) do otherwise teach: As likewise many of them at this day, will say, that they do not believe to be saved by any merits of their own, but by God's mercy only; whatsoever Friars, Monks, Priests, or Jesuits, teach or write to the contrary. Yea, even amongst the learned themselves also, as well as amongst the vulgar and common people, there were some that held that fundamental point of their salvation, to be only of Gods mere mercy, and through faith in Christ, and not of their own inherent righteousness, or through their own merits or works in any sort. An example whereof we have in S. Bernard himself, who though he lived in the times of Popery, and was himself an Abbot, yet in the extremity of his sickness, and the end of his days, this was his refuge: I confess (saith he) I am not worthy, 
In vita Bernard.  neither can I obtain the kingdom of heaven by mine own merits: But my Lord obtaining it by a double right; by inheritance from the father, and by the merit of his Passion: he being content with the one, giveth me the other; and claiming it by the gift which he hath made me thereof, I shall not be confounded. Again he saith: My merit, 
Bern. in Cantic. Card Contaren. Tract. de justificatione. Pig●. de fide & justificatione. Colon. in Antidag. 1. Cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Aug. lib. 1. cont. julian. Pelag. cap. 6. Greg Niss. de hom. opific. ca ult.  is the Lords mercy: I am not poor in merits, because he is rich in mercies: I have greatly sinned, but I will remember the wounds of my Lord, etc. Contarenus a Cardinal, did also in that time, hold justification by faith in Christ: and so did sundry others in those days. Now so long as a man holdeth the foundation, though he err in other points that be not fundamental, he may be saved▪ as S. Paul showeth, and S. Augustine, & Gregory Nyssen, do also declare. But thirdly, if it were so, that some of our forefathers and ancestors were in their life time, (as likely enough it is, that too many of them were) horribly polluted & defiled with the corruptions of those times, yet who can tell how they died? For sundry live wickedly, who nevertheless may dye very godly and penitently, as did that good Thief at Christ his Crucifixion. 
Luke 23.40, 41, 42, 43.  It is therefore no good argument, to say, They lived in the profession of Popery: Ergo they died so: for divers, we see, die otherwise then they lived▪ and God was as well able to give them a right faith, and repentance, and to convert them unto himself before their death, or at the instant of their death; as any others. Yea, I think, that few or none that be well advised or considerate persons, whatsoever they profess at other times, will dare to dye Papists, that is, in a belief and confidence to be saved by their own works and merits, or by a righteousness inherent in their own persons, but that they will then, at that time of their death, rely, wholly and altogether, upon God's mercy, and Christ his merits, renouncing utterly their own, as S. Bernard did. For even Bellarmine himself also, 
Bellar. de justificat. lib. 5. c. 7.  writing in these late times, notwithstanding whatsoever he had said before in defence of merits, yet concludeth against them, and teacheth, that, Tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate reponere: It is the safest way, to put our whole confidence, only in the mercy of God and his bounty. But, fourthly, many and sundry, living in those times, and being much grieved, and groaning under the Pope's tyranny, made hold to utter their complaints, and to cry out as loud as they could, or at least, as they durst, against both Pope & Popery: Amongst whom was the forenamed, S. Bernard, 
Bern. de cons. ad Eugen. lib. 2. cap. 2 & lib. 6. cap. 3▪ & cap. 8.  who calleth the Pope's doctrines or pastures, Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua, Pastures rather for Devils then for sheep: where he further inveigheth against the Pope and his Clergy, saying, Omiserandam sponsam talibus creditam paranymphis: O miserable spouse, which art committed to such Leaders or such Overseers. And again he saith: O good jesus, 
Epist 42 ad Hen. Archiepisc. Se●onensis▪ & apud Hugon. in postil super johan. cap. 1.  all Christendom seemeth to have conspired against thee: they are chief in persecuting of thee, which seem to hold the Primacy, and to bear principality in the Church. Iniquity is come from thy Vicars, even from those that seem▪ to govern thy people: They have possessed the Fort of Zion, seized upon the munitions, and they burn with all their power the whole City: Miserable is their conversation, and miserable is the subversion of thy people, etc. They do wickedly against Christ, and there be many Antichrists in our times. A stinking infection this day creepeth over all the body of the Church: and, the Deeper it is, so much the more desperate: and the more Inward that it is, so much the more perilous: for if it were an open Enemy, he might be cast out, and he would wither: or, if it were a violent Enemy, a man might hide himself from him: But what is now to be done? whither shall the Church drive him? or where shall she hide herself from him? All friends, and yet all enemies: all kinsfolks, and yet all adversaries: They are (in pretence) the Ministers of Christ, and yet they serve Antichrist: Woe (saith he) to this generation, because of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is Hypocrisy: If yet it be to be Termed Hypocrisy, which is not able to hide is self, it is so abundant: nor yet seeketh to conceal itself, it is so impudent. And in another place he saith further: That the Beast spoken of in the Revelation (cap. 13.) to which a mouth is given to speak blasphemies, 
Epist. 125.  and to make war with the Saints of God, is now gotten into Saint Peter's chair, as a Lion prepared to his prey.  
4 You see then, that many hundreth years before the days of King Henry the eight, and before Luther or Calvin were borne, the Pope of Rome and his Clergy, were complained of, and exclaimed against. But this shall yet further appear, for your better satisfaction. For under the reign of Hugh Capet in France, about the year of our Lord 1000, there was held a national Council at Rheims, 
Concil. Rhemens. sub Capeto, & eius filio.  wherein was Precedent, Arnold, that famous Bishop of Orleans: It was there handled and proved by the Canons of former Counsels, That the Bishop of Rome had nothing to do in France: That a Council was more to be respected then his Sea: That the time was when Rome brought forth good or tolerable Bishops, but now alas (saith this Arnold) in place of these, she bringeth forth nought else but Monsters. And there reckoning up divers wicked Bishops of Rome, and among the rest, one Boniface, a Monster, exceeding in wickedness, and having his hands imbrued in his predecessors blood: (he addeth): And must so many the good servants of God over all the world, needs be subject to such Monsters? and than concludeth: Reverend Fathers, whom do you think this man to be which sitteth upon the high Throne, glittering in gold and scarlet? For whom do you take him? Verily, if he be without the love of God, and be puffed up and extolled for his knowledge only, he is Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, showing himself as if he were God: But if he be neither founded in love, nor set up for knowledge, he is an Image, and as an Idol, in God's Temple, and to go to him to ask counsel or for answers, is to ask counsel of a stone. And therefore he cryeth out: O Lugenda Roma, O Rome to be lamented. Again, about the year of our Lord, 1100, 
Epist. Leodiensis Ecclesiae. ad Paschalem. 2. in 2. volumine Conciliorum.  the whole Church of Liege, uttered the like voice: For where Pope Paschall the second, would have war made upon the Emperor, promising to give remission of sins and assurance of everlasting life, to all that would do it, and on the other side, to excommunicate all those that would show obedience to him, They say thus: Because We keep the Law of God, they object against us, that we transgress their new Traditions. But God saith unto them, why do you transgress the commandments of God by your Traditions? God commandeth to give unto Cesar, the things which are Caesar's, and to God that which is Gods: which S. Peter and S. Paul do likewise teach▪ honour the King: let every soul be subject to the higher powers. He that commands every soul to do this, whom doth he exempt from this earthly power? Because therefore we honour the King, and serve our Lords and Masters, in the simplicity of our hearts, are we therefore excommunicated, & c? who can reprehend a Bishop for keeping his faith and loyalty to his Prince? and yet they that tear in sunder the kingdom and Priesthood, with new Schisms, and new Traditions, promise to absolve them from the sin of perjury, that break their faith to their king. Suppose (say they) our Emperor were an heretic: yet is he not to be repelled as such a one, by us, by taking arms against him: yea, they allege that the Prophet jeremy prayed for Nabuchadnezzar; and S. Paul for Nero: and add further; Which of the Popes of Rome hath by his Decrees, given authority, that a Bishop should use the sword of war against any offenders? All from Gregory the first, used the spiritual sword alone, unto the last Gregory, who was the first that armed himself (and by his example, others) with the sword of war, against the Emperor, &c, You say, that if a man be excommunicate, for what cause soever, if he die in that estaete, he is damned: But the Authority of the Church of Rome (say they) helpeth us in this point, who teach, that the Bishop of Rome hath power to absolve any that is unjustly excommunicated by others: If then the Bishop of Rome may do this, who will say, that God cannot absolve, whomsoever the Pope hath unjustly excommunicated? yea, the Pope's curse of Excommunication, they make no reckoning of, but contemn and despise it: but above all (say they) we fear that which the spirit of God by the mouth of the Psalmist hath said, viz. Cursed are all they that decline from his commandments. That Curse of excommunication, which Pope Hildebrand, Odoardus, and this Third, have by a new Tradition indiscreetely brought in, we wholly reject: and we hold and reverence those first holy Fathers, unto this day, who by the motion of God's spirit, not carried with their own affections, have otherwise ordained, etc. forasmuch therefore, as we stick to the Ancient rule, and are not carried away with every wind of Doctrine: we are called Excommunicates, false Clerks, etc. Howbeit, let Pope Paschall, lay aside his spirit of presumption, and let him advisedly consider with his Counsellors, how from Silvester, to Hildebrand, the Popes have obtained the chair at Rome: what, and how many outrages have been committed by the Ambition of that Sea, etc. As for those Legates à latere, who run through the world, to fill their purses, we (say they) wholly reject them, according to those Counsels of Africa, held in the times of Zozimus, Caelestinus, and Boniface: for, that we may know theraby their fruits, there proceeds from their legations, no correction of manners or amendment of life, but the slaughters of men, and the spoil of God's Church, etc. That there should be such desolation of the Church, such oppression of the poor and widows, such cruelty, such rapine, and (which is worse) such effusion of blood, without respect of good and evil, and all this, and worse than all this, Done, by the Commandment of the Pope, who would believe it, if his own mouth had not spoken it? We remain astonished at the novelty of these things, and we inquire from whence this new Example should come: That, the Preacher of peace with his own mouth, and the hand of another man, should make war against the Church of God, etc. Where further they directly affirm Rome to be Babylon, and say, that the Apostle so calleth it, as foreseeing by a Prophetical spirit, The confusion of that dissension wherewith the Church at this day, is torn in pieces etc. And a great deal more is spoken in that Epistle of theirs, which though it be long and large, is worthy the reading over. And this, no doubt, moved the Bishop of Florence also, in the year 1106, 
Acta vita Paschalis.  publicly to preach, that Antichrist was borne, and then in Esse: which Pope Paschall understanding of, and being much grieved therewith, took the pains to go himself in person, to Florence, to stop the mouth of this Bishop: And (fearing, as it seems, to stir in the matter, too much) contented himself only to admonish him, to desist from this bold enterprise, 
Sigon lib. 9 de regno It●l.  lest otherwise, indeed, the truth of that matter, should more strongly break out. But yet further, about the year 1150. The letters of the Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, to the Princes of Germany, be sufficiently known: wherein he showeth unto them, that the Pope had no other drift, but to set his foot upon the Emperor's head, that so he might the more easily overcome the members: And upon this it was, 
Radevie. in Appendice Frisingensis.  (saith Radevicus) That the Pope was not ashamed to maintain, that the Emperor was his man, and held the Empire of him. Yea, the Popes are gone so far (saith Aventinus) that they affect both domination and deity: 
Avent. in Boi●rum histor.  so that they will be feared of all, as God, yea, more than God: pretending that they are not bound to give account of their Actions to any: That amongst them be many Antichrists, and that indeed there be none more pernicious to the Christian Religion, than the Popes. The same Emperor, in his letters to King Wencislaus, saith, that the high Bishops of Babylon, that is, of Rome, do sit long over the Temple of God, and seize upon the divinity: that to please the desire of these false Christ's, th● Princes do ruinate one another, and all states be in a combustion: That they be blind which see not, that they be cruel wolfs, which under sheep's clothing, spoil the flock of Christ. And that this was the judgement also even of sundry of the German Church, as well as of the Emperor, appeareth by the oration of an Archbishop to the States of the Empire: 
In oratione Archimistae ad Proceres Imperij.  for (saith he) He that is the servant of servants, as if he were God, coveteth to be the Lord of Lords: he disclaimeth the counsel of his brethren, or rather of his Lords: He feareth lest he should be forced to give account of that which he doth, and usurpeth every day, over the laws: He uttereth great things, as if he were God: He coineth new devises in his mind, to appropriate the Empire to himself; he changeth the good laws, and establisheth his own: he profaneth, he raveneth: he spoileth, he defraudeth, he massacreth: even that man of perdition doth this, whom they are wont to call Antichrist: in whose forehead, this name of blasphemy is written; I am a God, I cannot err. He sitteth in the Temple of God, and Ruleth far and wide, etc. Petrus Blessensis, 
Petrus Blessens. in Epist. ad quendam officialem.  likewise, very earnestly adviseth all good men to depart from Rome, as from the midst of Babylon: And Sigebertus also, witnesseth, that for the most part, all that were good, just, open hearted, ingenuous, and plain-dealing men, 
Sigeb. ●onach. Gemblacens. apud Aventin. de Tyrant Pontifici●.  held, That the kingdom of Antichrist was then, and in those days. About which time also the Waldenses and Albigenses in France, did openly sequester themselves from the Romish Church, holding and maintaining amongst other articles (as the books of their adversaries themselves do witness) That Popish Rome is the Babylon mentioned in the Revelation, and that the Pope is the very Antichrist, foretold in the Scriptures. And about the year 1230, one William Bishop of Paris, 
Guilielm. Episc. Paris. lib. de Collat. Benefic.  likewise feared not to call Rome, Babylon, Egypt, Sodom: and her Prelates, Profaners and spoilers of the True Spouse of Christ, that established Lucifer again in the heaven of Christ's Church▪ Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, Sebaldus Archbishop of York, and Probus Bishop of Thoul, did in their times also, mightily inveigh against the Pope. One Haiabalus, a Franciscan, 
Henric. de Erphordia, de Haiabal● circa Ann. 1345.  preached openly in Avinian, That the Pope and his Cardinals were Antichrist, and that the Popish Church was the Whore of Babylon, mentioned in the Revelation: And being sent for by Pope Clement the sixth, he affirmed, that he was commanded from God to publish it, and that he could not otherwise do. Francis Petrarch (Archdeacon of Parma, and a Cannon of Milan) who lived about the year 1350, 
Petrarch. lib. Epist. 14 epist. 17. epist. 19  and who for all kind of learning might be called the light of his age, not only in his Sonnets, but even in his Epistles also, exclaimeth against the Pope, his Court, and Church, saying: That the Pope's Chair, is the Chair of lying; that it is a Defection, a Revolt, an Apostasy of a people, that under the Standard of Christ, rebel against Christ, and fight for Satan: That the Papacy, and no other, is the Babylon, the mother of all the whoredoms of the earth, etc. Nicholaus Oresmus also, 
Nicho. Oresmus in Orat. habit coram Papa: Vrban. 5.  (who lived about the year 1364.) feared not to say, before Pope Vrban the fifth, That the Church of Rome was worse, than whilom was the jewish Synagogue: That the Time of Antichrist (spoken of in 2. Thess. 2,) was come, seeing the Roman Empire was desolated: and that between the desolation thereof, and the coming of Antichrist, there was no middle time: thereby signifying plainly enough, that Antichrist then was in being, and had his seat in Rome. Which thing also, 
johan. de rup. sciss. in lib. prophetico cui Titulus, Vade mecum.  johannes de Rupe scissa, a Franciscan Friar, was bold to affirm, before Pope Vrban the sixth: for which, he was prisoner a long time in Avinion. These (to pretermit sundry other Authorities and Testimonies, which might be further cited, if need were) sufficiently declare, that many hundreth years before King HENRY the Eight, or LUTHER, or CALVIN were borne, the Pope of Rome was held & published to be Antichrist, and the Beast spoken of in the Revelation; and that Popish Rome, was the Whore of Babylon: as also, they show, where our Church was all that while, until they made an actual separation from the Pope and Popery. And where it hath been ever since, is a thing so well known, and apparent, that it needeth not to be showed. And thus much may suffice to have spoken generally. Now let us proceed to other matters.   
FINIS LIBRI PRIMI.   

THE SECOND PART of the BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
Wherein that point, concerning the infallible judge of these controversies, is amplified, and further debated and declared. And, what Scriptures be Canonical, and what not: Of the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures, without Traditions: That the Church, is to be tried and decided by the Scriptures. And who be the right Catholics: That the Scriptures in their originals be incorrupt, and to be preferred before that which is called S. Hieromes Translation, and before all other Translations, whatsoever: That the public Service should be in such a Tongue as the people▪ may understand: That Lay-people may and aught to read the Scriptures: And whence all right exposition of them is to be had.  
AS we are all under one God, and under one King; and the same a most worthy, learned, virtuous, and Christian King: so were it very consonant and convenient (if by any good means it might be brought to pass) that we did all hold and profess one and the self same true faith & Christian Religion. For, indeed, not any unity or agreement in falsehood or errors, but an unity or agreement in the truth and true Religion, is the thing that ought of all to be sought after and desired. But now which is that one true Christian Religion, which all aught to embrace, is that which is made the great Question: namely, whether it be Protestancy, or Papistry, inasmuch as both these, lay claim unto it. Wherein, if God, speaking in his own sacred and Canonical Scriptures, may be (as is most fit he should be) allowed to be the judge, then is this which is made so great a question, soon decided and at an end: it being by him there clearly resolved, that not that which is called Papistry, but that which is called Protestancy, is the right and true Christian Religion. For what be Protestant's (as they be in this Controversy distinguished against Papists) but such as profess to build their Faith and Religion wholly and altogether upon that undoubted word of God, the sacred and Canonical Scriptures? And what is Papistry on the other side, but a profession of such a Faith and Religion as is not so grounded, but relieth partly upon unwritten Traditions, partly upon the determination of the Popes, & partly upon the Decrees of their Counsels and voice of their own Church and Teachers, and upon such like strengths and stays, as whereby they may easily be deceived. Howbeit, what cause is there, why the pretended Catholics should not allow God, speaking in his divine and Canonical Scriptures, to be the judge, in these Controversies? For is there, or can there be any higher, better, juster, or surer judge to trust unto, than he? or is there any equal to him, or comparable with him? What mean they herein? Would they have their own Church, Clergy, Counsels, and Pope to be the judge? That were not fit, nor equal, ye know, that such as be parties, should also be the judges in their own cause. Yea if their Council of Constance, and Council of Trent, or any other of their Counsels, were much better than they be, (as they be, indeed, none of the best sort) yet were they not to be held for sure or infallible judges in this case, for any to build his faith upon, or to trust unto them, without further search and examination. For all their Counsels, be they never so general, consist of men, and of such men, as may possibly fall into error, and be themselves deceived, either through ignorance and want of sufficient knowledge, or through corruption, partiality, or through some one means, or other. Their Counsels, I am sure, are not better than those that were in Gregory Nazianzens time, nor altogether so good: and yet he saith, out of his own observation, 
Nazianzen▪ ad Procop.  of the Counsels of his time; that, The lust of strife, and desire to bear rule, did reign there, many times. And Eusebius saith likewise of those times, that, 
Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 1. cap. 8.  The chief Rulers of the Church▪ forgetting God's commandments, were inflamed one against another, with contention, emulation, pride, malice, and hatred. And therefore, it appeareth to be a thing possible enough, even for general Counsels, (aswell as for Provincial) sometime to err and go astray. For example, They remember the general Counsels wherein the Arrian heresy was established, whereof that of Arimine was one: as also the second Ephesine Council, which decreed for the Nestorians: Did not these general Counsels err, & that even in matters of Faith? I am sure, 
R●em. Annotat. upon Act. 15.7.  they will grant that they did: for so the Rhemists and other Papists themselves confess. Why then may not their general Counsels likewise err which make decrees in maintenance of their Popery, as those other did which decreed in maintenance of their arianism, and Nestorianisme? The Rhemists' answer, That those Counsels wanted the Pope's assent, assistance, or confirmation, and therefore they erred: howbeit, that is not the reason why they erred; but the true reason and cause of their error was, because they decreed not according to the holy and Canonical Scriptures, but contrary thereunto: For even Counsels also which had the Bishop of Rome's assent, were not therefore privileged from error; as appeareth by the second Council of Nice, which decreed, that Angels, 
2 Concil. Nice. Actio. 5.  and men's souls also, be corporeal: for this the Papists themselves cannot deny to be an error. Yea how is it possible, that by the Pope's assent or confirmation any Council should or can be ever the more privileged from error, when even the Popes themselves have no such privilege in that behalf? For it is well known, that Pope Liberius erred, and that not only personally, but judicially also, and definitively, and in a matter of Faith, when he subscribed to the Arrian heresy: as testifieth Athanasius Apolog. 2. add solitariè vitam agentes, S. Hierome in Catalogo, Damasus in Pontificali, Marianus Scotus, Petrus Damianus, epist. 5. cap. 16. etc. Honorius also (Pope of Rome) was a Monotbelite, and did not only fall into that heresy, but in a Decretal Epistle, did also publish and confirm the same; as is proved by the Council of Constantinople the sixth, where he was condemned, Constant. 6. act. 13. Pope Innocentius likewise erred in a matter of Faith, when he held, that Infants could not be saved, unless they received the Communion: for this, the Papists themselves confess to be an error: and yet Pope Innocentius held it, as S. Augustine witnesseth, citing the Decretal Epistle of the same Pope, to the Bishops of Numidia, for proof thereof; cont. duas epistol. Pel. ad Bonifac. lib. 2. cap. 4 & cont. jul. lib. 1. cap. 2. If Pope's than may err, and become Heretics, as both here, and before, and afterwards also, is very evident: it is thereby manifest, that their assenting, subscribing, or confirming of Counsels, can give the same Counsels, no more privilege from error, then formerly they had. But they then allege, that the Holy Ghost is promised to Counsels, and therefore they cannot err: I demand of them, whether the Holy Ghost is not promised to Provincial Counsels, as well as to General? They cannot deny, but he is: And yet the Rhemists and other Popish Teachers grant, that a Provincial Council may err in matter of Faith, notwithstanding this promise of the Holy Ghost: whence, is rightly inferred, that a General Council may, by the same reason, likewise err in matter of Faith, as well as a Provincial, notwithstanding that promise. For you must ever remember, that it is not, in respect of a greater Number or Multitude, but in respect of the promise of the Holy Ghost, that this privilege from Error is pretended and supposed. But yet further, observe, that the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, is promised and given to every particular godly Pastor, 
joh. 14.16, 17. joh. 16.13. Luke 11.13. Rom. 8.9.14.15.27. etc.  Doctor, and Minister of Christ, as well as to Counsels: yea every true Christian, and faithful member of Christ, hath also the holy Ghost to guide and direct him, as the Scriptures do plainly testify. By virtue then of this reason drawn from the promise or giving of the holy Ghost, I may as well conclude, that no godly particular Pastor, or Doctor, or other Minister of Christ, can possibly err in a matter of Faith: yea, inasmuch as the holy Ghost, the spirit of sanctification, is also promised and given to every godly man, I may aswell conclude that no godly man therefore can possibly err, at any time, as touching life & conversation: for the holy Ghost is as well able to guide a man continually in a good and not erring life, as in a right & not erring faith. But touching this matter, S. August. saith: 
Aug. contra Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 3.  That even general Counsels which are gathered out of all the Christian world be oftentimes corrected, the former by the latter, when by any trial of things, that is opened which before was shut, & that is known which before lay hidden. And therefore also was it appointed, that even in a general Council itself, they should pray unto God, that he would Ignorantiae ipsorum parcere, & errori indulgere, spare their ignorance, and pardon their error. 
Concil. Tom. 1. de ord▪ Celeb. Council.  Doth not this clearly declare, that even a General Council may also possibly err, as well as a Provincial. Yea, yourselves do grant, that a General Council may err in matters of fact notwithstanding this promise: & why then will you not grant, that it may, by the same reason, possibly err also in a matter of faith? For is not the holy Ghost (promised to a General Council) as powerful to preserve and keep from error, in the one case as in the other? No question but he is. Concerning this point therefore, ye must not forget that which I said before: namely, that although most true it is, that the Holy Ghost cannot possibly err, nor any men, or Counsels, so long as he guideth them, & that they follow his directions: yet because Men and Counsels, be not always guided and directed by him, but be suffered sometime to follow their own conceits, fancies, and affections, (for the Holy Ghost may at his own good pleasure, and doth sometimes leave men to themselves, not extending nor showing forth his strength, virtue, force, and efficacy at all times): In such cases, and at such times, it is a most easy matter▪ for men, and Counsels, to err, sin, and go astray. 
Chrysost. de sancto & adorando spiritu.  Wherefor S. Chrysostome herein giveth us an excellent rule, saying: Si quem videritis dicentem, spiritum sanctum habeo, & non loquentem evangelica, sed propria, is à seipso loquitur, & non est spiritus sanctus, in ipso: If (saith he) ye shall see any man, 
A rule whereby to know, who they be that speak by the direction of the Holy Ghost, & who not.  that saith, I have the holy Ghost, and doth not speak things agreeable to the Gospel, but his own, that man speaketh of himself, and the holy Ghost is not in him. And again he saith; Si quis eorum, qui dicuntur habere spiritum, dicat aliquid de seipso, & non ex Evangelio, ne credit: If any of them which are said to have the spirit, speak any thing of himself, and not forth of the Gospel, believe him not. So that, it still appeareth that the Gospel of Christ, and divine Scriptures, is the thing whereby men are to try and examine all spirits, and their doctrines, and decrees, and to determine, who they be that speak and decree by the guidance and direction of the holy Ghost, and who not. And therefore doth S. Augustine also take it, 
August. contra Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 4.  that, no man, is absolutely bound by the authority of Counsels, though they be general: for thus he saith to one that objected a general Council against him; Neither ought I to allege the Council of Nice, nor thou the Council of Arimine, as thereby to prejudicate one another: for neither am I bound by the authority of this or thou of that: but let matter with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason, make the Trial, by the authority of Scriptures, not proper witnesses to any of us, but indifferent to us both. And concerning the Pope: that he may err, as well as any other Bishop, in matter of Faith; beside that which is before spoken, it further appeareth even by Gratian himself, dist. 40. where it is taken for granted, 
Dist. 40. C si Papa.  that the Pope may be, à fide Devius, a goer out of the way of faith. Lyra affirmeth expressly; that many Popes have been found, 
Lyra. in Mat. 16  Apostotasse à Fide, To have been Apostotates, or departers from the faith. 
Concil. Constant. Sess. 37.  The Council of Constance calleth Pope Benedict, a Schismatic, and an Heretic, and a departer from the faith. The like is said of Pope john the 23. Catharinus saith directly; 
Catarrh. C●ment. in Gal. 2.  Nihil prohibet Papam errare, etiam in fide, & deficere, etiamsi quidam novitij Scriptores ausi sint oppositum defendere, praeter communem sensum Doctorum: Nothing withstandeth, but that the Pope may err, even in faith, and fail; albeit some late writers have dared to defend the contrary, against the common opinion of the Doctors. And so likewise testifieth Alphonsus de Castro; Papam posse in iis, quae ad fidem spectant, errare: immo aliquos Pontifices summos, errasse in fide, 
Alphons. cont▪ Heres. lib. 1. cap 2.  compertum est: That the Pope may err even in matters of faith: yea it is found (saith he) that some Popes have erred in faith. And again he saith; Omnis homo errare in fide potest, etiamsi Papa sit: Nam de Liberio Papa, refert Platina, 
Cap. 4.  eum sens●sse cum Arrianis: Every man may err, in point of faith, though he be a Pope: For of Pope Liberius, Platina reporteth, that he held the Arrian heresy. Yea Panormitan saith, that a Council may depose the Pope for Heresy, 
Panorm. de election. Section. significasti.  ut in cap Si Papa▪ dist. 40. where it is likewise said, That the Pope may be an Heretic, and judged of Heresy. Yea, In concernentibus fidem, etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus Authoritatibus novi & veteris Testamenti quam Papa: In things concerning faith (saith he) the saying even of one private man is to be preferred before the saying of the Pope▪ if he be moved by better authority of the old and new Testament, than the Pope. It is therefore evident, that neither the Pope by himself, nor yet joined in Council with others, is, or, can be held to be an unerrable or infallible judge, in this case. What then? Would any have the old Doctors, and ancient Fathers to be this judge? But they also may err, and do sometimes tax one another for errors. Yea themselves (as before is showed) do humbly and reverently submit, all their doctrines, positions, and opinions, to the judgement of the Canonical Scriptures; not desiring to be further credited, or, believed, then there is warrant, for what they speak, or write, within those sacred writings. Whereby they sufficiently give us to understand, that God only, speaking in these his Scriptures, is to be held for the only Infallible judge, for the determining and deciding of every controversy in Religion. Ista controversia judicem inquirit. judicet ergo Christus: 
Aug. de Nuptijs & Concupisc. lib. 2. cap. 33.  This controversy enquireth after a judge: Let Christ then be judge, saith S. Augustine. judicet cum illo & Apostolus, quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus: Let also (saith he) the Apostle judge with him, because in the Apostle, Christ himself speaketh. And again he saith; 
August. de gra. & liber▪ arbit. cap. 18.  Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus johannes: Let the Apostle john, sit judge between us. In like sort speaketh Optatus: Quaerendi sunt judices: In terris, de hac re, 
Optat. contra Par. lib. 5.  nullum poterit reperiri judicium: de coelo quaerendus est judex; sed ut quid pulsamus ad coelum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio Testamentum, etc. judges are to be sought for: In earth (saith he) none can be found for this matter: from heaven therefore, is the judge to be sought; but why do we knock at heaven, when we have here upon earth, a Testament in the Gospel? An earthly father, when he feeleth himself near death, fearing lest after his death, the brethren, breaking peace, should fall at variance, calling witnesses unto him, out of his breast ready to dye putteth his will into a written Testament, that shall long continue: And if variance grow amongst the brethren, they go not to the grave, but the Testament, or last will is demanded: and he which resteth in the grave, speaketh out of that his speechless Testament, with a lively voice. (viz. that voice, which he uttered, whilst he lived) He whose Testament it is, is in heaven: therefore as in a Testament, so in the Gospel, let his will be enquired. To the same effect S. Augustine saith: Who is he that knoweth not that the Canonical Scripture is so contained within his certain bounds of the old and new Testament, 
August. de baptis. con. Dona●. lib. 2. cap. 3.  and is so to be preferred, before all other writings of Bishops, that a man may not at all either doubt or dispute, whether any thing be right or true, that he is sure, is written in it: but the writings of all other Bishops, which either are, or hereafter shall be written (beside the Canonical Scriptures already confirmed) may be reproved, either by more grave authority of other Bishops, or learned men, or by the words of any man that is better seen in the matter. Again he saith thus: Gather not (my Brother) against so many, so clear, and so undoubted, 
August. ad Vincent. Epist. 48.  testimonies of the Scriptures, sentences misunderstood, out of the writings of Bishops, either of ours, or of Hillary, or of Cyprian Bishop and Martyr of the Church: for, we must put a difference betwixt this kind of writing, and the Canonical Scriptures: for these are not so to be read, as though a Testimony might be alleged out of them, in such sort, as that no man might think otherwise, if they happen to judge otherwise, than the truth requireth. And again he saith: 
August. ad fortunate. Ep. 198.  We ought not to allow the reasonings of any men, whatsoever they be, be they never so Catholic and Praiseworthy, as the Canonical Scriptures, so that it shall not be lawful for us, (saving the reverence that is due to those men) to reprove and refuse any thing in their writings, if it fall out that they have judged otherwise, than the truth is, the same Truth being by God's help, 
The ancient Fathers are to be reverenced in their places: as likewise all other godly men are; but yet so, as we may lawfully descent from them, whereinsoever they speak not according to the Canonical Scriptures. August. cont. lit. Pe●●l lib. 3. cap. 6. Ambr. in Gal. 1.  understood either of other men, or of us. For I am even such a one in other men's writings, as I would men should be in mine. And again he speaketh thus: If any question be either concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or concerning any other matter whatsoever, which belongeth to our faith, and life: I will not say (If we) but that which the Apostle further addeth (in Gal. 1. 8.9.) If an Angel from heaven▪ should preach unto you any other thing, praeterquam quod in scriptures legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, Anathema sit; Beside that which ye have received in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. Ambrose likewise upon that Text before mentioned (of Gal. 1.8.9.) giveth this observation: The Apostle (saith he) doth not say, If they preach contrary, but, if they preach any thing beside that which we have preached, that is, if they add any thing to it at all, hold him accursed And therefore, Si quid dicatur absque Scriptura, 
Chrysost. in Psal 95.  Auditorum cogita●io claudicat: If any thing be spoken without the Scripture, the cogitation of the Hearer halteth, saith Chrysostome. Yea, To lean to the Divine Scriptures (which is the certain and undoubted Truth) is (saith Irenaeus) to build a man's house, upon a sure and strong Rock: But to leave them, and to lean to any other Doctrines whatsoever they be, 
Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 42.  is to build a ruinous house upon the shattering gravel, whereof the overthrow is easy. Here than you may prrceive, that even those unwritten Traditions also (which ye obtrude unto us under the name of Apostolical) that be not specified nor found written in God's book, the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, 
All such Traditions as be not warranted in the Canonical Scriptures, be refusable. Hierom. in Psal. 98  are justly refusable, as being unassured, uncertain, and unwarranted stuff. For so also doth S. Jerome say, All that ever we speak we ought to prove it by the Scriptures. And so also speaketh Chrysostome, saying, Therefore neither are they to be believed at all, except they speak those things which be agreeable to the Scriptures. 
Chrysost. in 2. Tim. 3.  To that which Faustus put forth upon the birth of Mary, that she had a certain Priest to her father, named joachim. S. Augustine answereth: 
Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 23. cap. 9  Because it is not Canonical (saith he) it doth not bind me. The like answer giveth Tertullian to Appelles, which said, that the Angels had a bodily substance, which they took of the Stars: 
Tertul. de Carne Christi.  There is no certainty (saith he) in this matter, because the Scripture declareth it not. And indeed, who can assure such Traditions to be undoubtedly Divine, or to be originally and infallibly Apostolical, which have only Men for the witnessing of them, and whereof there is no testimony in the Apostles writings, or in God's book to be found? For if they be not there specified, who (as S. Augustine speaketh) can say, 
August. in joh. 16. verse 12. There is no need of Traditions. 2. Tim. 3.15.16 17. joh. 20 31 joh. 20.31. josuah 1.8 Deut. 4.5.6. Tertul. con●. Hermog. Basil. tract. de fide.  That these and these they are? Or if he dare be bold to say so, how will he prove it? But moreover, we need none of those Traditions, as I said before; inasmuch as the Scriptures themselves be fully sufficient, for us and for our direction and instruction in all things necessary, & expedient for us. For, beside the Scriptures which declare so much, Tertullian likewise saith, Adoro scripturae plenitudinem: I adore the completeness or the fullness of the Scriptures. And S. Basil also saith, Manifestum est infidelitatis & arrogantiae crimen, vel reijcere aliquid quod scriptum est, vel addere aliquid quod non est scriptum, That it is a manifest fault of infidelity and arrogancy, either to reject any thing of that which is written, or to bring in any thing of that which is not written. Yea, such is the sufficiency, fullness, perfection, and compleatness of the Scriptures in all points and respects, that as you heard before, S. Augustine denounceth him accursed that shall preach or teach any thing beside them, 
Aug. cont. lit. Peti●ian. lib. 3. cap. 6. Scot in praefat. Lomb.  or which is not therein contained, or thereby warranted. And therefore also doth Scotus himself say: Patet quod scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori; It is evident the Scripture sufficiently containeth all doctrine necessary for a wayfaring man: that is, for a man whilst he liveth and traveleth in this world.  
2 But moreover, even expositions also of Scripture, are to be framed & warranted by the Scriptures, 
All right exposition of Scripture is framed by and according to the Scriptures. 2. Pet. 1.20, 21.  & to be found consonant with them, or otherwise they are likewise refusable: For it is not any humane or private spirit (as S▪ Peter showeth) but it must be a divine spirit, even the Spirit of God (the holy Ghost) from whence all true sense and right interpretation of the Scriptures is to be derived. And this S. Paul also declareth, saying; that As no man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of man which is in him: 
1 Cor. 2.11  so no man knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God. If therefore we would know who they be that have this only right interpreting Spirit, that is, the holy Ghost for their guide in that behalf: we may know it by this, If their expositions be such as be suitable and agreeable to the Canonical Scriptures, without repugnancy of any one place to another. Therefore also doth Origen speak thus: 
Orig. in jer. hom. 1  We must needs (saith he) call the holy Scriptures to witness, because our senses and expositions without those witnesses, have no credit. And so saith Irenaeus: Secundum scripturas expositio, legitima, et diligeus, 
Irenaeus lib. 4. ca 63. & lib. 2. ca 46 & 47.  & sine periculo & sine blasphemia est. That is the right and legitimate exposition, and the diligent, and without danger, and without blasphemy, which is according to the Scriptures. Chrysostome likewise saith: Scriptura seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit: 
Chrysost. homil. 13. in Genes.  The Scripture expoundeth itself, and suffereth not the learner to err. And this rule, namely to expound Scripture by Scripture, and by conferring one place with another, giveth also S. Augustine: 
August. de doct. christiana lib. 3 cap. 26.  Dark places ' are to be expounded by plainer places: This is (saith he) the sure way to expound one scripture by another. The same doth S. Augustine again teach in other places: as namely, De doctrina lib. 2. cap. 6. & 26.27.28. &c, And Clemens Epist. 5. and Dist. 37.6. Relatum; where it is said, Non enim sensum extrinsecus alienum & extraneum, debetis quaerere: Sed ex ipsis Scriptures, sensum capere veritatis oportet: For ye ought not to seek for a strange and foreign sense from without, but out of the very Scriptures themselves, ye must take the sense of the truth. So that although the Church of Christ, and the Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers therein be to expound the Scriptures, yet we see by what rule they are to be directed, namely, by the Scriptures themselves (and not to expound it at random, or as they list) If they will have their expositions to be right and sound, and such as shall be deemed to come from the holy Ghost.  
3 Yea the very Church itself is also thus to be tried and decided, namely, by the Scriptures: For so S. Augustine holdeth directly, saying thus: Let us not hear, I say, 
A●g. de unitat. Eccle. cap. 3.  and thou sayest: but let us hear, Thus saith the Lord. There are verily the Lords books, to the authority whereof we both consent, we both believe, we both serve: There let us search the Church, there let us discuss our cause. 
The Church is to be tried and known by the Scriptures. Aug. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 3.  And again he saith, That all that should be removed, whatsoever is alleged on either side against other, saving that which cometh out of the Canonical Scriptures. And again he saith: Let them show their Church, if they can, not in the sayings and fame of the Africans, nor in the determinations of their Bishops, nor in any man's reasonings, nor in false signs and wonders, (for against all these we be warned and armed by God's Word) but in the things appointed in the Law, spoken before by the Prophets in the Songs of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, and in the preachings and painfulness of the Evangelists, that is, in the authority of the books Canonical. And a little after he saith again thus: To that eternal salvation cometh no man, but he that hath the head Christ: and no man can have the head Christ, which is not in his body, the Church: which Church, as also the head itself, we must know by the Canonical Scriptures, and not seek it in diverse rumours and opinions of men, nor in facts, reports, and visions etc. Let all this sort of them be chaff, and not give sentence before hand against the wheat, that they be the Church. But this point (viz. whether they be the Church or no) Let them show no other way but by the canonical books of the holy Scriptures. For neither do we say that men ought to believe us, because we are in the Catholic Church of Christ: or because Optatus Bishop of Millevet▪ or Ambrose Bishop of Milan, or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion, do allow this doctrine that we hold: or because in Churches of our Companions, it is preached: or, because that through the whole world, in those holy places, where our Congregations resorted, so many wonders, either of hear, or of healing, be done: whatsoever such things be done in the Catholic Church, the Church is not therefore proved Catholic, because these things be done in it. The Lord jesus himself, when he was risen from death, and offered his own body to be seen with the eyes, and handled with the hands of his Apostles, lest, they should for all that, think themselves to be deceived, he rather judged, that they ought to be established by the testimony of the law, Prophets, and Psalms: showing those things to be fulfilled in him, 
Luk. 24.27.44, 45.  that were there spoken so long before of him. And hereupon a little after he saith again: These are the doctrines, these are the stays of our cause: we read in the Acts of the Apostles, of some faithful men, that they searched the Scriptures, whether the things were so or no, 
Acts 17 11.  which they had heard preached: what scriptures, I pray, did they search, but the Canonical of the Law, and of the Prophets? To these are joined the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles, The Revelation of S. john. Search all these, bring forth some plain thing, out of them, whereby you may declare that the Church hath remained only in Africa. So far Augustine. 
Chrysost. in Mat 24. homil. 49  Chrysostome also speaketh to the same effect, saying: When you shall see the abominable desolation stand in the holy place; that is (as he expoundeth it) When you shall see ungodly Heresy (which is the army of Antichrist) stand in the holy places of the Church: in that time, let them which are in jury, fly unto the hills: that is (saith he) Let them, that are in Christendom, resort unto the Scriptures: for like as the true jew, is a Christian, (as the Apostle saith, he is not a jew, which is one outward) in like manner, 
Rom. 2.28, 29.  the very jewrie is Christianity, the hills are the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets. But why doth he command all Christians at that time to resort to the Scriptures? Because in this time, sithence Heresy hath prevailed in the Church, there can be (saith he) no proof, nor other refuge for Christian men, (desirous to know the truth of the right Faith) but only by the Scriptures. And the reason hereof he further showeth: For (saith he) such things as pertain to Christ, the Heretics also have in their schism: They have likewise Churches, likewise the Scriptures of God; Bishops also, and other orders of Clerks, and likewise Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and to conclude, Christ himself: wherefore, he that will know which is the true Church of Christ in this so great confusion of things, being so like, how shall he know it, but only by the Scriptures? And afterward again he saith thus: For if they shall look upon any other thing, but only the Scriptures, they shall stumble and perish, not perceiving which is the true Church: and so fall into the abominable desolation, which standeth in the holy places of the Church. So far he. Now then, these being times of Schism, and heresy, and of much contention, and variance between the Protestants and the Papists, and the great question between them being, Whether of them is the true Church: Yea, these being the times, wherein the very grand Antichrist himself, with his army of Bishops, Priests, and Clerks, hath place in the world (as before in some sort, but afterwards is more fully declared) It followeth necessarily by this rule of his, as also by the former Rule and direction of S. Augustine likewise, that all people that be desirous to know the truth in these times, and which is the true Church, must resort and betake themselves for the true trial, discerning and deciding hereof, unto the holy Scriptures only, for all other ways and courses be, uncertain and unsure, and such as whereby a man may possibly and easily be deceived, as those ancient Fathers do there expressly teach and affirm. And to give you some little taste here also that these be the times of Antichrist, and that Antichrist is long sithence come▪ and that the Pope of Rome is he: besides that which is before spoken, do but consider what the Abbot joachim long sithence told King Richard the first, 
Rog. Hoveden. lib. 2. Anno● 1190. joachim Alba● in Reve. lib. 10. part. 5.  King of England, namely, that Antichrist was then already borne, and had his seat at Rome, and was to be advanced in that Apostolical Sea. And he further saith: Non nulli sub specie sedis Dei, id est●, universalis Ecclesiae, Facti sunt sed●s Bestiae, quae est regnum Antichristi, regnantis ubique in membris suis etc. Sundry (saith he) under pretence of God's seat, that is, of the universal Church, are become the seat of the Beast, which is the Kingdom of Antichrist, reigning every where in his members: consisting (as he there further saith) in the Clergy men, & in the Monks, and Monasteries. Again he saith, that: Rome est in spiritu Babylon: Rome is the spiritual Babylon. And again he saith: Negotiatores terrae, sunt ipsi sacerdotes, qui vendunt orationes & missas pro Denarijs, facientes domum orationis, Apothecam Negotiationis: The Merchants of the earth be the Priests themselves, who sell Prayers and Masses for money, making the house of Prayer a shop of Merchandise: Yea sundry both Princes, and Bishops, 
Aventin. annal. lib. 5. & 7.  of Germany long agone, have affirmed and published the Pope, to be Antichrist, as appeareth in Aventinus. But I leave this to be as I said more fully handled afterward. In the mean time, 
Who be the right Catholics.  if any would know who be the right Catholics (as Papists very boldly, but very unjustly, take upon them that title) let him consider these two sentences of Vincentius, and confer and join them together: The first is this: Id teneamus quod VBIQVE, quod SEMPER, 
Vincen. cont. Herg c. 3.  quod ab OMNIBUS, creditum: hoc est enim verè proprieque Catholicum: Let us uphold that which hath been believed every where, and at all times, & of all persons, for this is rightly and properly Catholic. The second is this, where he saith: Ille est verus & Germanus Catholicus, 
Cap. 25  qui quidquid universaliter ANTIQVITUS▪ ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognoverit, id solum sibi tenendum creder dumque decernit: He is the true and right Catholic, who judgeth that he is to hold & believe, only that which he knoweth the Catholic Church to have formerly held universally, in the old time. This Vincentius lived above 1200. years sithence: so that, this Antiquitùs, this old time whereto he referreth every man, that will be a right Catholic, cannot be intended the age and time, wherein himself lived (much less can it he supposed, any of those many hundreth years, that came after him, and are sithence his time gone and passed) but it must needs be intended of an old time, passed long before the time, wherein he lived and wrote these things; which old time therefore, which he so called, what can it be, but the Primitive and Apostolic times? If then ye will prove yourselves to be Catholics, and your Church to be the Catholic Church, by this rule and definition of Catholics, out of Vincentius, then must you not take your pattern and proof, from that Council of Trent, nor from the late Council of Constance, nor any of the times after Vincentius, but you must transcend, and go to the times that were in the old Time long before the days of this Vincentius, even to the primitive and Apostolic times (which were indeed, the best and purest times) and from thence must you take the pattern of your Church and Religion. For that, which always formerly, and every where, and of all Christians, in That Old Time, was held and believed, is the thing that he accounteth and defineth to be Catholic; and such to be Catholics; which hold and believe only so much, and no more. Which faith, doctrine, and religion of those old, Primitive, and Apostolic times, was at first delivered by word of mouth by the Apostles, but was afterwards (as Irenaeus hath before informed us) committed to Writing, 
Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1.  that so it might be for ever that, The foundation and pillar of our Faith. Yea, this, even Vincentius also himself teacheth, 
Vincent. cap. 41.  saying: Scripturarum canon sufficit ad omnia satis superque; the canon of the Scriptures, doth suffice for all matters, sufficiently and more than sufficiently, that is, abundantly and overflowingly. By this rule then and definition of a Catholic, given so long agone by Vincentius, it is evident, that, not ye, but we, are to be held for the right and true Catholics: inasmuch as not ye, but we, do believe and hold that faith, doctrine, and Religion, which those old and first Christians universally held in those ancient, primitive, and Apostolic times, and which was afterwards written, and is omnisufficiently contained in that written word of God, the sacred and canonical Scriptures: Yea that, and only that, we hold and believe, as Vincentius saith, right and true Catholics ought to do, and so do not you: therefore, whether ye, or we, be the right Catholics, is a very easy and apparent matter to be decided. Aufer Haereticis, 
Tertull. lib. de resurr. carnis.  quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt, ut de scriptures solis Quaestiones suas sistant, & stare non poterunt: Take from the Heretics (saith Tertullian) those things, wherein they savour of Heathen wisdom, so as that they bring their Controversies to be decided only by the Scriptures, and they be not able to stand. In which words, men that will not suffer their Controversies to be decided only by the Scriptures, may see themselves ranged within the compass of Heretics and so termed and entitled by him: so far are they off from being the right and true Catholics. And yet, Papists have, I grant, for some of their errors, a kind of Antiquity; but it is an Antiquity of a later date, and it is not that most ancient Antiquity, which Vincentius, and the rest of the ancient Fathers direct you unto, and which should be in request: For that is the True, whatsoever is the first: and that which is later or, 
Tertull. ad Praxeam.  cometh in after the first, is the adulterate or corrupted, as Tertullian again expressly affirmeth. Yea, he saith further: Hoc mihi proficit Antiquitas, praestructae divinae Literaturae: Herein doth Antiquity avail me, 
Tertull. Apolog. in fine.  if it be builded upon the divine Scripture. Wherefore, if ye will be good and right Catholics, ye must go and take the pattern and precedent of your Faith and Religion, from those most ancient, primitive, and Apostolic times, as we do: because (as Eusebius, also, out of Egesippus, noteth) the Church so long as the Apostles lived, 
Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 32.  remained a pure Virgin: for that if any went about to corrupt the holy rule which was preached, they did it in the Dark, and as it were underneath the earth: But after the death of the Apostles, and that generation was past, which God vouchsafed to hear the divine wisdom with their own ears, the placing of wicked error (saith he) began to come into the Church. For which purpose, & to show that corruption grew in those after & succeeding times, Clemens also allegeth the proverb, That there were few sons like their fathers. 
Clemens lib. stromat. ca 11.   
4 And here whilst I am speaking of the Canonical Scriptures, I must crave leave to tell you, that the Popish Church holdeth diverse Books to be Canonical Scripture, which the old and ancient Church, held not to be Canonical: as namely, Tobias, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, (otherwise called, jesus the son of Sirach), the Maccabees, and the rest, which the Protestants, with that old & ancient Church, hold, not to be Canonical: for so doth Athanasius affirm of them, that non sunt Canonici; they be not Canonical. 
Athanas. in Synops.  Cyrill calleth them Apocryphal, & biddeth men read those XXII. books of the old Testament; 
Cyrill Hieros. cateches. 4.  Cum Apocryphis vero nihil habeas negotij: But with the Apocryphal books (saith he) have nothing to do. Cyprian, or, if you will have it so, Ruffinus, 
Cyprian. sive Ruff. inexph. Symboli.  after he had rehearsed the Canonical Books of the old Testament, saith: Haec sunt quae▪ Patres inim Canonem concluserunt: ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt. S●●on●dunt tamen est, quod & alij libri sunt qui non sunt Canonici, sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appellati sunt, ut est sapientia Solomonis, & alia sapientia quae dicitur filij Sirach: Eiusdem ordinis est liber Tobiae, & judith & Macchabeorum libri— Quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesus voluerum, non tamen proferri ad authoritate 〈◊〉 fidei confirmandam: These be they (saith he) which our Fathers have included within the Canon: out of which they would have the assertions of our faith to appear: But yet we must know, that there be also other Books which be not Canonical, but be called of our Ancestors, Ecclesiastical; as is, the wisdom of Solomon, and the other wisdom which is called the son of Sirach (otherwise termed Ecclesiasticus)— of the same sort is the Book of Tobias, and judith, and the Books of the Maccabees: All which, they will indeed have to be read in the Church, but not to be alleged to confirm out of them the authority of Faith. Epiphanius likewise of the Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, saith: that, Howsoever they have use and profit in them, 
Epiphan. lib. de mens. & pond.  yet in numerum receptorum non referuntur: they are not reckoned in the number of the received books. S. Hierome likewise saith; that the books of Wisdom, judith, 
Hieronym. in Prologo Galeat. in lib. Reg.  Jesus' the son of Sirach, and Tobias, non sunt in Canone, be not Canonical. And, again, in another place, he saith thus: Sicut ergo judith, & T●biae, & Maccabaeorum libr●s, legit Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit: 
Hieronym in praefat. in li●ros Solomonis.  sic & haec duo volumina (sapientiae Solomonis, & Syrach) legit ad aedificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum Dogmatum confirmandam: As therefore the Church readeth judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but receiveth them not for canonical Scriptures: so these two Books likewise, namely, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus' the son of Syrach, doth the Church also read, for the edification of the people, but not to confirm thereby the authority of any Doctrines or positions in the Church. And so also doth Lyranus, & Hugo the Cardinal, affirm. Yea, and Gregory the great also, of the Books of Macchabees, 
Lyran. prolog. in Apocrypha. Hugo Card. prolog. in josuam. Gregor. in job. lib. 19 cap. 17. Conc. laodicen's. cap. 59  saith, That they be not canonical. And these books doth likewise the Council of Laodicea, repel, and reject, from being canonical. Whereby observe, that when you, or any of your Church, allege any saying, or sentence out of Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, or the Maccabees, or out of any other Apocryphal writing, which is not Canonical, to confirm thereby any point of Faith or Doctrine that is in question, ye do that which the old and ancient Church alloweth not, but utterly disalloweth you to do, as is apparent. But moreover, the primitive and ancient Church would have the common Prayers, and public Service, and Liturgy, not in such a tongue as the people understood no●, but in such a tongue as they might and did understand. For, Origen saith: Graeci Graecis, Romani Romanis, singulique precantur in propria lingua, Deumque celebrant pro viribus: 
Origen contrae Celsum lib. 8.  The Grecians use Greek words, and the Romans Roman words, and men of every Nation pray, and praise God with all their might, in their own mother tongue. Yea, it was the doctrine of that heretic Elxay, to teach prayer, in such words, or, in such a tongue, as was not understood: 
Epiphan. haeres. 14.  Nemo quaerat interpretationem, sed solum in oratione haec dicat etc. Let no man (saith he) seek for the interpretation or understanding of the words, but only in his prayer let him say these words, etc. Chrysostome also saith; 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 14.  that unless the unlearned understand what thou prayest, he is not edified, nor can give consent to thy prayer. But herein I shall not need to spend more time: for Lyran himself acknowledgeth this point, saying; In primitiva Ecclesia, 
Lyr●. in 1. Cor. 14.  benedictiones & ●aetera communia fiebant in vulgari lingua: In the primitive Church, blessings, and the rest of the common or public Services, were done in the vulgar tongue. And, accordingly, we all know that it is the rule of the Apostle Saint Paul, that all things in the Church, should be done to the instruction and edification of the people: But in prayers, 
1. Cor. 14.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. etc.  or Service, said or celebrated in Latin, to such as understand not Latin, or in Greek to such as understand not Greek, or in any tongue to such as understand not the tongue, is no profit, instruction, or edification at all to the people, unless it be afterwards interpreted unto them in such a tongue as they understand. And yet whensoever it is so interpreted, being so done, it is but double labour, and needless expense of time, which might better be done, and easily remedied, by having at first (as were fittest) the Prayers and Service, aswell as the Sermons, in such a tongue as the people might understand.  
5 But why doth your Church of late times further proceed and accuse the holy, divine, and canonical Scriptures themselves, (whereby all questions and controversies in Religion, are to be decided and determined) of falsehood, or, corruption in the Originals, and therefore preferreth the Latin translations, which ye call S. Hieromes, before those Originals of the Hebrew and the Greek? Be not these strange accusations? And do they not lay a foundation and groundwork, for Atheism, Nullifidianisme, and all irreligion? For if the Originals be corrupted, false, and untrue, what certainty is there then left for men▪ on earth to build their faith upon? Or can either your Translation which you call S. Ieromes, or any other Translation of the Scriptures, be then assured to be right and sound? For if the Fountain de defiled, and poisoned, how shall clear, pure, and sound water, run and be found in the rivers that issue and stream from thence? If you will say, as Gregory Martin, and other of your Teachers say, that the Greek Heretics have corrupted the Greek text, and the Hebrew Heretics, the Hebrew text: we may as well say unto you, that the Latin Heretics have corrupted the Latin text; and so by such kind of reasoning, no Scripture should be found pure, sound, and sincere. But thanks be to God (who so preserved them) the Scriptures in their originals, remained pure amongst the jews, unto the very time of Christ, and were not corrupted by any of those Hebrew Heretics, as some Papists affirm of them: for otherwise it had been in vain, for Esay, or any other of the Prophets of God, to bid the people go, for their assured direction, To the Law, 
Esa. 8.20.  and to the Testimony: or, for Christ himself to bid the people, as he did, To search the Scriptures, for their assured guidance in the truth. 
joh. 5.39.  Yea S. Peter would then never have said, as he did; We have a most sure word of the Prophets: to the which, 
2. Pet. 1.19.  ye do well, that ye take heed, as to a Light that shineth in a dark place. For, if it had been corrupted, and falsified, 
Ar. Mont. in praefat. Tom. 1.  it had not been a sure word to trust unto. Arias Montanus himself affirmeth and maintaineth the purity and incorruption of the Hebrew originals: saying further, that there was no word, nor letter, nor point, but it was reserved in that Treasury, which they call Mazzoreth; and therefore he calleth that Treasury, fidam custodiam, a faithful or sure keeper of them. 
joh Isaac against Lyndanus. Franc. Luc Burg Annot. in sacra Biblia.  john Isaac likewise, and Franciscus Lucas Burgensis, as well as Arias Montanus, do also uphold, maintain, and defend, even unto their times, the purity and incorruption of those Hebrew Originals: always preferring them before all Latin Translations whatsoever. And must it not needs be so, 
Matth. 5.18. Luke 16.17.  when as Christ jesus himself saith, that, Till heaven and earth perish, one jot, or one Tittle of the Law shall not perish, till all things be fulfilled? Yea, what doth Christ jesus else, 
Mat. 24.35. Mar. 13.31.  but further show the purity and incorruption of the Hebrew originals unto his time, when it is written of him thus: that, He began at Moses, and at all the Prophets, and interpreted unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things that were written of him? 
Luk. 24.27.  And when again after his resurrection▪ likewise he saith in the same Chapter, thus: These are the words that I spoke, unto you, whilst I was yet with you, that all must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms? 
Vers. 44.  Yea, the originals in the old Testament, be and remain pure and incorrupt, to this day: and so do also the originals of the new Testament: insomuch that S. Hierome, as in one place, he derideth them, which said the Hebrew books were falsified, 
In cap. 6. Isaiae.  so doth he in another place pronounce them to be impudent and foolish people, that affirm the same of the Greek originals: For thus he writeth unto one; Tibi stultissime persuasisti, Graecoes codices esse falsa●os: Thou hast most foolishly persuaded thyself, that the Greek books be falsified. And again he saith: 
Jeronym. ad Helvid.  Tu mira impudentia haec in Graecis cod cibus falsata esse dicis: Thou with wonderful impudence affirmest, that th●se thin●s be falsified in the Greek Books. And as this was the error of Helvidius, against whom S. Hierome writeth; so was it also the error of the Manichees, against whom S. Augustine writeth: 
August. 1 de moribus. cap. 29.  And is it not now grown to be the error or heresy of Papists? But what reason have you to prefer that Latin Translation which ye call Saint Hieromes, before the Originals of the Hebrew and Greek? For first y●e cannot prove that Translation to be S. Hieroms, which ye so boldly affirm to be his: And secondly, what likelihood is there it should be his? considering that in diverse and sundry places, S. Hierome readeth otherwise then that Translation is▪ yea sometimes he findeth fault with that Translation, and reproveth it▪ as for example, the word, ●say, that is found in that translation in Mark the 1. verse 2. he thinketh to be added by the negligence of the Library keepers: and, 
Hieron. comment. in Matt. 13.  upon Math. 6▪ he correcteth the word (exterminant) which nevertheless is also in that vulgar translation. And diverse other such faults S. Hierome espieth, and findeth in that which you call his Translation; 
Hierony in Comment. in Mat. 6▪ vers. 16.  wherefore there is no likelihood it should be his. And that it is not S. Hieroms translation, may further appear by the discourse which Munster hath set upon it. 
Munster ad Convers. vet. Test. Erasm. epist. N▪ amico ex animo dilecto & in aliis in epist▪ Hieronym. a● Pamach. lib. 1. ad jovinian.  Yea, Erasmus also doth flatly affirm, that this translation is neither Cyprians, nor hilaries, nor Augustine's, nor yet Hieroms, seeing his reading is diverse from it; and that it is much less that which he corrected, seeing there be found in this, things that he condemneth, not only as touching the words, but as touching the sense also. But admit it were S. Hieroms translation (whereof nevertheless there is no likelihood) yet thereupon it followeth not, that therefore it is to be preferred before the originals of the Greek and Hebrew. For as there were many translations in S. Hieroms time, which were not so well liked, so even of that translation which S. Hierome himself made, and was the Author of, himself speaketh thus: I do not think (saith he) that the Lords words are to be corrected▪ but I go about to correct the falseness of the Latin books (which is plainly proved by the diversity of them) and to bring them to the original of the Greek, 
〈◊〉. ad Marcel. Tom. 2. epist. ult.  from which they do not deny, but they were translated: who if they mislike the water of the most pure fountain, they may drink of the miry puddles. 
Hieron. ad Livi●m epist. ad Lucra●um de optimo gener. interpret. in c. 3. Malach. epist. ad Aug. 89. praefat. in 4. Evang. Dist. 9 ad veter. Aug. de civitat. dei. lib. 15. c 13. ●t epist. 108. & in joh. tract. 3. de doct. christian. lib. 2. cap. 11. Ambros lib. 2. ca 6. de spirit. sanct.  And again he saith; That, as the books of the old Testament are to be examined by the Hebrew, so the books of the new Testament require the trial of the Greek. And in diverse other places▪ he likewise preferreth the originals of the Hebrew and Greek, before all Latin translations whatsoever. And to this effect doth Gratian also cite a sentence, as ●f it were S. Augustine's: And indeed, S. Augustine speaketh to that very purpose, saying directly: that We ought rather to believe, that tongue, from which it is by Interpreters translated into another. And Lodovicus Vives also, upon this place declareth the same. And agreeably hereunto, speaketh also S. Ambrose, saying expressly: That the authority of the Greek books is to be preferred. Be not those men then much deluded which, contrary to the direction and judgement of the old Church, and ancient fathers, and also of all right reason, do prefer that Latin translation before the originals of the Greek and Hebrew? Yea, even Lyndanus, a popish Bishop, writeth of that latin translation, 
Lyndan. de oped. gen. interpret. lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3, 4.  that it hath many and sundry corruptions in it, and therefore it cannot be the best and safest way to trust unto it.  
6 But when they must needs yield (if they will be reasonable) to the preferring of the originals of the Hebrew and Greek, before all latin translations, yea and before all translations whatsoever: Then they fall to another course, accusing our English translations to be false, and untrue, and not according to these originals. And herein, Gregory Martin, and the Rhemists, have chiefly showed their skill; but Doctor Fulke, that great Linguist, and excellent Scholar in all kind of learning, especially in Theology, hath fully and sufficiently answered them both, in his defence of the English Translations against Gregory Martin, as also in his Answer to the Rhemists, and their Annotations. We defend not any translations in any point, wherein they can be showed to be wrong, and not according to those originals: (For we abhor such wilful and wicked perverseness) but wherein soever, our translations be right and true and according to those originals, we have ever good reason, so far forth, to defend and maintain them against the frivolous and vain exceptions, either of Gregory Martin, the Rhemists, or of any other whosoever. And I could wish, and do indeed, wish, and earnestly desire you, that as ye read the Rheims Testament, so ye would also read the Answer unto it, and to the several Annotations of it: And as ye read any Popish Writer in any point of controversy whatsoever, you would likewise search and see, what Answer the Protestants make unto it: that so seeing and hearing both sides, without partiality, and without prejudice, ye may be the better able to judge justly and rightly in the cause, and to give both to yourselves and others, a sufficient and sound satisfaction: For so long as ye hear and read but one side only, and will not hear and read the other side, to understand what answer is made thereunto, it is impossible ye should be held for good, indifferent or equal judges or Censurers, or that you can give, either to yourselves or others, any sufficient resolution, or sound satisfaction in that case.  
7 But you will say peradventure that your Church alloweth you not to read the Books of Protestants, whom therefore they call and account to be Heretics. As for their accounting and reckoning us Heretics, we regard it not: For we know how far their judgements are blinded, and, that they mightily mistake, and misreckon; because not we, but they, in very deed be the Heretics, if they had eyes to see it. But it is no marvel, that the true, most ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic faith and religion, contained in the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, (which we profess & hold) should be by them termed. Heresy: for we find that it was so likewise reputed and termed, 
Acts 24.24.  Heresy, even in Saint Paul's time: Such hath ever been the wickedness both of unchristian and Antichristian Spirits against it. But whilst your Church is so politic, and wily, for herself, and her own safety, as to forbid you the reading of Protestant Books, (lest ye thereby discerning her errors, and heresies, should be moved to turn from her, unto us): have ye not good cause at the least to suspect and mistrust such a Church? For if their cause were the truth truth is ever able to stand against all encounters, and needeth not to fear the opposition of any adversaries. But, indeed, their cause appeareth to be naught: For, what is Popery (if it be well considered) but an Hodgepodge, or Bundle of errors, and heresies, aggregate and patched together, to make one body of that profession? Yea, what is their whole Church, and religion, if ye rightly consider it all together, but, revera the Antichristian, as this Book, amongst others, doth sufficiently declare. And will any than be so unwise as to subjugated him self, and to yield his obedience to the voice, decrees, statutes, and commandments of such a Church? I would wish you to be more considerate, and better advised, then to be so far deceived. For the difference between a Protestant and a Papist, is not small, being no less than this: that, the one holdeth of Christ wholly and altogether; and the other of Antichrist: which being a difference so great, and of such importance, it standeth upon the salvation of Souls, for all persons duly to consider it. But yet further, why will not your Church permit the lay people to read the holy Scriptures themselves, without a special licence from their Priests, or Bishops: For, is not God's licence sufficient for them in this case? Chysostome exhorteth all people, 
Chysost. ad Collos. hom. 9 & in Matth. hom. 2. & Contion. 3. de Lazaro. Hieron. in Psal. 133. & in Psal. 86. August. de tempo. sern. 55.  and even secular men (by name) to get them Bibles, and at least the new Testament. And S. Hierome likewise saith: that Married men, Monks, and silly Women, in his time, used to strive and contend, who should learn most Scripture without book. S. Augustine also exhorteth all men in their private houses, either to read the Bible themselves, or to get some other to read it for them. Is not your Church then herein, directly contrary to the ancient Church? Yea, wherefore is it, that God hath given unto men, that precious Pearl, and inestimable jewel of his will and word in the Scriptures contained, but to the end they should take notice of it, 
Deut. 29.29. Deut. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  and be directed by it? so that it is to be (as the Psalmist speaketh) a Lantern unto their feet, and a light unto their paths. 
Psal. 119.105.  Doth not S. Peter speak, even to the lay people, as well as to others, telling them, 
2. Pet. 1.19.  that they do well to take heed to the most sure word of God, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. Will any earthly King, forbid his Subjects, the reading of his laws and Statutes, whereby they are to be ruled and governed? Doubtless, if ever it were necessary for men to read, search, study, and often, and again, and again, to revolve the Scriptures, and book of God, now is the time in the midst of so many errors: and diversities of opinions, as be in the world, to be most diligent in that behalf. For, amongst them all, there can be but one right religion, and how shall we, ye, or any other know, for certain, which is that one right religion, which God hath instituted, and allowed of, but by the Scriptures? Let no man therefore forestall, or prejudicate himself, with supposing that he cannot understand the Scriptures: For first, how can he tell, whether he can understand them, or no, until he have made trial? Secondly, it is well known, that God helpeth forward a willing and industrious mind, that is earnestly desirous to know his will, and religion therein delivered, and seeketh it out in his fear, and with an humble affection, and a sincere purpose to observe it, and to walk in the ways of it. For so the Psalmist witnesseth: That them that be meek, 
Psal. 25.9.  God will guide in judgement, and teach the humble his way. And again, he saith: What man is he that feareth the Lord, 
Verse 12.  him shall he teach, the way that he shall choose. And again, he saith: The secret of the Lord, is revealed to them that fear him, 
Verse 14.  and his covenant to give them understanding. And again it is said: that, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. 
jam. 4.6. 1. Pet. 5.5.  And again: To him will I look (saith God) even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my words. 
Esay 66.2.  But thirdly, be not Laymen of the Church of God, aswel as those that be Church-Ministers? And may not these be Theodidactoi, that is, taught of God, and instructed by his spirit, 
joh. 6.45.  aswell as others, for the right understanding of the Scriptures, especially in all points necessary to salvation? Yea, do we not see, and find experimentally, that many great Scholars, and learned men, do, notwithstanding all their learning, err very much in the exposition and understanding of the Scriptures? (for why else do they differ so much, and hold contrary opinions?) All which, what else doth it show, but that, indeed, not any humane spirit (how learned soever) but a divine spirit only, is the opener, and the right expositor and understander of those sacred and divine writings. 
Luke 24.45.  And this, S. Paul also hath before assured us, that the things of God, 
1. Cor. 2.11.  no man knoweth, but the spirit of God. Now this Spirit of God, none can deny to be grantable, as well to lay-men, 
Luke 11.13.  as to those that be of the Ecclesiastical Ministry. Yea, every child of God hath God's Spirit given unto him, For if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his, 
Rom. 8.9.  as S. Paul witnesseth. Inasmuch therefore, as lay persons have received, or may receive the spirit of GOD, (whereby it is that the Scriptures be rightly understood), and are of the number of God's Church and people: no reason can be showed, why they should be debarred by others, or why they should debar themselves, from the reading and searching of those Scriptures, which they may possibly understand by the grace & power of God's Spirit within them, aswell as others; especially if they read and search them (as I said before) in the fear of God, and with all humble reverence, and with often and earnest prayers unto God, for the right understanding of them, and with a godly purpose of mind, to believe, follow, and do thereafter. For as S. Paul saith again: The spirit of God, searcheth all things, 
1. Cor. 2.10.  even the deep things of God. If any find difficulty and hardness in some places of the Scriptures, he must not thereby be discouraged, but provoked rather to use so much the more diligence in them. For, that which is difficult and hard in one place, is (as the ancient Fathers themselves have told us) made more plain and easy by another. And touching such places of difficulty, beside prayer unto God, and conference of Scriptures together; it will be good also to read Interpreters, and to consult with godly and learned Pastors and Teachers, and use all such good means for the understanding of them, as God hath allowed. For the godly, and learned Pastors and Teachers, be Gods own ordinance in his Church, & to them, 
Ephes 4.8.11, 1●▪  usually above others, doth he give more special gifts, for the edifying and instruction of his people, and for the opening and unfolding of those harder and difficulter places of the Scripture: so that they are not to be neglected, but to be resorted unto, and to be evermore much honoured, & reverently esteemed. If peradventure, by all means used, a layman, or an ecclesiastical Minister, shall not understand some hard and obscure Scripture, yet let him reverence (as becometh him) that which he understandeth not, and therein suspend his judgement and opinion, until it please God further to enlighten him, For whereas some allege, that lay persons should not read the Scriptures, lest through misunderstanding of them, they might possibly fall into some errors, or heresies: it hath been before answered, that such a reason, is very feeble, and of no weight; inasmuch as it may as well serve to dissuade Pastors, Doctors, and Ministers of the Church, from reading the Scriptures, because there is, also, a possibility for them as well as for lay persons, in the reading of them, to misunderstand them, and so to fall into errors and heresies, as we find experimentally, that sundry of them, heretofore have done, and still do. And whereas some, again, imagine, and fear not to say, that the permitting of the Scriptures to be read of the lay people in the vulgar tongue, is the cause of all the schisms, sects, errors, and heresies, that now flow in the world: they are herein mightily deceived, (by mistaking the cause); for, not the reading of the Scriptures, either by lay persons, or ecclesiastical Ministers, but the misunderstanding, and misapplying of them, through the frailty and corruption that is in men's minds, wresting and forcing them, to serve their own humours, fancies, and conceits, is the cause of all those schisms, sects, heresies, and errors: and this is not the right using, but abusing of the Scriptures. Now, even Reason and Philosophy do teach, as well as Divinity, that, Of what things there may be an use, of the same things there may be also an abuse: and it is a Mayhime with all, that abusus rei, non tollit usum, an abuse of a thing, doth not take away the lawful use of it. Many men (you know) do abuse meat, and drink, to surfeiting, gluttony, and drunkenness; shall that be therefore made an argument, to persuade any from all eating, or drinking? or is therefore eating and drinking the cause of men's gluttony and drunkenness? or is not their own excess, and intemperate humour the cause of it? So albeit many abuse the Scriptures, wresting and wring them to a wrong sense, and to their own humours, and fantasies (as do Papists, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, and Heretics) yet must that be no argument therefore to dissuade any from the reading of them, or from taking that lawful use, comfort, profit, and benefit that may be had out of them, 
Rom. 15.4. 2. Tim. 3.15, 16, 17.  and for which they were ordained. Yea the true cause, both of the beginning and continuance of all the schisms, sects, errors, and heresies that now be in the world, is in very deed, for that men will not suffer themselves to be overruled by the Scriptures, but will, contrary to the Scriptures and to the true sense of them follow their own ways, conceits, and inventions, or the devises of other men. Let none therefore pretend, or allege excuses for their own sloth or negligence in this case but with all alacrity▪ betake yourselves, even ye that be lay persons, as well as the rest, to the reading of the Scriptures, with reverence, humility, prayer, and a right inclined mind and affection, to believe, live, and do thereafter: And then shall ye not need to make any doubt of God's blessing, or good success and profit unto you, by the reading of them: yea then shall ye see and discern the errors, heresies, Idolatries, filthiness, and other abominations of the Popish Church and Religion, which otherwise ye will not be able to discern. This is the condemnation (saith Christ) that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness, rather than light, 
joh. ●. 19, 20, 21.  because their deeds were evil: for every one that evil doth, hateth the light, neither cometh he to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved: But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be made manifest, that they are wrought according to God. Yea, most lamentable is his estate, that will neither read, nor hear, the Word of God: for Christ himself saith thus; He that is of God, heareth the words of God: 
joh. 8.47.  ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Observe well those words. But again, he saith: My sheep hear my voice; 
joh. 10.27.  and I know them, and they follow me. And yet further he saith: He that refuseth me, and receiveth not my words, 
joh. 12.48.  hath one that judgeth him: The word that I have spoken, that shall judge him in the last day. Together with the rest, let this last alleged saying of Christ, be ever remembered: 
Christ will judge according to his own word in the last day, & not according to the word of the Pope, or of the Priests, or of other men.  For if Christ will judge men in the last day, according to his own word, (as is here expressly evident,) and not according to the word, doctrine, decrees, canons and constitutions of the Pope, or of any men mortal whosoever; is it not good reason, and a point of wisdom, in the mean time, for every one, willingly, desirously, and earnestly, to read, search, and study the Scriptures, and to suffer himself, and his opinions, to be overruled, and judged by that word, which must judge him at the last day.   

CHAP. II.  
Of Fides Implicita, that is, of the Enfolded saith, of Papists: What Church may err, and when, and how far: Of those which the Papists commonly call the marks of the Church; and that it is not so visible, as to be always openly seen, and known, to the wicked world: That Peter was not a Bishop of Rome in that sense the Papists make him: That the Pope is nothing like S. Peter: That the Pope is not the head of the universal militant Church, but Christ only.  
THe Premises considered, do you not perceive, of what little avail: the Papists Implicita fides, enfolded faith is? which consisteth only in assenting to the Church's Faith, though it know not what the Church's faith is, nor what it believeth, nor be able to distinguish the right Church from the wrong. Is it sufficient for the salvation of a man, to say, he believeth as the Church believeth, without knowing what it is the Church believeth? Can such a sottish and blind kind of believing, which hath reference only to the faith of others, bring a man to everlasting happiness? 
Abac. 2.4. Rom. 1.17.  Is not every man to live by his own faith? or shall any man be saved by the faith of another? or shall knowledge be excluded from the nature of Religion? or Religion be placed only, in an ignorant assenting to that which others believe? 
Gal. 3.11.  Is not this a devise, notoriously tending to the maintenance of ignorance, blindness, idleness, sloth, and negligence in the people? It were a most easy way for all lay people to come to heaven, if such a blind, sluggish, idle, imaginary, and absurd faith as this were sufficient: They shall need to take no great pains for it, by this doctrine. 
Matth. 13.44, 45, 46. Mat. 7.13, 14. Luk. 13.24. joh. 6.27. jude, vers. 3.  But Christ teacheth, that it is not such a broad and easy way, to come to heaven; but that it is a narrow way, and requireth much diligence, labour, striving, and contending to attain unto it. Yea, he showeth directly, that Ignorance will not excuse a man in the day of judgement, or free him from punishment: and that it is so far from being the mother of any good Devotion, that, chose, 
Luk. 12.47, 48. 2. Thess. 1.18.  he declareth it to be the mother of Error, saying: Erratis nescientes scripturas; ye err, because ye know not the Scriptures. 
Matt 22.29. Coloss. 2.2. 2. Cor. 8.7. Coloss 1.9, 10. Coloss. 3.16.  S. Paul also requireth, not only some knowledge, but even plenty, or, abundance of knowledge, in the people. And therefore he saith unto them: Let the word of Christ dwell in you plentifully, or, abundantly. And, indeed, how shall any of us, be able, certainly to know the doctrine of our Teachers, whether it be true or false, or to discern true Teachers from false, or the true Church from the false, unless we grow acquainted with the Scriptures, and be diligent and conversant in them? The blind man (they say) eateth many a fly: and no marvel than is it, if poor ignorant souls, that be so hoodwinked, and kept blind in Popery, receive and swallow down any doctrine and opinion of their Teachers, be it never so gross, false, or erroneous: especially when they are withal taught, as Bellarmine teacheth them, that they must reverence the doctrine of their Teachers, but not examine it. In this case, I would demand of him, or of any other, What if the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch? Or what if they be false Teachers, or false Prophets? 
Matth. 15.14. Luke 6.39. 1. joh. 4.1. 1. Thess. 5.21.  must their hearers reverence, & receive their doctrine, whatsoever it be? Christ biddeth the people to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saducees of those times. 
Matth. 16. 6.1●.  And again he saith to all Christians: Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolfs. 
Matt. 7 15, 16.  How shall they beware of them, if they may not examine their Doctrines? It is true, that Christ saith; Ye shall know them by their fruits. But, by what fruits? For false doctrines, be chiefly the fruits of false Teachers: inasmuch as they be properly called false-Prophets, in respect of their false doctrine. For as touching their life and conversation, we see that Christ himself here telleth us, that, how wicked soever they be inwardly, yet outwardly, they will put on sheepes-clothing, and so make fair shows, externally, of innocence, sanctity, and piety, to entangle and deceive people withal. Not without good cause therefore, did S. Basil say: that, 
Ethic. defin 72. pag. 432.  It behoveth the hearers that be learned in the Scriptures, to try those things whith are said by their Teachers, and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures, to reject the contrary. And this also Gerson affirmeth, saying: 
De exand. Doct. part. 1. confess. 5.  that the examination and trial of doctrines concerning faith, belongeth not only to a Council, and to the Pope, but to every one also that is sufficiently learned in the Scriptures: because every man is a sufficient judge of that he knoweth. Neither ought any Teacher to be hereat offended: for was not Saint Paul himself, though an Apostle, content to have his doctrine, thus tried and examined by his hearers? 
Acts 17.11.  And are not they much commended that made that search, and examination of it, by the Scriptures? Yea, (which is more) was not even Christ jesus himself (who is incomparably greater than any Apostle, or then all the Apostles put together, yea then the whole world, & consequently far greater than all that be the Bishops, Pastors, and Doctors in the same) content nevertheless, to have himself tried by the Scriptures, whether he were the Messias or no? 
joh. ●. 39.  Seeing then, Christ, the Head of his Church, was thus content to be tried, sha●l the Church, or any Bishops, Pastors, or Doctors, which be his servants, yea servants to the Church, scorn, or, disdain it, or take it ill? For when men's Doctrines be thus brought to be tried and examined by the sacred and canonical Scriptures: this is not (as Papists affirm) to make a private spirit, or any private man, but a Divine spirit, even God himself speaking in those his sacred and canonical Scriptures, to be the judge in the matter: To whose voice, and judgement, all Churches, Men, Angels, and all creatures, must stoop and obey. And therefore (as I said before) all the insolency, and most intolerable pride and arrogancy, that is in this case, is not in those who for their own safety and security, make search and examination, but in such Bishops, Pastors, and Teachers as will not endure this trial, and examination of their doctrines by those Scriptures. Pure and uncounterfeit gold, will endure the Touchstone: but no marvel though the drossy, corrupt▪ and unsound doctrine of Popery, will not admit of such a course.  
2 But you say, the Church cannot err, & that therefore you may boldly and confidently rely and build thereupon, without any further search or examination: Howbeit, you should first find out and know, which is the Church that cannot err, before you rely so confidently upon it. For you will easily and readily grant, that the false Church may err. And indeed the Text that you allege, where S. Paul calleth the Church, Columnam & firmamentum veritatis, the Pillar and ground of Truth, showeth, that he speaketh not of any false, but of the True Church, namely, (as himself expresseth) of that which is the Church of the living God. His words put all together, be thus: These things I write unto thee, (saith he to Timothy) trusting to come shortly unto thee: But if I tarry long, 
1. Tim. 3.14, 15  that thou mayest yet know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth. In these words, thus rehearsed by me, that ye might the better observe them, consider, that Timothy, who was the Teacher and overseer of this Church at Ephesus, had his direction and instruction, from the writings of S. Paul the Apostle: for so he saith; These things I write unto thee, etc. The Church then, which is the ground and Pillar of Truth, appeareth even by this very Text, to be such a one as receiveth her instructions and directions from the sacred and canonical Scriptures: whereof those Apostolical writings of S. Paul to Timothy, be a part. From whence, therefore, you may rightly conclude this, which we hold, namely, that so long as any Church followeth and is guided by these holy and canonical Scriptures, it is the pillar and ground of Truth, and doth not err or go astray: but if it decline from them, and go another way, it doth and must then needs fall into error. Howbeit, if when you say (The Church cannot err) you mean it of the whole universal Church of Christ, that is, of all and every one of the faithful members thereof, it is true, that cannot err, totally, nor fundamentally; that is to say, All and every one of those faithful members of Christ, 
Panormitan. de elect. pot. significasti. cause. 24. quaest. 1. §. à recta in Gloss. novitatib.  (as Panormitan, and the Gloss also upon the Canon Law, have before told us) cannot err, in such points as be necessarily required to salvation: for God's Church shall never utterly perish or be extinguished, but that in some or other, it shall continue to the world's end; and consequently so must the saving faith thereto belonging. But if you mean it of any visible particular Church (such as is the church of Rome, the Church of Ephesus, the Church of Corinth, or any such like) it is as clear, that may err, and go astray, yea and fall from God to Idolatry, and false worship. Were not the people of Israel, in times past, the true Church of God? and yet did even that Church, err & fall very grievously, even unto Idolatry and false worship, when they and Aaron also the high Priest with them, made the Golden Calf, and did worship before it. 
Exod. 32 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc.  And many s●ch declinings and falls from God to Idolatry and false worship, in that people, are sundry other times likewise to be found in the old Testament. But beside, what is now become of the seven Churches in Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of S. john, which were once the true Churches of Christ? Hath not Turkism and Paganism overflowed and drowned many that in former times were famous Christian Churches? Yea did not God himself also sometime complain, even of that Church and City of jerusalem, 
Esa. 1.21.  saying thus: How is the faithful City, become an Harlot? No marvel then is it, though Rome, which was once a faithful City, and a true spouse of Christ, be now long since, fallen away, and become an Harlot, even the whore of Babylon: 
Reve. 17.9.18.  as was long agone prophesied and foretold of her, that she should be. For neither was it any more impossible, for her to degenerate into Antichristianisme, than it was for sundry other Christian Churches and cities, to degenerate, and to be turned into Turkism or Paganism. Yea S. Paul also, hath long since prophesied, 
2. Thess. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  and foretold of this great Apostasy or departure from the right faith and religion, which hath now of a long time so amply prevailed in the world, under the head of that Apostatical and Antichristian kingdom, the Pope of Rome: and therefore this ought not now, to seem any new or strange thing unto any Christian.  
3 Howbeit, ye usually allege these, namely, universality, antiquity, perpetuity, unity, succession of Bishops, and doing of Miracles or wonders amongst you, to be marks of the true Church. But first, if by universality, ye mean that faith, doctrine, and religion, which was taught universally in the world, by the Apostles of Christ, and at his appointment: 
Mat. 28.19, 20.  We tell you, that ye are far from that universality: For that faith, doctrine, and religion, which was taught universally in the world by the Apostles, is comprised in the sacred and canonical Scriptures, and is the same that we hold, and not you: as appeareth by conferring and comparing both the religions with those Scriptures. But moreover, remember that the great Whore of Babylon (as she is called) sat upon many waters, that is, ruled over many people, and multitudes, 
Rev. 17. 1.1●.  and nations, and tongues, as the text itself expoundeth it. And it is further said; that, with that Whore, 
Rev. 11. ●.  the Kings of the earth have committed fornication, & that the Inhabitants of the earth were drunken with the wine of her fornication. Yea, it is again said, 
Rev. 18. ●.  That all Nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, & the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her. Behold here the universality belonging to your Church, which being thus foretold, & the event being correspondent, none should with such universality be any longer deluded. As for Antiquity, unless truth and true religion be joined with it (which is not in the Popish Church) it is but Vetustas erroris, Antiquity of errors, as S Cyprian rightly calleth it. Yea, Antiquity of the ancientest date, our religion hath, 
Cyprian ad Pompey.  and not yours: for ye cannot so much as show the points of your religion wherein ye differ from us (by the testimony of the sacred and Canonical Scriptures) to have been in the Apostles times, and taught or approved by them as we can do ours. And as touching Perpetuity, your Church hath it not, but ours very clearly hath it, as having been, not only in the times of the Apostles: but in all succeeding ages also, and posterities, as is before sufficiently and plainly declared in the first part of this book, Chap. 2. For the true Church is builded upon so strong and invincible a Rock (namely upon Christ jesus himself, whom Peter confessed) as that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
1. Cor. 3.11. 1. Cor. 10.4. Matth. 16.18.  If all the power of hell and devils (as is here manifest) cannot prevail against the Church of God, that is, the company of God's Elect, and the number of his true and right Worshippers: It is evident, that this Church, that is, a company of right and true worshippers of him, must be granted to be perpetual, and to have continued throughout all ages and generations: especially considering what God himself further speaketh, saying thus: I will mak● this my covenant with them: my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, 
〈◊〉. 59.21.  shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the mouth of thy Seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth even for ever. Yea, that our Church was in Esse, and had continuance even during the hottest rage of the reign of that Romish Antichrist, besides all other arguments, this is a manifest one, namely, because the Popish Church still molested, pursued, and persecuted our Church, under the names of Berengarians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Wick●evists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Lollards, Heretics, schismatics, and such like. And yet very true it is that such may be sometime, in some place, the state of the Church, by reason of raging persecution against it, as that even a right godly man, and true worshipper of God, may think himself to be left alone, without any followers or copartners with him, there, in the right service of God: As for example, Elias complained in his time, and of that place where he than lived, that he was left alone, and That they sought to take away his life also: And yet for all that was not Elias left alone, 
●. Kin. 19 10▪ 14.18 Rom. 11.3, 4  although he so supposed and spoke; for God told him, that he had even there, namely in Israel, where Elias then was, reserved unto himself, Seven thousand right worshippers of him, which had not bowed their knee to Baal. If the Company of God's chosen Church, and elect people, and right Worshippers of him, be (as is here evident) sometime, in some place, unknown, even to a right godly man and Prophet of God: no marvel is it, though they sometimes lie hid, and be unknown to their enemies and persecutors, to whose devowring paws and bloody hands (without urgent cause) they had no reason to show themselves. It is therefore no good argument which Papists make, when they say, that at some times during the reign of Popery, they neither saw, nor knew, nor could hear of any Protestants: for if it were so as they say, that they could find none, nor knew of any, at sometimes, yet even then might there be, and were there also, some such true and right worshippers of God, albeit they lay hid from them, and kept themselves (as they had reason) from their knowledge and merciless cruelty. The reason then which they make against the continuance and perpetuity of our Church, because it was not (as they say) at all times seen of the world, nor had their exercises of Religion at all and singular times publicly known to the world, appeareth to be very idle, and of no force. As for the answer which the Rhemists make to the former complaint of E●ias, that the faithful in his time, were forced to keep close, 
Rhem. Annot. upon Rom. 11.  by reason of the persecution of Achab & jesabel, which was only in the Kingdom of the ten Tribes, that is, in Israel: and yet nevertheless, that at the very same time, in jerusalem, and in all the Kingdom of judah, the external worship and profession of faith, was openly observed, & well known even to Elias himself. Admit all this were true (which is not proved) yet what will they then say to this, that the Church at other times, hath been so hidden, that there was no open or public exercise of Religion to be s●ene, no not in juda, or jerusalem itself, no more then in those ten Tribes of Israel▪ as namely in the days of Ahas, the son of jotham, King ●f juda, of whom it is said, 
2, King 16.2, 3, 4.10. etc.  that he walked in the way of the Kings of Isra●ll, yea and made his Son to go through the fire, after the abominations of the Heathen, and in whose time the Altar of God was removed, and an Idolatrous altar, by the high Priests consent, 〈…〉 Yea, in the days also of Hoseah, King of Israel, it is testified, that not only Israel, but juda also, kept not the Commandments of the Lord their God, but walked according to the fashion of Israel which they used How was the Church then visible in that sort and sense that we speak of? that is to say, 
2. King. 17.19.  was it such a Church as had public exercises of God's religion splendently seen, and openly apparent to the world? Again, in the days of Manasseth. 
2. King. 21.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. etc.  King of juda: when He did evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abomination of the Heathen, and erected altars for Baal, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them: and when he also built Idolatrous altars in the house of the Lord: yea, when it was recorded, that this King Manasseh, led the people out of the way to do more wickedly, than did the heathen: and made juda also sin, with his Idols: I say, when juda became thus corrupted and Idolatrous, aswell as Israel, Had then the Church her outward practice of Religion, according to God's commandment and appointment, to be openly seen of the world▪ And was it not so likewise in the days of Amon, King of juda, Son and successor to Manasseh? who did evil in the sight of the Lord, 
2. King. 21.19, 20, 21, 22.  as his father Manasseh did: for he walked in all the ways his father walked in, and served the Idols that his father served, and worshipped them. Thus you see, that the Church of God, was sometimes not openly seen, but lay hidden, and that as well in juda and jerusalem, as in the ten Tribes. But perceiving this Church of juda, and Israel, to make against them, than they fly to another devise, and say, that the Christian Church hath better promises then the Church of the jews. Howbeit, they can show none, as touching this point, better for the one then for the other: Yea, for the Church of the jews, to continue until the first coming of Christ, there be as strong & as good promises to be seen, as for the Church of the Gentiles to continue until the second coming of Christ. It is true, that the Church of Christ shall never be extinguished. But is there any such promise, that the Church of Christ shall never be hidden? For persecutions even of the Christian Church, have sometimes been so great and cruel, as that the Christians, by reason thereof, have been enforced to lie hid and to be unseen and unknown to the wicked world: 
Inscriptio salman tuae in monte Bartholomaei. Inscriptio in ruinis Pagi Macanezac.  as in the days of Dioclesian and Maximian, persecuting Emperors: who impiously boasted, that they had utterly abolished the superstition of Christ, and name of Christians. The like devilish boasting, also made Nero in his time Yea, it is indeed, expressly foretold in the Scriptures, that such should be the state of the church sometime, as that she should be enforced to fly into the desert or wilderness, where she should have a place prepared of God, 
Rev. 12.6.14.  to cherish, hide, and keep her from all her persecutors. And therefore the church is not always conspicuous, and openly shining and showing herself to the malignant world. Neither doth that Text which ye allege, of Dic Ecclesiae, tell it to the Church, prove the church to be always openly conspicuous to the ungodly world: It only showeth an order of Ecclesiastical discipline, 
Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.  for sins and offences▪ how they should be proceeded in, amongst brethren, and such as profess one and the self same religion of Christ: which order of discipline may well be observed even in a Christian church, and among themselves, though the wicked world neither see them, nor the exercises of their religion, nor know where they are. But you say, that if they make profession of their faith and religion (as all Christians ought) then the world cannot choose but take notice of them: It is true, that they are to make profession of their faith with their Mouth, when cause so requireth, aswell as to believe with their heart, 
Rom. 10.10.  yea and to answer every one in authority, before whom they shall be convented and called, and that with mildness and reverence, concerning the same their faith and hope, as S. Peter declareth. 
1. Pet. 3.15. ●●  But it doth not continually & evermore so fall out, that Christians be brought before Kings, Princes, and Magistrates of the earth, to be examined, and to make answer of their faith: but at sometimes it so falleth out, and at some other times again, it sufficeth that they make profession of their faith among themselves. Neither were it indeed safe, or a point of christian wisdom in them (whom Christ willeth, To be as wise as Serpents, 
Mat. 10.16, 17.  though as innocent as Doves, and to whom he giveth an express caveat, to take heed of men) rashly, or unadvisedly, or without good and urgent cause, to manifest and lay open themselves unto the view, rage, and fury of the malicious and persecuting world. But you allege further, that Christ said to his Disciples: Ye are the light of the world: A City that is set on a hill cannot be hid. 
Mat. 5.14, 15.  Neither do men light a candle and put it under a Bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house. But none of these words do prove the Church to be always and evermore apparent to the eyes of the wicked world, though sometimes it be. For first, though it be called the Light of the world, yet thereupon it followeth not, that therefore it is always, and at all times to be seen: Inasmuch as the Sun and the Moon, which be the great lights of the World, and so appointed of GOD in the beginning, be not always brightshining and appearing unto us, but are sometimes unseen, and covered with clouds, and darkened, and suffer strange Eclipses. And therefore doth S. Augustine compare the Church to the Moon, 
August. in Psal. 10. de Baptis. cont. Donatist. lib. 6. cap. 4.  which is often obscured and hid: yea he acknowledgeth, that the Church may be so hid and secret, as that the very members thereof shall not know one another. And whereas ye further allege, that it is like a City set upon a hill, neither doth it thereupon follow, that it is always to be seen: For in a great Mist, or a dark night, an Hill or Mountain, be it never so great, will not be seen: So if men be stricken with blindness, it cannot be seen of them, as the Aramites were, that could not see the mountain, 
2. Kin. 6.17, 18, 19, 20.  that was full of horses and chariots of fire, round about Elisha, nor knew that they were in the midst of Samaria, till God opened their eyes. Likewise, though a Candle be set on a Candlestick, and giveth light to all that are in that house: yet neither doth it give light to them that be in another house, nor to any that be blind, or shut their eyes against it. And yet the candlelight itself also will sometimes be much dimmed & darkened with sundry occurrents & accidents that do befall it. When therefore the world, either by reason of their own blindness, or by reason of fierce and terrible persecutions, or by reason of cloudy, smoky, and misty errors, raised up, be not able to see and discern the Church of Christ: Is that any just cause for any to quarrel against her, as if therefore she had no being at all? Yea, when the fifth Angel blew the Trumpet, and the Bishop of Rome▪ being in that time, as a Star fallen from heaven to the earth, had no longer the keys of heaven in his custody, but the keys of hell, even of the bottomless pit, and that the smoke of the pit arose as the smoke of a great furnace, 
Rev. 9.12. etc.  so that the Sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke: Is it any marvel that the Church was then obscured? Yourselves do grant, that in the days and times of the grand Antichrist, foretold by S. Paul, 
●. Thes. 2, 3, 4. etc.  the church should lie obscured, and be hidden: And we say, and prove unto you, that those days and times be come long since, and therefore this ought not to seem any new or strange thing unto any in these days. Yea, in the Revelation of S. john, you further read, that the Temple of God, that is, his Church, (which is there said to be in heaven, because from thence she is descended, and hath her mind, treasure, and affection there, with Christ her head, 
Reve. 11.19.  Phil. 3.20. Coloss. 3.1.2.) was sometime shut, and sometime opened. For in that it is there said, sometime to be opened, therein is included that it was at other sometimes shut and closed, and not open to the view of the world. So that the Church of God is not always openly and splendently seen to the persecuting World, but is sometimes patent, and sometimes latent as I trust you now sufficiently perceive: and withal, I trust you perceive, that the Church was then in esse, and had a continuance, even when it was most latent. For, unless they even then had been in esse, and in being, they could not have been, à latent, oppressed, or persecuted Church. Now as touching unity, I must tell you▪ that unless you join verity, and the truth of God's Religion with it, 
Psal. 2.1, 2, 3, 4▪ Unity without verity, is not to be regarded, but to be detested.  (which is not in the Popish Church) it is no better than a wicked and plain conspiracy against the Truth: which kind of unity, being amongst them, is indeed a mark, not of the true, but of the false, erring, and Antichristian Church. For so is it accordingly recorded of those that followed the Beast: 
Reve. 17.17.  That they were of one mind, or of one consent.  
4 And as for the Succession, ye talk so much of, That Succession in place, to so many good Bishops of Rome, which were Orthodox and of the right Religion, can no way serve to justify and defend those degenerate and Apostatical Bishops of Rome, which have sithence that time for the space of many hundreth years succeeded: no more than the Succession of many wicked and Idolatrous Kings in a kingdom, unto diverse godly, virtuous, & rightly religious Kings, which were their predecessors, is able to justify and defend those ungodly and degenerate successors. Those high Priests which conspired and consented to put Christ to death, were never the less wicked, nor any jot the more to be commended or allowed, because they succeeded divers godly Priests which were their predecessors. The virtue then, and right religion of any predecessors, can, no way, serve to countenance and defend the vice and false religion of the successors. Non locus sanctificat hominem nec Cathedra facit Sacerdotem: The place sanctifieth not the man, 
Crysost. Dist 40.  nor doth the Chair make the Priest, saith Chrysostome. Neque sanctorum filij existimandi sunt, quicunque tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum: Neither are they to be esteemed the children of the Saints, 
Hieronym. ad Helvid. Dist. 40.  whosoever hold the places of the Saints, but they which exercise their works, saith Hierome. Qui praesunt ecclesijs, non ex loci, aut generis dignitate, sed morum nobilitate▪ non ex urbium claritate, sed fidei puritate, debent innotescere: They which be rulers of the Churches, 
Dist. 4. non est facile ibidem nos qui.  aught to be known, not by the dignity of their place or ancestors, but by the nobleness of their manners, not by the famousness of their Cities, but by the purity of their faith, saith Gregory. Albeit therefore, the Pope, otherwise called the Bishop of Rome, succeedeth in place, to many godly and virtuous Bishops that were his predecessors in former and ancient times: yet what doth all this make for him, except he were like unto them, and did succeed them in verity, piety, humility, right faith and true religion, aswell as in place? The local succession, without the other is nothing worth, but serveth rather to shame, reprove, and condemn the successors, than any way to commend or allow of them, when they be so exceedingly degenerate, and unlike to those their good and godly predecessors.  
5 And here they are wont to allege, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that the Pope is his Successor: But first, it is not true that Peter was Bishop of Rome in that sense they speak of, that is to say, He was not tied, limited, and restrained to that city of Rome as to his particular Diocese or Province, as Bishops in these days be: for it is clear that S. Peter was, 
Luk. 6.13.14. etc. Matth. 10.2. Mark 3.14, 15, 16, 17 etc.  by his proper office and function, one of the Apostles of Christ, who by their office of Apostleship, were not restrained to any particular place, as a Bishop is to his Diocese or Province, but were permitted to go into any part of the world, and to preach the Gospel, as the very commission given unto them from Christ jesus himself, 
Mark. 16.15.  doth plainly declare. Again, 
Mat. 28.19, 20,  it is well known, that ancient Writers do also call S. Paul, Bishop of Rome, as well as S. Peter▪ and therefore Peter, is in no other sense to be accounted Bishop of Rome, then S. Paul was. Yea S. Ambrose calleth all the Apostles, Episcopos, that is, Bishops. And judas the Apostle, 
Ambr. in Eph. 4.  is also said in the very Scripture itself, to have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Episcopatum, 
Acts 1.20.  that is, a Bishopric. You see then, that whosoever, either in the Scripture, or in the ancient Fathers, is said to be a Bishop, is not by and by to be supposed, 
Apostles be, & may rightly be called Bishops in the general and large acception of the word.  a Bishop restrained to a particular place, as a Bishop of a Diocese or Province is. For this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Greek, and, Episcopus, in Latin, (commonly Englished, a Bishop) signifieth in the original, nothing else but an Overseer, or one that hath any charge to look to: in which ample and general signification, it is rightly attributed, to any of the Apostles whosoever; and consequently well might S. Peter (though he were, by his proper office and function, an Apostle) be called by some of the ancient Fathers a Bishop, in respect of that his Apostolical charge and Ministry, which he performed. But thereupon to infer, that he was Bishop of Rome, in this sense, namely, as a Bishop affixed and restrained to that place, as to his proper and peculiar Diocese or Province, and as though he might not go from thence, into other parts of the world, to perform the Office of an Apostle, aswell as thither, is, besides the inconsequencie of it, very absurd. Whatsoever stay or abode then, either S. Peter, or S. Paul, made at Rome, or elsewhere, or wheresoever they lived or died, it is manifest that they were Apostles, and executed every where, that their Apostolical office and function, and lived and died Apostles, and therefore are not (in proper and strict appellation) to be termed, and deemed, Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces. For neither can he that is by Christ (his Lord and Master) designed and appointed to be an Apostle, lawfully forsake that his office and calling of Apostleship, and at his own, or other men's pleasure, become of another, and that an inferior degree and calling, as namely to be a Bishop tied & restrained to a Diocese or Province. But, admit, Peter had been Bishop of Rome in that strict signification of the word, yet than secondly was he far from being Bishop of the whole world: for, to be Bishop of one City in the world, or of one particular Diocese, or Province in the world, is not all one with this, namely to be Bishop of the whole world, or to be universal Bishop over all the Churches in the world: for Episcopus orbis and urbis, do far differ. Yea, thirdly, let us admit, if you will, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that by being Bishop of Rome, he was also Bishop of the whole world, or of all the Christian Churches in the whole world, (which nevertheless is very absurd to be admitted) yet what would all this advantage the Bish. of Rome that now is, or any other of the Bishops of Rome, that have been in these later times, for the space of divers hundreth years, that they be successors to him, in place, whom they are nothing like unto in conditions and virtues, humility, faith, and religion? For how unlike the Pope is to S. Peter, judge ye. First, it is well known, 
Peter and the Pope be nothing alike as is apparent by comparing them together. Acts 3.6.  that S. Peter was a contemner of the pomp and pride of the world, and a disregarder of the wealth & riches thereof, insomuch that he said to one that asked alms of him, that he had neither silver nor gold: but the Pope of Rome is not so, but (chose) hath the pomp, pride, glory▪ and riches of the world, in very high and chief esteem, and aboundeth with them. Again, Peter was subject to Emperors, 
1. Pet. 2.13, 14.  Kings, and Princes, and taught all Christians to be likewise subject to them: but the Pope is so far from being subject to them, that chose he claimeth sovereignty and supremacy over them all, and taketh upon him to depose Kings, Princes and Emperors at his pleasure, and to disannul and dissolve the allegiance of subjects, when and as often as he listeth. Peter would not allow Cornelius, though but a Captain of the Italian band, 
Act. 10.26.  to fall down at his feet, but bade him arise: but the Pope of Rome doth well allow, not only Captains, but Kings, Princes, and Emperors, to fall down and kiss his feet. Yea he hath not been ashamed, with his feet, to tread upon the neck of some of the Emperors. Peter was a godly, earnest, and diligent Preacher of the Gospel in his own person, according to that commandment of Christ, so often repeated, & saying unto him: Pasce, Pasce, 
joh. 21.15, 16, 17.  Pasce, feed my lambs feed my sheep▪ feed my sheep. But the Pope of Rome, like an idle, pompous, and slothful man, in his own person, seldom or never Preacheth. Peter was content, 
Gal 2.11.  and well endured to be reproved at the hands of S. Paul when there was cause: He also patiently suffered himself to be accused and contended against, 
Act. 11. ●, 3, 4.  by certain Christians and mildly▪ and modestly answered to those their exceptions against him, for their satisfaction. 
Part. 1. dist 4. Ca Si Papa.  But the Pope of Rome, though he be never so worthy of reproof, will nevertheless not suffer himself to be reproved, nor accused, or contended against, nor will have his doings examined, 
Extravag▪ de concess pr●●end. Tit. 4. cap. 2. ad Apostol in gloss.  questioned, censured, or judged by any men: such is his unmeasurable pride, and unmatchable loftiness. Again, S. Peter did acknowledge S. Paul, S. Matthew, S. Andrew, S. james, and the rest of the twelve, to be Apostles, aswell as himself; 
Luk. 6.13, 14, 15, 16.  albeit they had no ordination or calling, to that their Office of Apostleship, from him: (for that they all had an immediate calling to that their Apostleship, from Christ jesus himself, 
Matth 4.18, 19, 20, 21, 22▪ Gal. ●. 1.  and not from Peter, is a thing undeniably manifest.) But the Pope (chose) acknowledgeth none to be a Bishop, except he be ordained and made a Bishop by him, or by his authority. Moreover, 
Act. 14.28.  they were accounted and held to be Presbyters, and Ministers of the Church, which were made and ordained by other Apostles, though they were not made or ordained by Peter, nor by any authority derived from him: But the Pope of Rome acknowledgeth none to be Presbyters or Ministers of the Church, which be made by other Bishops, 
joh. 21.15, 16, 17.  except they be made and ordained by him, or by authority originally derived from him. Yea S. Peter did acknowledge the rest of the Apostles to be his fellows or Equals, as, 
Luke 22.14, 25, 26. Matt. 20.25, 26. Mar. 10.42, 4●.  well knowing that Christ jesus himself did directly forbid them to bear Princely authority one over another: insomuch that Peter, aswell as john, was content to be sent by the rest of the Apostles into Samaria, 
Act. 8. 14·  and did go thither at their sending: But the Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth not other Bishops to be his fellows or Equals, nor will be content to be sent, as their Messenger, to any place, but most proudly challengeth a Princely Primacy, and kinglike superiority over them all. If the Pope will needs be Peter's successor, it were reason and a thing equal and just, that he should claim no more authority over other Bishops, than Peter had over the rest of the Apostles: yea if he will make Peter, his pattern and precedent to follow, (as it were a happy thing for him, if he were in very deed, so well affected) he must then utterly give over his triple Crown, and all his Papal worldly pomp and pride, and be clean reform, and become altogether another man, in all respects wherein he is so exceedingly degenerated and unlike unto him. And then, together with the relinquishing of his most proud Popedom, he must also, forsake, renounce, and detest his Popery, and Popish Religion: for S. Peter clearly was such a one, as we call a Protestant, 
S Peter a Protestant, 〈◊〉 not a Papist.  that is to say, one that both held and taught that Religion that we hold, namely that, which is contained in the Book of GOD, the sacred and canonical Scriptures. Yea S. Peter died a Martyr for the testimony of this faith and religion: and the Pope of Rome is, chose, a persecutor of those that profess this faith and religion. For that the Papists be the clear and undoubted persecutors of the Saints and Martyrs of jesus, is afterward manifested by a direct and most evident testimony thereof, 
Reve. 17. ●.  in the Revelation of S. john; to the end ye should not hereafter be mistaken in that point (as usually ye be) nor deceive yourselves any longer therein. 
1. Cor. 12.12, 13, 14. etc.  Furthermore, S. Peter was content, and held it honour enough, to be a member of the body of Christ, 
Ephes. 1.22▪ 23. Col. 1 18. Col. 2.10.  which is his Church, acknowledging with S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles, that Christ only was, and is, the head thereof: But the Pope of Rome, is not content, unless he intrude himself into this his very royal prerogative, taking upon him to be the very head of the whole militant church. We know that the Church of Christ is but one body (as the Scripture speaketh and witnesseth) though there be many members of it; 
1. Cor. 12.12, 13.14.17.  and one body is to have but one head: why then, or by what right or reason, do they make this body of Christ (which is his Church) to have two heads, namely one in heaven, which is Christ jesus, & another on earth, which, they say, is the Pope? They confess that of the Church in heaven which is to us invisible, Christ is indeed the head; but of the visible Church on earth, the Pope (say they) is the head, and that such a visible head, for the visible church, is requisite and necessary: And here they have a distinction, that Christ is indeed, Caput vitale, the vital head, from whence all his members have and derive their life, but that the Pope is Caput ministeriale, & visibile, the ministerial and visible head: And thus they boldly speak, frame, and devise matters and distinctions, according to the fancy of their own brains▪ But first, what Patent, conveyance, warrant, or commission from God, can the Pope of Rome show, whereby he is thus authorized to be either Christ his special or only Vicar, deputy, or Lieutenant, over his whole universal church here upon earth, or to be this special and only visible and ministerial head? Just none at all, do they, or can they show for it. And is it not then a shame for him (if he had any shame in him) thus to intrude himself into such an high, and sovereign Authority, without any commission or warrant from Christ, the King of his church? Besides, themselves acknowledge, and that rightly▪ that the company of the glorious, and invisible Saints in heaven, and the company also of the visible Saints on earth, do all make but one church, and one Body to Christ jesus, though their states be differing, that is to say, though the one sort be triumphant, and the other militant: Inasmuch then, as they all make but one church, & one body unto Christ jesus, how can it be shifted or avoided, but that Christ jesus must be the head, aswell of the saints on earth, as of the saints in heaven, & aswell of the visible & militant company, as of the invisible & triumphant? Yea, Bellarmine himself will not allow any Christian, to be termed or called a member of the Pope: How then can the Pope rightly be the head of the church? for if all true Christians upon earth, be, and be to be termed, the members of Christ, and not of the Pope, it must be granted, that not the Pope, but Christ only, is their head; for the head and the members be relatives. And whereas in this matter, they talk of a ministerial head, which is not vital, it is also but a fantastical and vain distinction: For there can be no head, in true and proper appellation to this one body of Christ (which is his Church) but that which is vital. The Pope (as appeareth, even by this their own distinction) is but a dead head, and hath no life in him, to give to any of the members of Christ, or whereby virtue, growth, nourishment, or increase may distil or be derived from him, as from the head, to any of the members: What then should the body of Christ do with such a liveless and dead head? or what good, profit, or benefit, can any reap or receive from thence? A dead body is fittest for such a dead head, but the living and mystical body of Christ, hath, and requireth, another manner of head, namely that which is vital, which is Christ jesus only, of whose fullness they have all received, as S. john speaketh. Neither is there any such necessity, 
Ephes 4.15, 16. joh. 1▪ 16.  as they also vainly fancy, for the visible and militant Church, to have such a visible head: for albeit Christ jesus be absent from his church militant here upon earth, in respect of his bodily presence, which he hath carried with him into heaven; yet in his Deity, and by the power of his spirit, is he always present with the same his church: For so himself witnesseth saying, I am with you always unto the end of the world. 
Mat. 28.20.  And therefore always doth S. john testify, that notwithstanding the manhood and bodily presence of Christ be in heaven, and there remaining, yet nevertheless by his almighty power and spirit, he walketh, 
Rev. 1.11, 12, 13. etc.  and is in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks, that is, In the midst of the seven Churches: for so the text itself expoundeth the Candlesticks saying thus: The seven Candlesticks, 
Rev. 1.20.  be the seven Churches. Under the name of which seven churches, be also all other churches upon earth shadowed out unto us, as Augustine, Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Thomas Aquinas, and others affirm. Seeing then that Christ jesus, notwithstanding his bodily presence remaining in heaven, is nevertheless by his almighty power and spirit, present with all the true Christian churches in the world, and walketh in the midst of them, to guide, govern, comfort, teach, order, rule, sustain, uphold, and direct them, and give all gifts and graces requisite: It is manifest, that he is sufficiently present with them in the church militant, to do all the offices of an head unto them, so that they need not in any sort, the Pope to become an head unto them, for any of those uses or ends. Yea, is it not a very great absurdity, for any to suppose or imagine, that the Pope, or any one man mortal whosoever, being on earth, can better rule, order, guide, and govern the whole militant church, than Christ jesus himself can do, being in heaven, by his wisdom, almightiness, and power of his Spirit? But yet further, when Christ in his manhood was to ascend up into heaven, he promised neither the Pope, nor any one Bishop over all the rest, to be his Vicar on earth, or to supply his room and absence, but the holy Ghost only: For thus he saith, I tell you the truth, 
joh. 16.7.  It is expedient for you, that I go away: for if I go not away, that Comforter will not come unto you. 
Vers. 13.  And this comforter is the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, as is there expressly affirmed. And again he saith: that, After his departure they shall have another Comforter that shall abide with them for ever, 
joh. 14.16, 17.  even the spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. Do not these texts very plainly show, that the holy Ghost, is, and is to be accounted Christ's Vicar upon earth, ever since his departure into heaven? that is to say, is in his stead and place unto the militant Church, and to abide with it for ever? And therefore doth Tertullian say accordingly, that Christus misit Vicariam vim spiritus sancti, qui credentes agate: Christ sent the power of the holy Ghost to be his Vicar, or in his steed, to lead and direct the believers. Howbeit, 
2. Cor. ●. 20.  if some Bishop will needs be so entitled▪ namely Christ's Vicar, as being an Ambassador for Christ, and in Christ's stead, 
Cypr. l. 4. & 3. & l 3. ep. 13. & de simpli. praelat. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5. & in 1. Cor. 11. Chrysost. ho. 17. in Mat. etc. Eph. 1.22. Heb. 5.5.  yet let him then know, that he is not so alone, but that all godly and faithful Bishops and Ministers be so likewise: For which cause it is, that the ancient Fathers do call them all alike, Vicarios Christi, the Vicars of Christ: But S. Paul yet further showeth, that not Christ himself took upon him this honour, to be head of the church, without his father's appointment and constitution. If therefore the Pope will take it upon him, it is good reason he should likewise show, where God hath so constituted and appointed him; which he is not able to do. Yea S. Paul showeth again, That only he is head of the Church, which is far above all principality, 
Ep. 1.21, 22, 23. Coloss. 1.18.  and power, and dominion, and might, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in the world to come: And therefore this is such a high, peerless, and supereminent an honour and prerogative, as that it is proper to Christ jesus only, and not communicable to any creature. Lastly, you may perceive by S. Paul, that Christ is so the head of the Church, as the husband is the head of his wife: 
Eph. 5.23.  And is there any honest wife, that will be content to have two heads, that is, two husbands; though (for distinction sake) you should term the one a ministerial head, or howsoever else you would please to call him?  
6 Now touching Miracles, signs, or wonders: we say, that, 
Mar. 1●. 20.  those which were done by Christ and his Apostles, and in those ancient and primitive Churches, be sufficient for the confirmation of that most ancient primitive, Christian, and Apostolic faith and religion (contained in the book of God) which we profess. 
Chrysost in Mat. 24. hom. 49.  Yea, now in these days (saith S. Chrysostome) the working of miracles is ceased, and they be rather counterfeit miracles (saith he) which be found amongst them that be false Christians. Again he saith, There be some that ask, why men work not miracles now, 
In joh. ca 2. hom. 22 in fine 1. Cor. 14.22.  in these days: If thou be believing (saith he) as thou oughtest to be, and if thou lovest Christ, as he should be loved, thou needest no miracles: for signs be given to unbelievers, 
Cyril in Joh. lib. ●. cap. 13.  and not to believers. Again, S. Cyrill saith: that, to work miracles, maketh not a man one jot the more holy, seeing it is common to evil men, and to such as he objects, or reprobates: For so the Lord himself witnesseth, saying: Many shall say unto me in that day; 
Mat. 7.22.23.  Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, & in thy name done many great works? And yet will he nevertheless profess unto them: I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. And on the other side, working of no miracles hindereth not a man's holiness: 
joh. 10.41. Matth. 11.11.  for john wrought neither sign nor miracle, and yet was this no derogation to his holiness: for amongst them that are borne of women, arose there not a greater than he, as Christ himself testifieth. Yea, that miracles, signs, or wonders may be done by false Prophets, and false teachers, is further manifest, for even Christ himself saith: that, There shall arise false Christ's, 
Matth. 24. 24·  and false Prophets, and they shall show great signs and wonders, so that, if is were possible, they should deceive the very Elect. S. Paul also directly testifieth: that, in the Antichristian Church there shall be, the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying Wonders. 
2. Thess. 29.  Which (saith S. Augustine) be called lying signs and Wonders, for this cause; that either men's senses be deceived, 
August. de civ●● Dei lib. 20. ca 19  thinking that to be done which revera is not done: or else, because, if they be done in deed, they draw men to believe that they could not be done but by the power of God, whereas they know not the power of the Devil. For S. john in the Revelation, mentioneth spirits of Devils, working Miracles, 
Rev. 16.14. Rev. 13.13, 14.  to deceive those that be of the Antichristian Church. By all this then, you see, that the Miracles wrought in Popery, be no argument or proof, that therefore it is the right or true Church, or that the Teachers therein, be the right and true Teachers: for they may be false Prophets, and false Teachers, and the Popish Church may be (as indeed it is) the false and Antichristian Church, all these their Miracles notwithstanding. But hereof I shall have occasion to speak more fully afterward, when I come to speak of Antichrist and his Miracles. In the mean time, concerning this point, thus much may suffice.   

CAP. III.  
Of justification by Faith only: The right sense and meaning of that position; and of the truth of it: And that being rightly understood, it excludeth not good works, nor importeth any licentiousness at all in it, but the clean contrary.  
IT is a thing well known, how busy, and earnest, Popish Teachers be, not only by word of mouth, but by their books & writings also, to persuade you (all that ever they can) against ours, the most ancient, most pure, and only right Religion: and amongst other their bad devises (which they plot & contrive for their own advantage and behoof) this is not the least, that they accuse our Religion to be a doctrine and religion of much licentiousness, and that in sundry points, which therefore must be answered. And many there be also that be too hasty, and over credulous to believe them, as if all that they speak and write, were to be held for undoubted truth and oracles without further enquiry or examination. But howsoever they thus boldly presume, they, for all that, be not able to take any just exception against our Religion, or to show or prove it, in any point whatsoever, to be an allower of any the least impiety, or licentiousness, if it be rightly understood. It is true, that sundry that profess protestancy, live licentiously, and wickedly: and so do many also, that profess Popery, likewise live wickedly & licentiously. If therefore they allow not this for an argument sufficient to convince their religion of wickedness & licentiousness, which is taken from the wicked lives, manners, and conversations of men: Why will they be so unequal, as to make it of any force against our religion? Wise men can easily distinguish inter vitium rei, & personae, between that which is the fault of the thing, and the fault of men's persons: For the religion may be good, though some persons that profess it, live not answerably thereunto: yea the Protestant (that is, the Christian) Religion which we profess, is so good, godly, divine, holy, and pure, as that it neither alloweth nor tolerateth the filthy Stews, nor any other impurity, nor any treasons, or rebellions, nor perjuries, nor lying, or deceitful equivocations, nor any other wickedness or impiety whatsoever, but utterly condemneth them all. So that for true piety, purity, integrity, and all manner of good life and godly conversation, the religion of Popery cometh far short of it, and is in no sort to be compared with it. If then any professing our religion live wickedly or licentiously, (as too many do) it is the fault of the men that live so dissolutely, and not of the religion, which requireth and commandeth the clean contrary, at their hands. But, for all that, they persist and say, that even the Protestants religion itself, is licentious, because it teacheth and holdeth, that men are justified in God's sight, and before his Tribunal, only by faith in jesus Christ: which doctrine (say they) maketh men licentious, and careless of doing good works. Howbeit, both they and you must understand, that when the Protestants do say, or have said at any time, that Faith only justifieth in God's sight: it is and ever was meant and intended (howsoever some seem purposely to mistake it) not of any dead faith, (which hath no life in it, to bring forth any good works), but of a true and lively faith, which is accompanied with good works, and is fruitful and working by love, (as S. Paul, 
Tit. 3.8. Gal. 5.6. jam 2.14. 2. Pet. 1.5, 6, 7, 8  and S. james, and S. Peter, and the rest of the holy Scriptures, clearly declare). Whilst therefore they teach both in their Sermons, & writings, with S. james, and the rest of the Scriptures, That the faith that is without works, is dead, and that such a faith cannot save or justify a man, but that it must be a true and lively faith, that is, such a faith as produceth & bringeth forth good works: I hope you sufficiently perceive, that the doctrine of the Protestants concerning justification by this lively faith, and not by any dead faith, is such, as you can no way dislike; & that it is so far from making any careless of doing good works that chose, it urgeth, abetteth, persuadeth, and provoketh men unto them, if they mean, or desire to have such a faith, as whereby they may be saved. But now although the Protestants do thus rightly teach, that this faith and good works go together, and be inseparable in respect of the person, so that he that hath this faith, hath also good works: yet in the point of our justification in God's sight, and before his Tribunal, 
Rom. 9 30. Rom. 10.3, 4. Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. Gal. 2.19, 20. jere. 23.6. & 33.16. 1. Cor. 1.30. 2. Cor. 5.21. Rom. 5.19. joh. 3.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Rom. 5.1. Gal 3.26. Rom. 3.20.28.  they are to be distinguished, and to be considered apart, and not confusedly: because it is Faith only, and not Works, whereby we apprehend and apply Christ jesus unto us, as our Righteousness. To understand this the better, you must ever remember, that Christ jesus, is, in very deed, our Righteousness; for so the scriptures do plentifully teach and proclaim: Our faith is, but the hand or instrument, whereby we apprehend and apply that righteousness unto us: and our good works be the fruits, testimonies, and declarations, both to ourselves, and other men, of that faith in Christ, which justifieth us before God. And therefore it is not enough, for a man to say, he hath faith, but if he have that true, lively, and justifying faith, 
jam. 2.18.20.26. etc.  which he pretendeth, he must declare & show it by his works: for so S. james saith; ostend mihi fidem tuam ex operibus tuis: show me thy faith by thy works. And agreeably hereunto, 
jam. 2.18.  S Paul calleth good works, and a sanctified course of life, fructus justitiae, the fruits of righteousness. So that we are first righteous by faith in Christ, 
Phil. 1.11.  before we do or can bring forth these fruits of righteousness. And so S. August. likewise teacheth: 
August. de fide & oper. ca 14.  affirming directly, that, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum: Good works do follow him that is formerly justified, and do not go before him that is afterward to be justified. 
Matth. ● 33.  And this, even Christ jesus also himself declareth, namely, that, the tree must first be good, before it can bring forth good fruit. 
Luke 6.43, 44.  By all which it is very manifest, that good works, be not causes, but fruits, effects, and consequents, of that faith which justifieth us before God. But this is yet further evident, because S. Paul saith expressly, that we are justified by faith, 
Rome 5.1.  and so have peace with God: He further, excludeth Works very directly, and by name, from having any thing to do, in that act of our justification. Therefore we conclude, (saith he) that a man is justified by faith, 
Rom. 3.28.  without the works of the Law. 
Rom. 4.6.  And again he saith: that, God imputeth, righteousness, without works. Again he saith: It is by grace, and not of works, Rom. 11.6. 
Rom. 11.6.  And again he saith: It is not of works, Rom. 9.11. And again he saith: 
Rome 9 11.  By grace are ye saved through faith, (and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God) and not of works, lest any man should boast himself. 
Ephe. 2.8, 9, 10.  In all which places, ye may perceive, that how requisite or commendable soever good works be, and what good use soever they have, yet they be directly excluded from being any cause of our justification and salvation in God's sight and censure. And with this also agreeth that saying of S. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galathians, where he giveth this conclusion, 
Gal. 3.26.  saying: Ye are all the sons of God, by faith in Christ jesus. And so also testifieth S. john, saying: 
joh. 1.12.  That as many as received Christ, to them he gave this prerogative, to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name. Where, you may observe, that belief, or, faith, is reckoned as the hand or instrument whereby Christ is apprehended, or received. Again he saith: That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, 
joh. 3.16.  should not perish, but have everlasting life: In which words, you may observe again, the first and original cause of our salvation, to be the mere grace and love of God. Secondly, the material cause, to be, Christ the Son of God, with his obedience and righteousness: And thirdly, the instrumental cause, to be, faith, or belief, in that his Son and our Saviour jesus. For he (saith the text) was sent into the world to this end, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. But consider, that he saith yet further: 
joh. 3.14, 15.  That, as Moses lift up the Serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lift up, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. Some of you, no doubt, remember the story of the Serpent there mentioned, which is in the book of Numbers: for after that the people of Israel had wickedly spoken and murmured against God, and against Moses: 
Num 21.5, 6, 7, 8, 9  The Lord sent fiery Serpents among the people, which stung the people, so that many of the people of Israel died: Therefore the people came to Moses and said: We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee: pray to the Lord, that he take away the Serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people, And the Lord said unto Moses: make thee a fiery Serpent, and set it up for a sign, that as many as are bitten, may look upon it and live: So Moses made a Serpent of brass, and set it up for a sign: and when a Serpent had bitten a man, than he looked to the Serpent of brass, and lived. As therefore Moses lift up this brazen Serpent in the wilderness, to the end, that whosoever was stung by those fiery Serpents, and did look upon that brazen Serpent, might be cured▪ & live, and was cured, and did live accordingly: So was also the Son of man, Christ jesus, lift up upon the Cross, where he was crucified, to the end, that whosoever is stung with the deadly stings of sin, or of that old Serpent, the Devil, and doth, with the eyes of his faith applying him, look upon Christ jesus, so lifted up, and crucified for him, should be healed, and have eternal life. Where you may again perceive, that as Christ is compared to that brazen Serpent: so is our belief, or, faith in him, compared to their looking upon the brazen Serpent: so that still it appeareth, that, faith, is as the eye, or instrument, whereby we behold, apprehend, and apply Christ crucified, as a salve unto us, for all our sores. For in him is comprehended, whatsoever is necessary or fit to cure us. When therefore we say and speak in this sort, that, Sola fides iustificat, Faith only justifieth, we mean not that this faith is so sole or alone, as that it is without good works, but that in the act of our justification, before God, and in his sight, and as it respecteth and apprehendeth Christ the object of it, it is sole and alone, works having no part with it in that apprehensive faculty. Where also you may understand, how S. james, & S. Paul be clearly reconciled (between whom nevertheless, there neither is, nor ever was, any variance, being rightly understood) namely, even by that evident, common, and known distinction: that, CHRISTUS iustificat effectiuè: Fides instrumentaliter, siuè apprehensiuè: Opera declaratiuè, CHRIST is he that justifieth in very deed effectually, Faith justifieth instrumentally or apprehensively: and works justify declaratively, that is, they do declare or show forth unto men, the goodness and liveliness of that faith, whereby, as by an instrument, apprehending Christ our righteousness, we are justified in the sight of God. And this is the reason that S. james spoke in that sort before mentioned, (viz) Declare, or, Show me thy faith by thy works, 
jam. 2.18.  and I will show thee my faith by my works. In which sense also, he further saith: that, Abraham was justified, (that is) was showed or declared to be just, by his works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the Altar. Likewise he saith, that Rahab, the harlot, was justified, (that is, was showed, or declared to be just) through works, when she received the messengers and sent them out another way. So that to be justified by works, in S. james, is nothing else, but thereby to be showed or declared to be just. 
jam. 2.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.20. etc.  For all S. james his dispute, in that place (if you well observe it) is, directly and expressly against a Dead faith, which hath no good works with it, and against that vain man, that shall say or think, that he hath a faith good enough to save him, when as, being without works, it was indeed, but an idle brag and conceit, and not a lively, or saving faith, but like a body without a soul (as he there resembleth it) for that it hath not the action of a living thing appearing in it. The justification therefore by faith, without works, (whereof S. Paul speaketh) and the justification by works, and not by faith only: that is, when faith only is pretended, or alleged, which is destitute of good works, 
james 2.24.  (whereof S. james speaketh) appear to have no contradiction, or contrariety at all, but a very plain, evident, and clear consent, and agreement. For both those Apostles do teach alike, and concur in this, that the justifying and saving faith, is not an idle or dead faith, but such a one as is lively and operative, working by love, 
Gal. 5.6.22, 23, 24.  and bringing forth the fruits of good works. And therefore doth also S. Paul aswell as S. james, require of all believers in Christ, that they be careful to show forth good works: 
Tit. 3.8.  and of as many as be redeemed by him, and justified by faith in him, that They should be zealous of good works. Yea, 
T●●. 2.14.  although he teacheth, that we are justified in God's sight, and saved by grace through faith, and not by works: yet he further addeth and saith nevertheless: that, We are his workmanship, 
Eph. 2.8, 9.10  created in Christ jesus unto good works: and that God hath before ordained those good works, that we should walk in them. So that good works, be, as S. Bernard also witnesseth of them: Via regni, non causa regnandi: The way, 
Bernard de gra. & liber. arbis.  wherein men must walk towards God's kingdom, but they be not the cause of their raigneing, or, of their coming thither. As for that they object, touching the Heresy of faith only justifying or saving, which S. Augustine saith, was held by some in the Apostles time; the same S. Augustine himself there plainly declareth, 
August. de fide & operib. cap. 14  that the heresy was of them, that thought they might be justified or saved by such a faith as was void of good works: which is indeed, an heretical or erroneous opinion, which nothing toucheth us: yea, which we likewise condemn & detest as much as any: ever holding with the same S· August. & with S. Paul, & S. james, and the rest of the Scriptures, that a justifying, or saving faith, will produce good works, and a care to live well, and in obedience to all God's commandments. Here than you may see, the unsoundness of that distinction which the Rhemists and other Papists, use, viz. that works done before Faith received, that is, whilst men be Infidels, and unbelievers, do not (indeed) justify: but works done after faith received, that is, after that men be believers, do (say they) justify in God's sight. For, doth not S. Paul in that his dispute concerning justification, expressly mention the example of Abraham, 
Rom. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 etc.  as being the father of the faithful in that case? And doth he not say of that believing and godly man, Abraham, that his Faith was imputed to him, for righteousness before God, and not his Works? And doth he not further say; that David likewise describeth the blessedness of a man, to consist, not in any works, or inherent righteousness of his own, but in remission of his sins, 
Vers. 6, 7, 8.  and in Gods not imputing sin unto him: yea, unto whom, God imputeth righteousness, without works, as he there directly speaketh. Was not S. Paul also, a godly and faithful man, and one that had received grace from God, and done many good works, after that faith and grace received? and yet he saith thus of himself: Doubtless, I think all things but loss for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ jesus my Lord: 
Phil. 3.8, 9  for whom I have counted all things l●sse, & do judge them to be dung, that I might win Christ, & might be found in him, that is, not having mine own righteousness, wh●ch is of the Law, but that righteousness, which is through the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God through faith In which words ye see, that S. Paul▪ though a godly man, yet disclaimeth all his own works and inherent righteousness whatsoever, accounting it as Dung, and altogether unmeet, to stand in God's presence, and before his judgement seat, to claim justification by; & that all his joy, delight and desi●e was to go out of himself, and to be found In h●m: that is, in Christ, and so to have his righteousness, and not his own, imputed to him: For in Christ it is, 
Matth. 3.17.  that the Father is well pleased: and in Christ it is, and for his sake▪ and not for our own, that we are accepted As he likewise saith again: 
Ephes. 1.6. Rom. 8.1.  There is no condemnation to them that be in Christ jesus. And again he saith: God hath made him to be sin for us, 
2. Cor. 5.21.  which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God, in him. Where you also see, that Christ jesus, our most kind Surety, and most loving Saviour, though he had not any the least speck or spot of sin, but was most holy, most pure, and in all complete fullness and perfection, righteous in himself, had nevertheless our sins imputed to him, that we might be made the righteousness of God, In him, (as this Text speaketh,) and not in ourselves. As Christ then, became sin, in respect of the imputation of our sins unto him: so are we judged righteous in God's sight, not by any righteousness of our own, or inherent in our own persons, but by that immaculate and spotless righteousness of his, imputed unto us. So that, In him it is (as this Text most plainly showeth) and not in ourselves, that we are deemed righteous in God's sight. Yea, here consider further, what righteousness also it is that God approveth, and will have to stand for the justification of sinful men in his sight: for it must be a righteousness transcendent, and going far beyond the righteousness of any sinful creatures; namely, it must be that, which S. Paul here calleth the righteousness of God, that is, a most pure, perfect, and complete righteousness, wherein must not be, any the least spot, speck, or stain to be found, as S. Chrysostome also declareth: 
Chrysost. in 2. Cor. 5.  Which kind of most pure and spotless righteousness, because no other man hath but jesus Christ only, the second Adam (who is both God and Man), therefore in his person only, and not in ours, it is to be both sought and found. For which cause also it is, that the Church and people of God, (considered, not in themselves, but in Christ) are by the Apostle, S. Paul, said to have not so much, as a spot or wrinkle, or any such thing in them. 
Ephe. 5.27.  Well therefore doth S. Augustine make this double observation upon this Text (of 2. Cor. 5.21.) saying: Vide●e duo: 
Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 6.  justitiam Dei, & non nostram; In ipso, non in nobis: Behold and consider two things (saith he): first, That we are made the righteousness of God, and not our own righteousness; and secondly, In him, and not in ourselves. The same observation, likewise giveth S. Hierome, upon the same Text, saying: 
Hieronym. in 2. Cor. 5.  Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus, peccati nomen accepit, ut nos efficeremu● justitia Dei, in ipso: non nostra, nec in nobis: Christ being offered for our sins, took the name of sin, that we might be made, the righteousness of God, in him: not our own righteousness, nor in us. And therefore doth S. Paul again, not only for himself, but in the behalf of other Christians also, speak in this sort (even after faith and grace received): We which are jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 
Gal. 2.15, 16.  do know, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of jesus Christ: even we I say, have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law, because that by the works of the Law, no flesh shall be justified. Be not these words very direct for this purpose, showing, that even those that be Christians, and believers in Christ, do nevertheless expect justification by Faith in Christ, and not by the Works of the Law? Yea, what man ever yet (Christ jesus only excepted) did fully and perfectly keep the whole Law, and commandments of God, in his own person? For which cause it is, that none can be justified in God's sight by any works or observance of the Law, which he by and in his own person can do or perform. If the●e had been a Law given, which could have given life, than indeed, righteousness should have been by the Law, 
Gal. 3.21, 22.  as S. Paul affirmeth: But the Scripture (saith he) hath concluded all under sin, that the promise's by the faith of I●sus Christ should be given to them that believe▪ In which words you see, he showeth it very significantly, to be a thing Impossible for any that be but mere men, to keep the Law of God, in that full measure and perfection, which the Law requires; and therefore that they must seek to be justified in God's sight, and to have eternal life, another way, namely, by Faith in jesus Christ. Again, he saith thus: Be it known unto you, men and Brethren, 
Acts 13.38, 39  th●t through this man (jesus) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him, every one, that believeth is justified from all those things from which ye could not be justified b● the Law of Moses. Here also observe, that he saith, they could not be justified by the Law, as noting it likewise, to be a thing Impossible. But he speaketh yet further, saying: That which was Impossible to the Law, 
Rom. 8 3, 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Impossible.  inasmuch as it was weak, because of the flesh; God sent his own Son in ●he similitude of sinful flesh, & for sin condemned sin in the flesh, th●t the righteousaesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Where you may again perceive, that he teacheth it constantly, & expressly, to be a thing impossible, by reason of the weakness that is in all flesh, for the most godly person upon earth, being but a mere man, fully & exactly to keep and perform the law, and that therefore the Son of God, Christ jesus himself, was sent into the world, and became Man, for our sakes, that so the righteousness of the Law, which he in his humane nature, in all points and perfection, fully performed, might by our faith apprehending and applying it, be made ours, and so be fulfilled in us, namely, by imputation, and application, and not by any inherent and actual performance of it, by & in our own persons (for this, he, before, affirmed to be impossible). And this also do the ancient Fathers themselves affirm and teach. S. Ambrose saith: 
Ambr. in Gal. 3.  That the commandments of God be so great, ut impossibile sit servare ea, as that it is impossible to keep them. S. Chrysostome, speaking of the Law, and performance of it, saith: Id vero nemini possibile est: 
Chrysost. homil. in epist. ad Rom. Hierom in Gal 3 Bernar. serm. 50. in Cantic.  That it is poss●ble to no man. S. Hierome saith: That no man can perform the Law, S. Bernard saith: that, God commanding things impossible, made not men transgressors, but made them thereby humble. Yea, it was the heresy of the Pelagians (as S. Hierome showeth, ad Clesiphontem) to hold (as the Papists also hold) that Mandata dei sunt possibilia: The Commandments of God are possible. 
Hironym lib. 2.  And they went about to prove it (as the Papists likewise do) by these Texts, viz. My yoke is easy, and my burden light. in Mat. 11.30. And his commandments be not burdenous, in 1. joh. 5.3. whereas they did not rightly understand those speeches, no more than the Papists, their followers, do. For it is true, that none of the commandments of God be grievous, heavy, or burdensome, to a regenerate, godly, and sanctified mind, which is ever desirous, endeavouring, and delighting to keep them, and to walk in the obedience of them, though he shall never be able, during this mortal life, fully and perfectly to keep and perform them. And therefore, thus saith S. Hierome to the Pelagian (and we also say the same to the Papists) ●acilia dicis dei mandata, & tamen nullum proferre potes, qui universa compleverit, Thou sayest, the commandments of God be easy, and yet thou canst bring forth none, that hath kept them all. Again he saith: 
Hironym. lib. 1. cap. 3. cont. Pel●.  Tunc ergo iusti sumus, quando nos peccatores fatentur: & iustitia nostra non ex proprio constat merito, sed ex dei misericordia: dicente scriptura, justus est accusator sui. Then therefore are we just, when we confess ourselves sinners, and that our righteousness, consisteth not upon our own merits, but upon God's mercy: the Scripture affirming, that the Just man is the accuser of himself. The like whereunto S. Augustine also speaketh, saying in this wise: Omnia mandata dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur. All the commandments of God be then accounted to be done, when what soever is not done, is pardoned. Yea, this is so clear a truth, that Thomas Aquinas also saith: that, Implere totam legem est impossibile: 
Tho. Aqui. in Gal. 3. Cusan. excit. li. 10  To perform the whole law, is a thing impossible. And Cusanus likewise saith: Nemo unquam ad implevit legem, quae in dilectione consistit, nisi Christus, qui nonvenit solvere legem, sed implere: No man ever yet performed the law, which consisteth in love, but only Christ, which came, not to break the law, but to fulfil it. And therefore is it further said by S. Paul in another place: 
Rom. 10.3.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  That Christ is the end, accomplishment, or fulfilling of the law, for righteousness, unto every one that believeth. S. Chrysostome likewise saith: Quid lex vult▪ hominem iustum facere? sed non potest: nemo siquidem illam implevit: What meaneth the law? doth it mean to make a man Just? but it cannot do that: for no man hath fulfilled it. Yea the law was not given (as S. Paul also teacheth us) to any such end, 
Gal. 3.18, 19.21 22. Rom. 3.20, 21, 22. Rom. 4.14, 15, 16. Gal 3.9, 10.11, 12, 13, 14.24. Act. 13.38, 39 Act. 10.43. Rom. 10.3, 4. Rom. 3.31. Psal. 1.1, 2. Psal. 119.136.  as thereby to justify us in God's sight, but to show us our weakness, our sins and transgressions, and our guiltiness, and the wrath and curse of God, due unto us for the same, and so to drive us unto Christ our Saviour: by whose obedience, and fulfilling of the law for us, applied unto us by faith, it is that we are justified, and completely righteous even before the Throne of God. Howbeit, as touching the law; it is true, nevertheless, that we must all endeavour to walk in the ways of it, and in obedience to all God's commandments, to show our subjection to God, and to declare the duty, tokens, and fruits of God's children, in us, but not to the end, to obtain righteousness and justification thereby in God's sight, and censure. Yea, S. Paul telleth you directly, that as many as are of the works of the law, thinking thereby to be justified, they are under the curse. 
Gal. 3 10.  So far are they of from obtaining righteousness or blessedness, by that means. Will you have the reason of it? himself delivereth it in the next words, by a sentence and testimony out of the law itself. 
Gal 3.10. Deut. 27.26. jam. 2.10.  For it is written· (saith he) Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them. And so likewise speaketh S. james: That whosoever keepeth the whole law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all: because he offendeth the Majesty of the Lawgiver, and by committing, though it be, but one offence, or sin, during his whole life, he hath made himself subject to the curse of the law. By the sentence then of the law, ye see▪ that every man is accursed; and lieth enthralled and subject, unto all manner of punishment, and even to everlasting horror, and eternal condemnation. What then shall a man do, that is by the law, thus sentenced, and brought to this woeful estate and perplexity? and what course shall he take? or what mean is there to be freed, and delivered from this direful sentence, the Curse of the Law? The Apostle answereth, and showeth, that there is no other way but one, namely, Christ jesus, who hath for us, and in our steed, borne the wrath of God, and curse due unto us for our sins: for so he saith in the same Chapter: 
Ga. l 3.13.  Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the law, being made a Curse for us. O the unspeakable love of Christ! who was thus content to be made a Curse for us, to the end to free us from that Curse, and to purchase unto us, Eternal blessedness and felicity: His love towards us, can never be sufficiently manifested. For it is he, that with his most bitter passion, and sufferings, hath satisfied God's wrath, and justice, in our behalf; 
Act. 10 43. Act. 13.38, 39 1. Cor. 1.30. Rom. 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.21. jere. 23.6. jer. 33.10.  and by whom it is, that we have remission and forgiveness of all our sins: and he it is that is made of God to be our righteousness. Wherefore, being by him freed from the guiltiness of sin, and the punishment of it, and having withal, his most pure, clear, complete, and spotless righteousness, imputed to us by faith, what is it that we need to fear? Or how can we choose, but joy, and rejoice, again, and again, in the sense and feeling of so great and incomparable a benefit. Yea, even this very point, namely, that faith only doth justify us in God's sight (as being the only instrument to apprehend and apply Christ, with his satisfaction and righteousness unto us) and not works, though done after grace received, the ancient Fathers also themselves do again clearly testify. S. Augustine saith: Quantaelibet iustitiae, sancti praedicentur, vel novi, vel veteris Testimenti, 
August. con. 1. ep. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 21.  tamen, non eos salvos fecit nisi fides Mediatoris, qui in remissionem peccatorum sanguinem fudit: Of how great righteousness soever, the holy men either of the old or new Testament are said to be, yet nothing saved them but the faith of the Mediator, which shed his blood for the remission of their sins. S. Basil saith: Hoc est in domino gloriari, 
Basil. serm. de humilit.  quando quis non effertur sua iustitia, sed agnoscit se destitutum vera iustitia, & sola fide in Christum iustificari: This is to glory in the Lord, when a man is not lifted up with his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself destitute of true righteousness, and that he is justified only by faith in Christ. In like sore, speaketh S. Hilary, saying: that, Sola fides iustificat: 
Hillar. in Mat. 8.  Faith only justifieth. S. Ambrose also saith: Hoc constitutum est a deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit, sine opere, sola fide gratis accipiens remissionem peccatorum: 
Ambr. in 1. Cor. 1.  This is determined with God, that he that believeth in Christ▪ should be saved, without works, by faith only, freely receiving remission of sins. S. Chrysostome likewise saith: Sed unum illud a severarim, quod sola fides per se salvum fecerit: 
Chrysost homil. de fide & lege naturae.  This one thing I will affirm, that faith only by itself saveth. Therefore also it is, that the Church and people of God, do ever disclaim their own merits, and their own righteousness, so often as they duly consider themselves, and come into God's presence: saying in Esay: that, All their righteousness is as filthy clouts: for the best righteousness, 
Esay 64.6.  that is inherent in earthly Saints, hath some defect, stain, or imperfection in it. And so likewise doth the Church and people of God in daniel's time, disclaim all merit, and conceit of inherent righteousness in themselves, as appeareth by their prayer, which they make unto God, saying: 
Dan. 9.18, 19  We do not present our supplications before thee, for our own righteousness, but for thy great tender mercies: O Lord, hear: O Lord, forgive, O Lord, consider, and do it. That holy man job, likewise, speaketh to the same effect: If man (saith he) dispute with God, he cannot answer him one thing of a Thousand. 
job 9.3.  And again he saith: If I would justify myself, 
Verse 20.  mine own mouth shall condemn me: and, If I would be perfect, he shall judge me wicked. But now although the Protestants do thus, rightly teach, justification by Faith only, and not by Works, or by any Inherent righteousness in men, & therewithal condemn the doctrine of men's merits most justly: yet do they confess, 
Matth 5.4 18. Rom. 2.6, 7, 8, 9 Heb 11.6 etc.  that there is a reward in Scripture promised to them that do good works▪ But Reward and Merit do differ, and be not all one: For it is a Reward, not of merit or desert of men's behalf, but of mere grace, favour, 
Reward and Merit differ, and be not all one.  and bounty, in God, far above the merits and deserts of any men, and performed, given, and bestowed, for Gods promise sake, and for the merits only and mediation of jesus Christ. There is Merces ex gratia, a Reward counted by favour, aswell as ex debito, of Debt, or Due desert, 
Rom. 4.4.  as S. Paul himself distinguisheth even in this very case. Yea Saint Paul saith again, that though Christ paid a price, and ransom for us, yet in respect of ourselves, we are justificati gratis, justified frankly and freely, 
Rom. 3.24.  without our paying or performing any thing toward it, or in that behalf. What could be spoken more plainly, or more forcibly, to quell the swelling pride of men, and to dash all conceit of their merit, at GOD'S hand? It is true, which is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said thus: To do good, and to to Distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 
Heb. 13.16.  The Papists translate it (for maintenance of their merits) that with such Hosts or Sacrifices, God is promerited: for so is their Latin Translation, Promeretur Deus: Which word, in Latin, as it is not used passively, as the Rhemists in their English have translated it; so neither is that Latin translation, which they follow, right in that point, being not answerable to the original in Greek, according whereunto, the ancient Fathers would have all translations to be reform, and framed, as before is declared: for the Greek word, in that Text, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth (as our Translation hath it) is well pleased, or, is delighted: but it importeth no such thing, as matter of merit in it. And therefore you must hereby learn to take heed of your false translations. Yea the Parable in the Gospel, of the Servant, that did the commandment of his Master, plainly and purposely showeth, that we deserve no thanks, or recompense, at God's hand, for any duty or obedience, we perform to him: For (saith Christ) doth the Master thank that servant, 
Luke 17.7, 8, 9, 10.  because he did that which was commanded him? I trow, not. So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things that are commanded you, yet say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done no more but that which was our duty to do. It is here then very manifest, that no men by any duty or obedience they perform to God, can possibly merit or deserve any benefit at God's hand, much less Eternal Heavenly happiness. And yet you have a conceit, that so long as ye acknowledge those virtues and good works, to come, not from yourselves, but from God, & from his gift, ye may repose confidence in them, & matter of merit: but what is this (if ye well consider it) but plain Pharisaisme for all that? 
Luke 18.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  For did not the Pharisee in the Gospel say, O God I thank thee, & c.? acknowledging therein the virtues and works which he had, to come from God and to be of his gift, and therefore gave him thanks; and yet for reposing confidence therein, & for being proud of God's gifts, he is disliked and reproved. 
Bern. Serm. 61. in Cant.  Bernard saith: Meritum meum, miseratio Domini: The merit I rely upon, is the Lords mercy. Again he saith: Non est quo gratia intret, ubi meritum occupavit: There is no place for grace to enter, 
Bern. Serm. 67. in Cant.  where merit hath taken possession. Again he showeth; That men can by no manner of means, 
Bern. Serm. 1. de Anx. Ansel. de mens. Crucis. Cusan. lib. 9 excis.  possibly deserve or merit eternal life and salvation. And so teacheth Anselmus likewise: and Cusanus. Yea both we, and ye, be so far from meriting and deserving salvaon, that chose we all, in respect of our own merits, must confess, that we deserve damnation. For ye, for your parts, aswell as we, cannot deny, but ye sometimes sin and go astray: and if you did sin but once in all your life time, yet were that sufficient in the sentence of God's Law, and the severity of his justice, to make you subject to his curse, and to throw you down to hell, and eternal torments. Never therefore sooth nor flatter yourselves, with that your distinction, of some Venial, and some, deadly sins. For although it be true that some sins be greater, than other some are, and that all sins be, in respect of God's mercy, venial, that is, remissible, and may be forgiven, (except the sin against the Holy Ghost, of which it is directly said, that it shall never be forgiven) yet is it also as true, that every sin, even the least that can be named, is, in his own nature, 
Gal. 3.10. jam. 2.10. Rom. 6 23. Ezek 18.20. Every sin (even the ●east that can be named) is deadly in his own nature.  deadly, and maketh a breach and transgression of God's Law, and consequently deserveth his curse and condemnation: for so have S. Paul and S. james, before instructed us; whereunto the rest of the Scriptures do accord. So that even those which you call small and venial sins, if they should be laid to your charge, and should not be forgiven you through Christ the Saviour and Redeemer, they be of weight sufficient, to press you down to hell, there to be everlastingly tormented. And yet, it is true, that in respect of the quantity and quality of sins committed by reprobates, and according to the difference of them, shall be the diversity of their punishments in hell; some being there to be tormented more, and some less. Do ye not then, all this while, perceive, in what a woeful and damnable estate, they all be, that stand upon their own deservings, merits, and works, and look to be justified before God's tribunal by a righteousness inherent in their own persons, and not by the righteousness only of jesus Christ apprehended and applied by faith? Well therefore did S. Bernard say; that, Assignata est homini aliena justitia, quia caruit sua: There is assigned to a man, 
Bern. Epist. 190.  another man's righteousness, because he wanted his own. Pigghius likewise speaketh, teaching, 
Pigghius de fide & justify.  that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith. And so also do the Divines of Coleyn teach, 
Colon. in Antidag.  that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, not as it is without us, abiding in him, but as the same being apprehended by faith, is imputed to us.   

CHAP. IU.  
Certain objections of the Adversaries, answered, concerning this matter of justification.  
FIrst, the ambiguity of this word, justificare, seemeth much to mislead you in this point: for you will have it to signify and import, to make a man just (who before was unjust) by a quality of justice inherent in his own person: And true it is, That whosoever is justified, is also sanctified; so that he hath in some sort, a Sanctity, or, justice inherent in his own person, by the operation of God's spirit within him. This then which you call Inherent justice in a man, is the same that we call Sanctification, and is not all one with justification, but is a fruit, effect, and consequent of it. Neither doth the word, justificare, (to justify) evermore so signify, but sometimes it signifieth, to declare or approve one to be Just: as in Psal. 51.4. and Rom. 3.4. where it is thus said, to God himself; That thou mayest be justified in thy sayings: meaning, that thou mayst be declared, or, approved to be Iust. And so in the first of Tim. 3.16. Christ is said, to be justified that is, declared, or approved to be just. And this sense also doth S. james in his second Chapter of his Epistle, say, That a man is justified by works, that is, declared or approved to be Just by them, as being the fruits and declarations of his faith. And sometimes again, it signifieth, by a judgement, or, sentence to absolve, and acquit a man of faults and crimes laid to his charge, & of all punishments to the same belonging: as in Pro. 17.15. it is said, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, even they both are an abomination unto the Lord: that is, he that absolveth, or acquitteth a wicked man in judgement, when chose, he should be condemned; and he that condemneth a Just and innocent person, who should of right be acquitted. both these are abominable in God's sight. Where you see, that, to justify the wicked, is not by alteration of qualities, actually to make a man Just, who before was unjust, but it signifieth, by sentence and judgement, to acquit and free him that is accused. And thus, is the word, justify, taken in S. Paul's discourse touching this matter: as, to omit all other places, is manifest by that one place of Rom. 8.33, 34 where it is said thus: Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Where you see, that the word, justify, is set as opposite to the word, Condemn, and consequently signifieth, an acquitting, clearing, freeing, or discharging▪ of whatsoever may be laid to the charge of any of Gods elect, and chosen children.  
2 Neither can any rightly conclude, because this righteousness of Christ is thus said to be imputed by faith, that therefore it is only an imaginary and fantastical justice, and no justice or righteousness indeed: yea, such blasphemies must be detested. For the word, Imputed, doth not diminish or detract, from the truth of the justice, as though it were imputed or reputed for justice, which were none revera: but it signifieth, that as it is in itself, a most pure, full, perfect, and complete righteousness, (being far, above the best righteousness, that is to be found in any earthly Saints, or such as be mere men) so doth God, accordingly reckon and esteem of it. So that although we be most unjust, in respect of ourselves, yet by having Christ's righteousness imputed to us, we are, in him, really and truly Just & righteous, and without all spot, stain, or imperfection: For Christ, with all his merits, righteousness, satisfaction, and obedience, is, not by way of fancy, opinion, conceit, or imagination, but revera, actually, and verily, bestowed and given of God, to all his faithful and beloved children. Unto us, a child is borne: unto us, a son is given, saith Esay the Prophet. 
Esa. 9.6.  And again it is said; That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son etc. And it is said again, that, 
joh. 3.16.  He was given of God his Father to the Elect: 
joh. 17.6.12.24. joh 6.37.39.  and that those Elect were likewise given of God, to him. Agreeably whereunto speaketh also S. Paul, saying: that, Christ is made unto us, of God, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that as it is written, 
1. Cor. 1.30.31.  whosoever glorieth, should glory in the Lord. Seeing therefore Christ, with all his obedience and righteousness, is given unto us of God, and that we take and receive him by faith, there can be no doubt, but that he is as verily and really become ours, as any man's lands, possessions, or goods become his, which he hath by lawful conveyance or gift, from another man.  
3 But when we say, that Faith only justifieth in God's sight, you further object, that this word, Only, is more than is in the Scripture to be found: Howbeit, you may observe, that in the Gospel of S. Mark, 
Mark. 5.36.  Christ said thus to one; Be not afraid, only believe. But neither are these words, Trinity, Consubstantial▪ etc. expressly found in the Scripture, but so long as the effect and equivalency of them, is there found, it sufficeth. In like sort, if words equipollent, or, equivalent to this word, Only, be found in the Scripture, it sufficeth. What is then the sense of this word, only, in this position, Faith only justifieth? it is added, to exclude works, and their merit, from being any cause of that our justification in the sight of God. Now then, 
Rome 3.28. Gal 2. 16· Rom. 11.6. Ephe. 2.8, 9, 10. Rom. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. Rome 3.24, 25, 26, 27. Rom. 4.14, 15, 16.  when the Scriptures expressly and plentifully affirm, that, we are justified by faith, without works; and, by faith, and not by works: is it not as much, as if they had said in plain terms, that we are justified by faith only? Again, when the Scriptures say, and teach: that we are justificati gratis, and ex gratia, and per gratiam; justified frankly and freely, (that is, for nothing paid or performed, on our parts) and of grace, and by grace: Do not these words fully import, and clearly show, that we are justified, without any merits, or works of our own deserving it? Can any thing be more plainly declared?  
4 Nevertheless, they still seek refuges, and therefore sometimes say, that, When S. Paul speaketh of the Works of the Law (excluding them from justifying in God's sight), he meaneth only the works of the Ceremonial Law, and not the works of the Moral Law. But indeed S. Paul, speaking of the Works of the Law, very apparently meaneth, as well the Works of the Moral law, as of the Ceremonial: for when he saith, that, Not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of the Law shall be justified: can this be intended only of the Ceremonial law, without any regard at all had to the Moral? Or when he speaketh of the whole Book of the Law, saying that It is written; 
Gal. 3.10.  Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that be written in the book of the Law, to do them: doth not this extend to the Moral Law? or can these words be restrained only to the Ceremonial? Yea, when he further saith thus: I had not known sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, or concupiscence to be sin, except the Law had said, 
Rom. 7.7.  Non concupisces, Thou shalt not covet, or, Thou shalt no lust: doth not every one hereby most plainly perceive, of what Law it is, that he chiefly speaketh & meaneth? namely, that it is principally of the Moral Law, that is, of the Decalogue, or Law of the Ten Commandments: For to what other end else, is it, that he there expressly, and by name, rehearseth and bringeth in, one of those ten Commandments? But yet further, he showeth, that there be but two ways of righteousness (namely the righteousness that is of the Law, and the righteousness which is of faith) and saith: that, 
Rom. 10.2, 3, ●▪ 5, 6, 7, etc.  Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, in this sort, viz. That the man which doth those things, shall live by them: But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh after another manner: and he showeth it, to consist, not in any doubtful questioning, but in a firm believing in Christ; who is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth. When therefore he here again, saith, touching the works of the Law, and the righteousness compassable that way; That the man that doth those things, shall live by them: is it his meaning, think you, that he that observeth the works of the Ceremonial Law only, without observing or doing any of the works of the Moral Law, shall live thereby, and enjoy everlasting happiness? I presume, none can be so absurd, or unwise, as to think it. It is then a thing very manifest, that he speaketh not only of the works of the Ceremonial Law, but of the works also of the Moral Law, and of these chiefly, excluding aswell the works of the one, as of the other, 
Rom. 3 9.20, 21, 22, 23, 24.29, 30. Rom. 4.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.16.  from being any cause of our justification in God's sight. And this is so much the more evident, because S. Paul yet further, in that his dispute of justification, excludeth not only the jews, but the Gentiles also, from all hope of justification by the Law: teaching, that they both, are to expect justification in God's sight, Not by the works of the law, 
Gal. 2.15.16.  but by faith in jesus Christ. Now ye know, that the Gentiles be not bound to the observation of the ceremonial law, as the jews were: 
Rom. 3.31. Eph. 2.8, 9, 10.  but the Gentiles (aswell as the jews) be bound to the observation of the moral law, of the ten Commandments. When therefore S. Paul teacheth, that aswell the Gentiles as the jews are to expect justification, not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ: it is apparent, that he must needs mean to exclude herein, aswell the works of the Moral law, whereto the Gentiles are bound, as the works of the Ceremonial law, whereto the jews only were bound, and not the Gentiles: for otherwise, you will make him a very vain and idle disputer, in this point, as in respect of the Gentiles.  
5 Howbeit, being thus repulsed from this hold, they then retire, and return to their old, wont, and ordinary nold, wherein they seem to repose their greatest strength: and that is the same which is before mentioned; namely, that S. Paul. when he excludeth works, from being any cause of justification in God's sight, meaneth it, of works done before faith received, and whilst a man is an unbeliever, and not of works done after faith received: Which works done by a believing person, do, as they suppose, justify before God, and in his sight. This hath been before sufficiently answered, yet because they so often and usually urge it, I hope it will not be offensive, that I also here, once again, make answer unto it. First therefore it might suffice, to call to your remembrance, that which hath been spoken, concerning those two faithful & godly men, Abraham, and David: who albeit they had, after faith & grace received from God, lived well, and done sundry good works, (for which they might deserve praise and glory amongst men) yet, 
Rom. 4.2, 3, 4, 5.  for all that, they deserved no praise, nor glory, with God (as S. Paul witnesseth) nor were thereby justified in his sight. Yea, as touching Abraham, he saith: that notwithstanding all that he did, not his works, but his Faith was imputed to him for righteousness before God. 
Rom. 4.6, 7, 8.  And as touching David, though he were a man likewise, very faithful, and godly, and did many good works; yet by his godly life, and good works, he never thought to be justified before God's tribunal, but found all the godliness, and goodness that was in him, to be too defective, and to come too short for that purpose; and therefore also he crieth out thus, unto God, saying: Enter not into judgement with thy servant, 
Psal. 143.2.  for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Yea, 
Rom. 4.6, 7, 8.  he describeth the blessedness of every man, even of the holiest man that liveth, to consist, not in his own sanctity or righteousness, but in this, that, 
Psal. 32.1.2.  His sins be forgiven, or, not imputed to him. And so doth S. Paul infer, and teach, out of this example of David: 
Rom. 4.6.  That God imputeth righteousness, without works. So that neither the works which David did, nor the works which Abraham did, nor consequently the works, that any other godly or holy man doth, after grace and faith received, be sufficient to justify in God's presence: For, I know nothing by myself (saith S. Paul) yet am I not thereby justified. 
1. Cor. 4.4.  I might here further desire you, to call to your remembrance, that holy man job, and that holy Prophet of God, Daniel; 
job 9 3 20. Dan 9 18, 19 Esay 64 6.  yea all that godly company and Church of God, in daniel's time, and Esaies' time: who all did (as themselves testify) renounce all their own inherent righteousness, as too insufficient, and unmeet to stand before Gods most pure eyes, to claim justification thereby, in his sight. Yea, if God should look narrowly, to see what is said, & done amiss, and to recompense it, in the rigour and severity of his justice, according to men's merits and deserts: 
Psal. 130. ●.  Who (as the Psalmist speaketh) should be able to stand, or to abide it. Yea, I might here moreover desire you, to remember, whatsoever is contained in the former Chapter, touching this matter. For not the works, even of a just man, do justify in God's sight: as S. Paul proveth by an express testimony out of the Prophet Abacuk, where he saith, 
Abac. 2.4. Rome 1.17.  even of the just man: that, He liveth by his faith, (and not by his Works). And this he urgeth and enforceth again, in his Epistle to the Galathians, saying thus: 
Gal. 3.11.  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for (saith he) The just shall live by faith. And thus himself, being otherwise dead, 
Gal. 2.19, 20,  did live, or had life in him, namely, by faith in the Son of God, and not by the works of the law. Yea, he further excludeth, even the works of righteousness, in express terms, saying thus: 
'tis 3.5.  Not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us. Observe that he here directly affirmeth, of himself, & of all the rest that shall be saved, that they are saved, not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by works done by them in righteousness, but of God's mere mercy and grace, through Christ jesus. And again observe, that speaking not to unbelievers, 
Ephes. 1.1. Ephes. 2.8, 9.10.  but to believers, Saints, and sanctified people, living in Ephesus, he saith thus: By grace are ye saved through faith, (and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God) not of works, lest any man should glory: for we are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus, unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. here also you see infallibly, that works, though done by such as be sanctified and regenerate persons, be nevertheless excluded from being any cause of their salvation: yea, by the very words themselves of the text, you perceive, that he speaketh expressly, and by name of good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them: denying them nevertheless to be any cause of salvation But here, why do they speak of any good works done by Infidels, or before faith received? For to speak properly and truly, none do, or can do good works (so allowed to be in God's censure) but believing persons only: 
Heb. 11.6. Rom. 14.23. Tit. 1.15.  inasmuch as the best works of Infidels, and before a man hath received faith, be not allowed for good in God's sight, but be, as S. Augustine affirmeth of them: 
August. con. julian. lib. 4. cap 3. cont. dua● ep. Pelag ad Bonif. lib. 3. cap. 5.  Splendida peccata: Glittering sins. Howbeit, here remember, that although those which be Saints upon earth, that is, which be regenerate and sanctified people, be thus expressly affirmed to be saved by their faith, and not by their good works: yet have they nevertheless, these good works appointed for them to walk in, so long as they live in this world (for so this text to the Ephesians, 
Ephes. 2.8, 9, 10  directly showeth) to the end, their faith should not be idle, but working through love, 
Gal 5.6.  as S. Paul speaketh in another place, and that so, it might appear to be, not a vain and a dead faith, but a sound and a lively faith, and such as will save a man, as S. james, 
jam. 2.14, 15, 16, 17. etc.  and the rest of the Scriptures have also before declared. Yea, this point▪ even Christ jesus also himself, by his last judgement, in the end of the world doth declare, namely, that the justifying and saving faith is not void of good works, but furnished with them; and yet that God's people do not rely upon them: For thus will he say to his faithful and elect ones: Come ye blessed of my father, inherit ye the kingdom, prepared for you, from the foundation of the world: 
Mat. 25.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. etc.  for I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. But now observe, that although these elect and righteous persons had these good works, yet do not they so much as take notice of them, much less stand upon the merit of them; and therefore do they answer, and say: Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? 
Verses 41, 42, 43, 44. etc.  or naked, and clothed thee? sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? Read further the rest of the Chapter, to the end of it: And by all of it, considered together, ye may very easily perceive; first, that they be not the elect and righteous people, but the reprobates, that stand upon their works, 
They be not the elect, but the reprobates, that stand up on their works, as appeareth by the final judgement.  & object their works to plead for them: And secondly, that Christ their Lord, taketh notice of the good works of the elect, although themselves take no notice of them, nor do so much as once mention or allege them. Where Christ, by alleging their good works, would have the world also to take notice, and to be advertised, that it was not a vain, idle, or dead faith, but a justifying, and saving faith, which these men had. For their good works be there mentioned, as testimonies, fruits, and declarations of their faith, and as being, Via regni, non causa regnandi: 
Bern. d. 〈…〉 lib. 〈◊〉.  The way wherein they walked toward this kingdom, but not as being the cause of their enjoying of that kingdom, as S. Bernard also himself hath before taught & affirmed. Yea, in very deed, the primary and original cause of their enjoying of that most happy kingdom, is there delivered in the former words, where Christ calleth them, the Blessed of his father; and telleth them moreover directly, that they are to possess this kingdom, not by any purchase or desert of their own, but, by way of Inheritance: (for the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Inherit ye, or possess ye it by way of Inheritance). 
Mat. 25.34,  And further, he there telleth them, that this kingdom was prepared for them, long before they were borne, or had done any good works at all, namely, even from the foundation of the world. So that this glorious and heavenly kingdom, is given them of God's mere bounty, and grace, and is unto them, 
Rom. 64 ●3. Eph. 2.8, 9.10. Rom. 11.6. Rom. 2.6. Mat. 16.27.  a Reward according to their works, (as the Scripture speaketh), but not for their works, as though their works deserved it, or were the meritorious cause of their salvation. Yea, it is a reward of grace and favour, and not of debt or due desert (as S. Paul hath also before testified) and a reward of Inheritance, 
Rom. 4.4▪  
Coloss. 3.24.  (as the same S. Paul, again expressly affirmeth it). In vain therefore also, is that your distinction, of the first justification, which you make to be by faith without works, and of the second justification▪ which, you say, is by works, and by living an holy and godly life: for the Scriptures speak but of one justification in God's sight, 
Rom. 5.1. Rom. 8.30.  available to salvation. As for that which you call the second justification, consisting in doing good works, and in holiness of life and conversation, it is (as I said before) more properly and rightly, to be termed (as the Scripture calleth it) Sanctification; 
Rom. 6.22. Phil. 1.11. 1. Cor. 6.11. jam. 2.18. Gal. 5.6.  it being an effect, declaration, fruit, and consequent of that justification, we have before by faith, as S. james, and S. Paul, and the rest of the Scriptures, do manifestly teach.   

CHAP. V.  
That Christ is our only and all-sufficient Redeemer, and hath fully satisfied God's justice for our sins, and the punishment thereto belonging: against men's merits and satisfactions, in that behalf; and against Popish Purgatory. And that there is no licentiousness in this doctrine, but the clean contrary.  
But they further accuse our Religion to be licentious, because, relying wholly upon Christ, our Redeemer, and his satisfaction, we make no satisfaction ourselves, for our sins, to the justice of GOD. Howbeit, ye are, first of all, to know, that this doctrine and faith of ours, concerning Christ his redemption and satisfaction all-sufficient, made to God's justice, for our sins, inferreth no such matter as licentiousness, but the clean contrary. For, we are redeemed, not to the end to live dissolutely or carelessly, but to the end we should, for so great and unspeakable a benefit, 
Luc. 1.74, 75. 1. Pet. 2.24. Rom. 6.22.  obey and serve God in holiness and righteousness before him, and that, all the days of our life, as the Scriptures teach. And secondly, as touching the truth of this matter, Saint Peter telleth us, that, 
1. Pet. 2.24.  Christ his own self, bare our sins, in his body, on the tree. Again, 
joh. 1.7.9.  S. john saith: that, the blood of jesus Christ, the Son of God, doth purge us from all sin: and, cleanse us, from all iniquity. S. Paul also saith: 
Ephes. 1.7. Heb. 9.12. Matth. 20.28. 1. Tim. 2.5, 6. Col 2.13, 14, 15. 1. joh. 2.1, 2. Col. 1.14. Acts 13.38. Acts 10.43.  We have redemption through, his blood, even the remission of sins. Yea, this the Scriptures do almost every where teach and testify. How then can your conceit of men's satisfactions to God's justice for sins, be otherwise accounted of, then as a thing apparently injurious to that satisfaction, and redemption, and (consequently) to that free and full discharge, and remission of all our sins, and of the guiltiness and punishment thereto belonging, which we have in Christ? For, guiltiness being taken away, the punishment also is taken away, 
Tertull de Bapt.  saith Tertullian. And so also saith S. Augustine; that, Christ by taking upon him the punishment, and not the fault, 
Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 37.  hath done away both the fault and the punishment. And in all reason it must be so, that when a fault or sin is forgiven, the punishment thereto belonging, is forgiven also: for to what other end else is the fault or sin forgiven and remitted? But against this, they allege the example of King David, and of other the children of God, who notwithstanding that they had their sins forgiven them, had nevertheless, afflictions & chastisements sent them from God, even in this life. Whereunto they have been often answered, that God sendeth not these chastisements and afflictions upon his children, to that end, thereby to satisfy his wrath and justice for their sins (for his wrath is appeased, and his justice satisfied in their behalf another way, 
Rome 5. ●. Rom. 3.24, 25. 1 joh. 2.1, 2. Col. 1.19, 20, 21.  namely in the passion and obedience of jesus Christ) but by that means, to put them in remembrance of their sins formerly committed, and to bring them to repentance for the same, and to make them stand in more fear and awe of God, for the time to come, and to walk more warily, & circumspectly, 
Psal. 119 67.71.  and with better obedience before him, as the Psalmist declareth. So that these be sent of God for other ends and purposes, and come from him, not as from an angry and revengeful judge, but out of his kind provident care, and fatherly affection, and love, toward them. Which thing S. Paul also witnesseth; showing, that these corrections and chastisements, 
1. Cor. 11.31.32.  be sent upon them to the end, they might thereby be advertised to call themselves, and their sins, to a better remembrance, even so far as to judge and condemn themselves for the same, and so be admonished not to run any longer a riotous and wicked course, with the damnable world. The same is further testified in the Epistle to the Hebrews: 
Heb. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  for there it is said thus; Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son that he receiveth. And he saith again, If ye endure chastening, God offereth himself unto you, as unto sons: for, what son is it, whom the father chasteneth not? And again he saith; If therefore ye be without correction, whereof all (sons) are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Moreover (saith he) we have had the fathers of our flesh, which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: should we not much more be in subjection, unto the father of spirits, that we might live? for they verily, for a few days, chastened us, after their own pleasure: but he chasteneth us▪ for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. The like speaketh S. Augustine, 
August. de Trinit. lib. 13. ca 15.  saying; Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt, etc. These evils or afflictions which faithful people in godly wise suffer, do profit either to the amendment of their sins, or for the exercise and trial of their righteousness, or to show the misery of this life: That, that life where there shall be true and perpetual blessedness indeed, both may more ardently be desired, and more instantly be sought after. It appeareth then, that chastisements and afflictions, be sent of God, in this life, upon his children, out of his Love, and not out of his fury and unappeased displeasure: so that they serve not to any such end as to have the severity of his wrath and justice, to be, by such means, satisfied and appeased; yea how can the greatest afflictions or miseries that be, or can be imagined, in sinful men, during this life, satisfy Gods heavy and infinite wrath and justice, for sins? Or, how can they merit heaven and heavenly glory? when S. Paul himself saith expressly, thus: I suppose, 
Rom. 8.18.  that the afflictions of this present time, are not worthy of the glory that shall be showed unto us. But yet for all this, (such is the strength of error) they strangely suppose, that they do Christ no wrong, because it is through his merits, (as they say,) that they be enabled to merit and to make this satisfaction to God's justice, for their sins: Howbeit, this is but a mere conceit and imagination. For there is no word of God, to warrant or prove it: nay, the Scripture teacheth, that Christ died, not for our good works, to make them able to merit at God's hand, but for our sins, that they might be pardoned. Again, it is said, that Christ hath by himself (and not by us, or, in our persons) purged our sins. 
1. joh. 2.2.  He is, our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 platamentum, &, propitiatio, 
Rom. 3.25.  reconciliation, and, propitiation. Ye are bought with a price (saith S. Paul) therefore glorify ye God, both in your body, 
1. Cor. 6.20. 1. Pet. 1.18, 19 Matth. 20.28.  and in your spirit: for they are Gods. Christ is he that paid this price, for them, as S. Peter also showeth. And therefore, not We, but He, is affirmed to be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, price, &, 
1. Tim. 2.6.  the price of Redemption, paid for us: and that we are for our parts, justified, gratis, that is, frankly and freely, 
Rom. 3.24.  and for nothing by us paid, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the redemption which is in Christ jesus, and not in us, or, in our persons. Yea, in that Christ was to come down from heaven, and to be incarnate for this purpose, and to suffer, and so to satisfy God's wrath and justice, in our behalf, he sufficiently showeth, that none of us were able, in our own persons, to perform so great a work. Yea they may by as good right and reason say, that he by the virtue and merit of his death and passion, hath enabled men, to be The Saviour and Redeemer of the World, in their own persons, or to be the Mediator betwixt God and them, or challenge any other right or prerogative whatsoever, that properly belongeth to Christ jesus. For, what may not men frame, fancy, or devise, out of this, if they be so disposed, and care not to imagine things at their own pleasure, without any warrant from God, or his word? Is it not then a most intolerable boldness, for any mere mortal and sinful men, to be so presumptuous, as to dare to stand in Christ his place, or to challenge to themselves, any part of that high, incomparable, and peculiar honour, that properly belongeth to him, who is both God and man, and our whole, only, 
Heb. 10.14.  and perfect Redeemer? I pray tell me, what imperfection do you find, in his satisfaction, that it should not content you? Are yourselves better able to make satisfaction to God's justice for sins, than he? or is his most precious blood, passion, and obedience, able to satisfy for eternal pains and punishments, and not for temporal? Shall he be able to satisfy the greater, and not be able to satisfy the less? or if ye grant him to be able to die, do ye doubt of his willingness, in that behalf? And if he were both willing and able (neither of which ye can deny) what question then should be made in this matter? It is true, that, as touching the ungodly reprobates, that be without Christ, all calamities, afflictions, miseries and punishments of this life, and even the bodily death itself, remain to them, in their own nature, and be to them, tokens of God's wrath, and of his curse and unappeased displeasure, and forerunners of their future certain and undoubted damnation: 
Rom. 5.1. Coloss. 2. ●0. Rom. 8.1.  But to the godly Elect, that be in Christ jesus, and that have peace with God, and with whom he is reconciled through Christ, no afflictions, of this life, have in them any token, at all, 
1. Thes. 5.9.10.  of his ireful and revengeful displeasure, or of his unsatisfied justice, but they are, chose, tokens of his great love, and fatherly affection toward them, (as is before showed), and are to them forerunners of their future certain and undoubted salvation. For toward God's children, the nature of these things is changed, 
Rom. 8.28. Heb. 12 6 9, 10, 11. 2. Cor. 4.17. Gal. 3.13, 14.  through Christ, having no Curse at all, but blessedness, in them: Insomuch that, even death itself also, which to flesh and blood seemeth most bitter, to them nevertheless, is a most welcome and blessed thing, 
Phillip 1.21.23. Reve. 14 13. 1. Cor. 15.56, 57  as having the sting of it (which is sin) taken away in Christ their Saviour, and as being the door that openeth an immediate passage and entrance to an everlasting life, in eternal happiness. For we know (saith S. Paul, in the person of all God's children) that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle be destroyed, 
2. Cor. 5.1, 2.  we have a building given of God, that is, an house not made with hands but eternal in the heavens: for therefore we sigh, desiring to be clothed with our house which is from heaven. And Christ jesus himself speaketh likewise thus: Verily, verily, I say unto you; 
joh. 5.24.  He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into judgement, but is passed from death into life. If then (which is a thing here evident) as soon as this earthly Tabernacle of their bodies is dissolved, all God's children, go to an eternal heavenly habitation: and again, if the godly and faithful man after the death of the body, doth in his soul immediately pass to an eternal life: which you likewise here see to be very manifest (for, the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preterperfect tense) what is then become of your supposed Purgatory? Do you not, by these Texts, perceive, that even that also, is to be utterly banished and abolished, as a thing fabulous, impious, and untrue, and not to be believed?  
2 But your Church, for all that, striveth and struggleth to uphold it: as being indeed, one of the best fires, that ever the Pope and his Clergy have had for the heating of their Kitchens, and which, in respect of the people who are miserably abused with it, is, not unfitly, called Purgatory-Pickepurse, inasmuch as it robbeth them of their wealth and substance. But let us see, what texts of Scripture, they chiefly allege, and rely upon, for this purpose. First, they allege, Mat. 5.25, 26, where Christ saith thus: Agree with thine adversary quickl●e, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest at any time thine adversary deliver thee to the judge, & the Iudg deliver thee to the officer, & then thou be cast into prison: verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out from thence, until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Howbeit, this text is an exhortation & persuasion to peace, reconciliation, concord, & agreement, betwixt man and man, in this life: lest for not observing of this concord, & agreement, it so fall out (as often it doth in the world) that the debtor be cast into Prison, and depart not from thence, until he have paid the utmost farthing. But, if by this Prison be meant (as they would have it) a place of punishment after death: yet then, is there no necessity, for all that, to expound it of their Purgatory: for well may it then be taken for Hell, the place of the damned: yea, than it must needs be so taken: inasmuch as there be but two sorts of people, namely, Elect, and Reprobate: and answerably to them, there be but two places, after death, viz. Heaven and Hell▪ for, that the souls of God's Elect, go immediately after their death, not into any such tormenting place, as your supposed Purgatory, but into Heaven, is, beside the former texts, evident, even by the precedent, of the good Thief, that was crucified with Christ: to whom Christ said thus: This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, 
Luk. 23.43.  that is, in Heaven, the place of blessedness for all God's Saints and people. That this Thiefs soul, went that very day into Paradise, is a thing expressly apparent in the Text: and that Paradise is Heaven, even the Third and higest Heaven, (the place of glory) is also very manifest, 
2. Cor. 12.2, 3, 4  because S. Paul himself, so declareth and expoundeth it. What doubt then can there be in this matter? But it is yet further evident, by the example of the Rich man and Lazarus: For when the Rich man died, he went to Hell, the place of Torments for the Reprobate, & when poor Lazarus died, he was carried by Angels, into Abraham's Bosom, 
Luk. 16 22, 23, 24, 25.  that is, into Heaven, the place of comfort, joy, and happiness, for all God elect. For that Abraham's bosom, must be taken for Heaven (and not for that feigned place of Limbus Patrum, 
Rhem. Annot. in Luk 16▪ ●2. Gregor● Martin against the English translations, upon Purgatory.  which Papists make to be a part of hell) is manifest by this, that, beside the solace, joy, and comfort that is showed to be in it, it is further mentioned, and set in the Text itself, as directly opposite to Hell. Now, what is so directly opposite to Hell, as Heaven is? & consequently, what must Abraham's bosom be, but Heaven, and no part of Hell, against which, in the Text itself, it is so directly opposed? S. Augustine saith plainly, it is no part of Hell: I could never find in the Scriptures (saith he) that Hell is taken for good: And if it be never so read in the Divine authority, verily, 
Aug. epist. ●9. Evodio.  that bosom of Abraham (that is, an habitation of a certain secret rest) is not to be believed to be any part of Hell. To the same effect, he speaketh in another place, where he affirmeth, Abraham's bosom, expressly, to be Paradise, that is, Heaven: Quanto magis etc. How much more (saith he) may the bosom of Abraham, 
de gen. ad lit. lib. 1●. cap. 33. & 34  which is after this life, be called Paradise? S. Crysostome also (against the conceit of such as supposed it to be Hell, or a part of it,) saith: that, the Bosom of Abraham was the poor man's Paradise, yea, I say this, that the Bosom of Abraham, 
Chrysost. in Luc. hom. de divite.  is the truth of Paradise; yea, I confess it to be the most holy Paradise. But moreover, considering that Christ is the slain Lamb, 
Revel. 13.8. 1. joh. 2.2. Heb. 13.8. john 8.56. 1. Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4.  from the beginning of the world: and that, He was yesterday, and to day, and is the same for ever: (as the Scripture speaketh) The force & virtue of that his death, must needs extend unto all times, as touching the elect, to redeem and save them: And consequently, what doubt can there be, but that Abraham, Isaac, 
Act. 4.12. Heb 9.15.  jacob; and all the rest of God's people, that lived and died, before Christ his Incarnation, and Passion, went after their death, as directly into Heaven, as those godly and faithful people do, that have died since his Incarnation, Passion, and Ascention? for as for that Text, which ye allege of Heb. 9.8. where it is said: that, The way of the Holies, 
Heb. 9 vers. 8.  was not yet manifested, or opened, whilst as yet the first Tabernacle was standing. The meaning and scope of that place, is no more, but that the way to Heaven was not opened, by virtue of any sacrifices of the first Tabernacle under the Law, but by virtue of the Sacrifice and passion of Christ, which those old sacrifices did prefigure: the virtue of which Sacrifice, and sufferings of Christ, extending itself, from the beginning of the world, to the end thereof, as touching all the faithful (to take away all their sins, 
Heb. 13.8. Rev▪ 13.8. 1. Cor 10.1, 2, 3, 4. Heb. 9 15.  and to work their full redemption) is ever sufficient to give those old godly Fathers, rest and felicity in Heaven, in their souls, after their bodily death. Yea, where else doth Christ himself, place Abraham, 
Mat. 8.11.  Isaac, and jacob (even before his Passion) but in the kingdom of Heaven? Your supposed Limbus Patrum therefore hath no ground to rely upon, nor your supposed Purgatory neither, but are both to vanish as smoke, being not only fantastical, but untrue, and ungodly conceits. But to answer yet further, to the text alleged for your imagined purgatory: Why should that Prison, before mentioned (being admitted to be a place of punishment for sin, after death) be supposed your Purgatory, rather than Hell, the place of the Damned? For, do ye allow him to be sent to Purgatory, that is never reconciled to a man, but dieth out of Charity? doth not such a one live and die in deadly sin, and consequently deserve hell fire and damnation? Ye say, that the words of the Text affirm, that after he is committed to the prison, there mentioned, he is not to come out from thence, until he hath paid the utmost farthing: This word, until, say you, importeth; that after payment once fully made by him, he is to come out again: and therefore that it is to be intended, not a perpetual and everlasting prison, such as Hell is, but a Temporary prison, such as you suppose your Purgatory to be. But deceive not yourselves with an argument, drawn from this word (until) in the Text: for it necessarily enforceth no such matter, as you would deduce out of it. For example, in Matth. 1. vers. 25. it is said: 
Mat. 1. 2●.  that, joseph knew not Marie, until she had brought forth her first borne Son, and called his name jesus: will you therefore, with Helvidius, because of this word (until) infer, that therefore afterward joseph knew her? I am sure ye will not: and yet by force of that word, if ye were so disposed, might ye infer, aswell the one as the other. But, as that word (until) in the last alleged place, inferreth no such consequent, but rather, that he never knew her: so in the other place, where it is said, That he shall not go out of that Prison, until he hath paid the utmost farthing, is likewise meant, that he shall never come out. And so, in very deed, 
Ferus in hunc locum.  doth Ferus, the jesuit, expound it. And the reason for it, is very good, and apparent: for, seeing he is there to continue, until he pay the utmost farthing; and that he, for his part, after he is dead, and committed to this Prison, is never able to make payment; how can it be shifted, but that he must lie there perpetually? For, the conceit, that one man may make payment and satisfaction for the sins of another▪ when he cannot so much as make payment and satisfaction to God's justice, for his own sins, is a most vain and idle conceit. Yea, thus also doth S. Augustine expound this Prison, of the place of the Damned, namely of Hell, and eternal pains: Serm. Dom. in monte. And so doth S. Hierome also expound it, in Lamen. lib. 1. cap. 1. and Eusebius Emissenus in Domi 6 p●st. Pent. saying: Carcer iste, infernus est: This prison is Hell. And so Theophilus Antiochenus: in Carcerem, id est, in Gehennam: Into Prison, that is, Into Hell, the place of the damned. And Cromatius likewise upon this place, and divers others. But lastly, what reason have they to suppose, that any faithful godly soul should, after death, be cast into any Prison, for any debt, or sin whatsoever, there to continue for any time at all, when as all their debts, or sins, be fully paid, satisfied for, and discharged by jesus Christ, their surety, Saviour, and Redeemer, in their behalf? How oft must they be told of these things?  
3 The next place they allege, to prove their Purgatory, is Matth. 12. vers. 32. where because it is said, that the Blasphemy, or sin against the holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Ergo, say they, some sins be forgiven in the world to come. But, first: this is a non sequitur, & followeth not by the rules of Logic, as even Bellarmine himself confesseth. And secondly, 
Bellarm. de purge. lib. 1. cap. 4.  admit that some sins be forgiven in the world to come; yet doth it not follow, that your Purgatory is thereby proved: for your Purgatory, is such a place and prison (by your own teaching) not where any forgiveness of sins is to be obtained, but where perfect satisfaction, even to the utmost farthing, is to be paid, and that for sins, which were (as your doctrine teacheth) committed by the offendor in this life, and forgiven before he came into that place: for so you say, that the sin is forgiven, but the Temporal punishment notwithstanding, is to be satisfied for, and to be endured and performed for it, in Purgatory. If the sin be forgiven before he come there, (as yourselves do hold) Ergo, say I, it remaineth not to be forgiven, or to receive any forgiveness in that place: for what is once forgiven, needeth not any second forgiveness. Again, if it be a place only to endure punishment for sins, until God's justice be there fully satisfied, (as ye likewise affirm) then must it follow also, that it is no such place, as wherein any forgiveness of the sin is granted, or obtained, or so much as to be expected. But moreover, when God hath received satisfaction to his justice, for the sins of all his people, and for the punishment due unto the same, in the Person of his Son jesus, their Redeemer, Surety, and Saviour: should any be so injurious, either to God, or himself: or so unwise in his thoughts, as to imagine, that God would exact, or require, a second payment, or another satisfaction to be made unto him? yea, when he hath not only received satisfaction in his Son, but hath moreover thereupon given, a full release, remission, 
Coloss. 1.14. Ephes. 1.7. jer. 31.34. Heb. 8.12.  and discharge for all their sins, and that, for ever; Can he after that, in justice, call them to a new reckoning, for them, to make another payment▪ or another satisfaction, in their own persons? It is true, that Christ their surety and redeemer, 
Gal. 3.13. Rom. 3.24. Ephes 1.6, 7. 1. Cor 6.20. 1. Pet. 1.18, 19  paid dearly for them, enduring the most bitter wrath and curse of God, for their sakes: but yet in respect of themselves, they are gratis, that is, frankly and freely remitted, and forgiven, as I have often said; they paying nothing in their own persons of this price and satisfaction. Yea, as S. Paul, speaking of Christ, saith directly: that, In him, 
Coloss. 1.14. Heb. 9.12. jer. 31.34.  we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins. So in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, is this expressly affirmed to be, an Eternal redemption, and consequently an, eternal remission of sins. And therefore, God's children have (as you see) their sins forgiven them, both in this world, and in the world to come. But reprobate sinners, (of which sort be such as sin against the holy Ghost, and of whom it is, that Christ speaketh in that place by you alleged) shall not have forgiveness, neither in this world, where remission of sins is preached, and pronounced to the faithful and repentant people; nor yet in the world to come, when Christ himself shall personally sit in judgement upon them. You perceive then, that sins may be granted to be forgiven, both in this world, and in the world to come; that is to say, to have an Eternal forgiveness: And again, that some sins be not forgiven, but remain liable to God's wrath, to be punished, either in this world, or in the world to come, or in both: and yet your Purgatory is thereby in no sort proved, or can be concluded. But yet further, when Christ saith of this Blasphemy, and Sin against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come: it is but an earnest, vehement, or an emphatical kind of speech, thereby to declare, that such is the heinousness of that sin, and the implacable vengeance and wrath of God against it, as that the committer of it, shall never have forgiveness, but is liable to an everlasting punishment, or an everlasting condemnation. And for assurance, that this is the very and true meaning of those words, S. Mark doth manifestly so expound & declare them: 
Mark. 3.29.  for in stead of those words of S. Matthew, S. Mark reciteth it thus: that he that committeth that sin against the holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but is guilty of eternal condemnation. Would you have a better expositor of S. Matthews words, than S. Mark, who wrote after him? He showeth you plainly, that the meaning of those words is no more but this, viz. to declare, that it shall never be forgiven, and therefore therewith (if there were no more spoken) ye ought to rest fully satisfied and contented.  
4 But yet a third Text they allege, 
1· Cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.  in 1. Cor. 3. where S. Paul saith thus: According to the grace of God given me, as a skilful master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereupon: But let every man take heed how he buildeth upon it: for other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid already, which is jesus Christ: And if any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work that he hath built thereupon abide, he shall receive a reward: If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but himself shall be saved; yet as it were by the fire. Here is fire mentioned, and what fire should it be, say they, 
Greg. lib. 4. Dial. ca 39  but Purgatory fire? S. Gregory himself answereth and telleth you, that there is no necessity to expound it of Purgatory fire: for he saith, it may be understood of the fire of tribulation, left unto us in this life. S. Augustine thinketh, that not only it may, but aught to be understood of the fire of tribulation in this life: and he giveth his reason for it, saying thus: 
Enchirid ad Laurentium ● p. 68  The fire, whereof the Apostle speaketh in this place, must be understood to be such, that both do pass through it, that is, both he which buildeth upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones; and he also that buildeth wood, hay, stubble: for when he had said thus, he added: The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is: If any man's work shall remain, which he hath built upon that foundation, he shall receive reward: If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as it were by fire: Therefore this fire shall try, not the work of one of them, but of them both: And this fire verily, is the tentation of Tribulation, of which in another place it is written plainly: The furnace doth prove the potter's vessel, and tentation of Tribulation, just men etc. Remigius, who lived after Gregory, 
in Psal. 5.  understandeth this fire to be God himself; inasmuch as God himself, is, in Scripture called a Consuming fire. 
Heb. 12.29. Ambrose upon this Text.  S. Ambrose interpreteth this Text, of Doctrine & Teachers in the Church; and so do diverse others also: And indeed, the scope and circumstances of the text, being well considered, do show, that it is most rightly and fitly so to be expounded; because S. Paul had before, affirmed God's Church and people, to be this building: and that he, as an excellent Master-builder, 
1. Cor 3.9, 10, 11, 12. etc.  had laid for a foundation in this work and building, him that is the only foundation, namely jesus Christ. And he there proceeds in that similitude, showing, that all the rest of the building, should be suitable and correspondent to this foundation, whosoever were the builders or workmen in that work: and therefore he biddeth every workman and builder, in this work, that is, every Teacher and Minister of the Gospel, to take heed bow he buildeth upon that foundation: for if any of them build upon it, gold, silver, or precious stones; that is pure and sound doctrine, sincerely delivered, he shall receive a reward at God's hand: But if any of them build wood, hay, stubble, (all which be combustible matter, and upon trial by fire, will soon be burnt up, and consumed (whereby unsound doctrine, or such as is not sound and sincerely delivered, is understood) This man, in respect of his unsound combustible stuff, is therein to suffer loss, yet himself shall be saved, because he holdeth the foundation, namely, jesus Christ, and the justifying faith in him: Yet as it were through the fire; because, though himself be saved, holding the foundation, yet the frothy, unfound, and vanishing stuff, which he builded thereupon, must perish and be lost, as wood, hay, and stubble perish, and be consumed, when they come once to the fire. God's word is in the Scripture resembled to fire: and when men's doctrines, 
jer. 5.14. & jer. 23.29.  both for matter and manner, shall be brought to be examined and tried by this fire; then, as in a clear day (the darkness of the night being dispelled) things appear evident and manifest: so will it also by that trial, clearly appear and be manifested (howsoever before they lay hid, and obscure) what doctrines be sound, and what unsound, what be firm, substantial, and permanent, and will (like gold and silver) endure trial by the fire, and what be like wood, hay, stubble, and such combustible matter, as when it cometh to be tried by fire, ●s found vanishing stuff, and soon consumed and abolished. You see then, the true sense and meaning of this Text, and that it no way enforceth or inferreth your Purgatory fire: Yea it speaketh not one word of purgeing by fire, but of trying by the fire and that also, not of men's persons, (as you suppose) but of their works. For all which causes, it neither doth, nor can possibly make any proof at all, for your so much fancied and imagined Purgatory.  
5 These which be your chief Texts, being answered, let me now desire you to consider further, the fourteenth chapter of the Revelation of S. john, where it is written thus: Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, 
Rev. 14 13.  forthwith: Even so ●aith the spirit, that they rest from their labours, and their works follow them: which words are not only to be understood of Martyrs, but of all other also that die in the faith of Christ: for as all the godly are said, to live in Christ (2. Tim. 3..12.) so are they likewise said to die in Christ, or to be the dead in Christ, (1. Thess. 4.16.). All godly and faithful people then (and not Martyrs only) be such as die in the Lord, and consequently be here affirmed and pronounced, to be blessed forthwith, even presently after their death and departure out of this world, for the Text saith they be Beati à modò, blessed forthwith, or immediately after their death: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as it is in the Greek) that is, from that very present time, forward. Seeing then, they be in the state of blessedness, forthwith, and have rest from all pains and labours, and have also the reward of their works accompanying them, and bestowed upon them: it must needs be granted, that they come into no such painful, terrible, and tormenting place, as your supposed Purgatory is. The Rhemists hereunto answer, that, being in Purgatory, they are blessed, and rest in peace, in respect they be discharged of the labours and afflictions of this life, and (which is more) from the daily dangers of sin and damnation, and be put into infallible security of eternal joy, with unspeakable comfort of conscience. But, first a poor blessedness, & miserable comfort, must it be, to be freed from the miseries & calamities of this life, & to be cast into much greater miseries & calamities afterward, namely into those hot burning & fiery flames of Purgatory, there to be tormented, for I know not how many hundreds or thousands of years. For, ye say, That such & so great be the pains of Purgatory, that there is no difference between them, and the very pains of Hell itself, but only in respect of the continuance of the time; viz. that Purgatory pains be temporary and not lasting ever, whereas Hell torments, be everlasting. Which being so, I would fain learn, how the Souls departed, that suffer pain after this life ended, can certainly tell whether, for the present, they be in Hell, or in Purgatory? for the pain and torment being alike in both, and no difference between them, in respect of the degree of pain, but of the continuance only, those that after their death suppose themselves to be in Purgatory, may possibly be in Hell (the place of the damned) for aught they, for the present, there know, find, or feel to the contrary. But secondly, it is but a mere fancy and imagination, when they say, that they have there, unspeakable comfort of conscience: for how can they have such unspeakable comfort of mind, where they have such intolerable torments, as be equal, for the time they be there, to the very pains and torments, which the damned souls suffer in Hell? And where they say, that being in Purgatory, they have infallible security of eternal joy, this is likewise another mere imagination and dream: for what proof or warrant from God, or his Scriptures, can they show for these things? None at all do they, or can they show, but their own, or other men's conceits and supposals. Themselves do say, that none in this life can be infallibly assured of his salvation, without a special revelation from God: which way, I pray you, come those souls to be so assured which be in Purgatory? Have they any revelation of this matter, there given them from God? Or if ye say they have, How do ye prove it? for the wiser sort of people will no longer be fed with bare words, opinions, conceits, or imaginations of your deceived Church. But yet further, what need any of God's children go to this your Purgatory, there to be put in infallible security of eternal joys, when as they may have that benefit, even in this life? Yea they actually have that unspeakable solace and benefit, namely an infallible assurance of their salvation in this very life, (as afterward in his due place is declared) Laying therein with a joy that is unspeakable and glorious, as S. Peter also himself speaketh, 
1. Pet. 1.8.  and himself witnesseth. Howbeit, I grant, that in S. Augustine's time, some opinion of such a kind of matter appeared, insomuch that S. Augustine himself sometime speaketh Doubtfully of it, and, with a peradventure, there is some such thing: But at other sometimes again, he is very confident, and resolute, that there is no such third place: and therefore in one place, he affirmeth it expressly to be the faith of the Catholics in that time, 
Hipognost. cont. Pelag. lib. 5.  to believe only these two places, namely, Heaven, and Hell. But a third place (saith he) we are utterly ignorant of: Neither do we find it to be in the holy Scriptures. And again he saith: 
De verb. Apost. Serm. 14. & 18.  Duae quippè habitationes: una in igne ●terno, alia in regno aeterno: For there be two habitations or dwelling places, the one in everlasting fire, the other in an everlasting kingdom. Agreeably whereunto, the scripture that speaketh of fire for the punishment of people after their death, expressly affirmeth it, to be, an everlasting fire, and, unquenchable fire: which is sufficient to take away all conceit of your temporary and quenchable fire, 
Matt 25 41. Mat. 3.12.  in your vainly supposed Purgatory. Yea, S. Augustine saith further: 
D▪ Civitat. Dei lib. 13. cap. 7.  In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae, etc. The souls of the godly separated from their bodies, be in rest, or quietness, and the souls of the ungodly suffer punishments, until the bodies of those do rise again unto life everlasting, and the bodies of these unto eternal death, which is called the second death. And so speaketh also S. Cyprian, 
Cyprian. cont. Demetrian.  saying: Quando isthinc excessum fuerit, nullus iam poenitentiae locus, nul●us satisfactionis effectus: Hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur: Hic sa●uti aeternae, cultu Dei & fructu fidei providetur: When men be once departed out of this life, there is no more place for repentance, there is no more work or effect of any satisfaction: Here in this world, (saith he) life is either lost or got: Here it is that provision is made for eternal salvation, by the worshipping of God, and the fruits of faith. And again he there saith: Then shall be without fruit of repentance, all grief of pain, & inanis ploratio, & inefficax deprecatio: and in vain shall weeping be then, and prayers shall then be also, uneffectuall, and of no force.  
6 To what end then, is also your prayer for the dead, or the Pope's pardons and indulgences, or singing or saying of Masses, Trentals, Requiems, or any other your works satisfactory or helpful (as you call them) for the souls of the dead? 
Eccles. 11.13.  for in the place where the Tree falleth, there it lieth, whether it be toward the South, or toward the North, saith Ecclesiastes: appointing likewise, as here you see, but two places in that behalf. Agreeably whereunto he saith again, that when a man dieth, his body, as Dust returneth to the earth, from whence it came: and his soul or spirit, 
Eccles. 12. 7·  returneth to God that gave it. And again he saith: after that men are dead, They have no more portion for ever, in all that is done under the Sun. 
Eccles. 9.15.  What part or portion than can they have in your prayers, or in any other works done by men that be living in this world? We know and believe, there is a communion of Saints, and that the charity and love of the Saints, one towards another, is very great: but ye see, that the Saints, and godly Elect, go not after their death, to any place of Torment, but into a place of blessedness and heavenly happiness, where they stand not in need of any mortal men's prayers, or other their works whatsoever. On the other side, the souls of the ungodly reprobates go to Hell, the place of the damned, so that no prayers or other works whatsoever, can do them any good, for their ease or deliverance from thence. And as for any third sort of people, that be neither Elect nor Reprobates, such are not to be found. It is true, that in this life we may bear one another's burden, and one may pay a debt for another, and the abundance of one man's wealth may supply the defect or want of another: But as touching the next world, it is not so: for the Scripture saith; that, The Just man shall live, not by any other man's, but by his own faith. Again, 
Abac. 2.4. Rom. 1.17.  it saith: The soul that sinneth, that shall dye. And again: The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, 
Ezech. 18.20.  and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself: So that, neither the righteousness, nor the wickedness of one, shall be imparted to another, to save or condemn him. Yea though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and job, were amongst them, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, 
Ezech. 14.14.  saith the Lord God. And again the Psalmist saith: A man can by no means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: 
Psal. 49.7, 8.  It cost more, to redeem souls, and therefore he must let that alone for ever. Neither hath any that is but a mere man, any such abundance of holiness, or righteousness in him, as to be therewith able to supply the defects or wants of others in that behalf. 
Matt. 25.8, 9  Yea all is little enough for himself, when he once cometh to stand in God's presence, and before his tribunal. For even the holiest and justest man that is, must then say with King David, Enter not, O Lord, into judgement with thy servant: 
Psal. 143.2.  for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Yea, even the blessed Virgin Mary herself, though a most godly and holy woman, yet had not such abundance of holiness in her, as to be able thereby to be her own Saviour, much less to be able to merit the salvation of others: for that she was, in respect of herself, a Sinner, and consequently had need of Christ jesus to be her Saviour, as well as other people, herself plainly declared, when she said: My soul doth magnify the Lord, 
Luk. 1.46.  and my spirit rejoiceth in God my Saviour. If she had had no sin at all in her, (as some Papists affirm) what need had she of a Saviour, or how could Christ jesus have been her Saviour, as she calleth and affirmeth him? For he is in no other respect, called, jesus, that is, a Saviour, but because he shall save his people from their sins, 
Matt. 1.21.  as the Angel testifieth. Again, doth not the Scripture say expressly, that, All have sinned, and that whosoever be justified, be justified freely, by the grace of God, 
Rom. 3.23, 24.  through the redemption that is in Christ jesus? The Papists also talk much of the virtues and sufferings of S. Paul, 
Rom. 8.18. Rom. 7.14, 15.19 23, 24, 25. 1. Cor. 4.4. Phillip 3.8, 9 Gal. 2.19, 20.  as though they were meritorious and satisfactory, as well for others, as for himself: when as nevertheless himself showeth, they were not sufficient for his own salvation. It is true that he saith in his Epistle to the Colossians, that He rejoiced in his sufferings, for them, that is, for their sakes, who thereby were to be encouraged, strengthened, and confirmed, in the faith of Christ: and that He did fill up, or accomplish that which was yet behind of the afflictions of Christ, in his flesh, for Christ's bodies sake, 
Colos. 1.24.  which is the Church: that is, whatsoever yet wanted or remained for him to suffer, (in whose sufferings or afflictions, Christ himself is said to suffer, and to be afflicted and persecuted, 
Act 9 4, 5.  (for what affliction, or persecution, is done to any of his members, he accounteth it as done to himself) all those sufferings, and afflictions whatsoever they were, 
2. Tim 2 10.  that yet remained for him to bear, he was ready willingly to undergo, for Christ's body sake, which is the Church: that is, for the profit and edification of the Church, 
2. Cor. 1.5, 6, 7. etc.  that it might thereby receive encouragement, comfort, confirmation, strength, and boldness, in the profession of the Gospel. I say, all this being thus to be intended and understood: how injurious and impious be the Rhemists, and other Papists, which wrest this Text of S. Paul, to prove that one man may merit and satisfy for the sins of another, & supply his defects, in that point? As though the sufferings of Christ in his own person for our sins, had any want, defect, or imperfection in them: or, as though the sufferings of S. Paul, or of S. Peter, or of any other Saints, or Martyrs, and their bloodshed, could or did do that which the blood and sufferings of Christ could not, or did not do. Is it not a shame, and a most monstrous shame, for any so to speak, think or teach?  
7 But they here allege, that prayer for the dead, is mentioned in the book of Macchabees; and consequently, 
2. Macc. 12.44▪  that they be tormented in Purgatory: for why else should they be prayed for? I answer first, that praying for the dead, is there mentioned, as the fact of one particular man only, namely, of judas, which can make no general law or rule in this case: And secondly, there is likewise mentioned, as by way of approbation, in the same book of the Macchabees, 
2. Macc. 14.41.  the fact of one Razis, that killed himself; and yet for all that, it is not of any godly man to be followed or imitated. And therefore as the one is disallowable, so likewise may the other be disallowable notwithstanding the Approbation of it in that book. Thirdly, judas himself did not there pray for the dead, as thinking their souls to be punished and tormented in Purgatory (there is no such thing mentioned, or appearing in the text): but to show, that he had hope, 
2. Macc. 12. ●●▪  that they which were slain and dead, should rise again; for to that end it was, as the Text itself declareth. But fourthly I answer, that the book of the Macchabees is not canonical Scripture, and therefore is not of authority sufficient, to prove a point of faith necessarily to be believed, because that book speaketh it. That it is not canonical, appeareth before by the testimony of the old Church: and it doth also appear by the testimony even of the Author himself that wrote the Book; 
2. Macc. 15.38.  in that, in the end of it, he excuseth himself, and as it were craveth pardon, if he have written slenderly & meanly. Which apparently showeth, that he wrote by an humane, and not by an undoubtedly divine spirit. For the spirit of God is not wont, nor needeth to crave pardon, nor to excuse himself, as though he wrote slenderly or meanly. Lastly, against that your conceit, of tormenting Purgatory, grounded out of that Book, I may and do oppose the Book of Wisdom, 
Wisd. 3.1.  where it is said directly: The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them: If no torment shall touch them, then do they not come into any of your supposed Purgatory torments. Yea although S. Augustine prayed for his mother, and some other also for their friends departed: it is no proof of your Purgatory; inasmuch as such prayers do many times proceed out of natural & humane affection only, & be used as a token of love & wel-wishing to friends departed, without any such belief of Purgatory. Which may & doth appear even by S. Augustine himself: who, though he prayed for his mother, believed nevertheless that she was in peace, and rest, free from all pain and torment. 
Ambr. in Orat. de obit. Theo. & de obit. Valent.  S. Ambrose likewise prayed for Theodosius, Valentinian, and Gratian, whom nevertheless he believed to be in peace and rest, and in heavenly happiness. You see then, that praying for the dead, is no proole for your Purgatory. Howbeit, this praying for the dead, hath also no commandment, example, or warrant for it, in any of the canonical Scriptures: and beside, it appeareth by the premises, that it can do the dead no good; and therefore it is in vain, in respect of any good, thereby to be done to the dead. As for the apparitions of souls, which they likewise sometimes allege, to prove their Purgatory, it is a very Toy, and a fable. For, S. Chrysostome saith: 
Chrysost. in Mat. cap. 8. hom. 29.  it is not the soul of any dead person, but a Devil, which feigneth himself to be the soul of such a one, to deceive those to whom he appeareth; and he calleth them, Vetularum verba, 
August. lib. 2. quaest. 3. ad Simplician.  & P●erorum ludibria, Old women's Tales, and children's toys. And so S. Augustine likewise telleth you, that it was not Samuel in very deed, but a Devil in his likeness, which appeared to the witch in King Saul's time: And therefore he pronounceth of these things, that they be either the Cousenages of Deluding men, or wonders of Deceitful Devils, with which therefore, 
Aug. de Vnit. eccls ca 16.  none ought any longer to be bewitched or deluded,   

CAP. VI  
Of works, done upon a good Intention (as they be called) without a commandment or warrant from God, or his word: Of works, de Congruo; and de Condigno: And, of works of Supererogation: and how unpleasing they all be in God's sight and censure; howsoever in respect of men, that have use and profit by them, they be, and may be called, good, and beneficial works.  
sundry there be, who think any work of their own Invention, or of others devising, to be a good work, acceptable to God, and a point of good service performed to him, so long as they have a good meaning, or a good intention in it; though the work be not commanded from God, nor warranted by his word. But God will not have every man to do, what seemeth to himself good, or right in his own Eyes: But whatsoever I command you, that (saith he) observe to do. Yea, that, 
Deut. 12.8.32.  and That only, must ye do, (as your own latin Translation is.) Again, he saith: I am the Lord your God, walk ye in my statutes, and krepe my judgements, and do them. 
Ezech. 20.19. Levit. 18.4.  And nothing doth he more dislike or condemn, in his service, or worship, then when men will be so presumptuous, as out of their own imaginations, to suppose, and devise, what shall be well pleasing to him. For, what is this else, but for people to go a whoring with their own inventions, 
Psal 106.39.  as the Scripture speaketh? My thoughts, are not your thoughts: nor your ways, my ways, saith the Lord: 
Esai 55.8.9.  for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts, than your thoughts. Yea, what are they else, but superstitious works, which are done by the will and pleasure of men, without the Commandment of God, or his rule and direction, for so Isidorus giveth the Etymology of that word, 
Isidor. orig. lib. 8. cap. 3.  superstition, to be a thing done, supra-statut●m, more than is appointed by the law of God, upon men's pleasures and devisings. May not God say in these cases, as sometime he spoke, Quis requisivit haec de vobis, Who hath required these things of you? A good Intention therefore is not sufficient to prove, 
Esai. 1.12.  or make the work to be good in God's sight, unless it be a work or action commanded from God, or by his word approved. For, King Saul had a good intention, or meaning, when being sent against the Amal●kites, and commanded from God to kill, both man and woman, infant and suckling; ox and sheep, camel and ass; he, nevertheless spared some of the cattle, suffering the people to take Sheep, and Oxen, 
1. Sam. 15.2 ●. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.  to this intent, to sacrifice to the Lord. But notwithstanding this his good intention, the fact was odious in God's sight, and because he had thus rejected the word of the Lord, not suffering his actions to be thereby squared and ruled, therefore also did the Lord reject him from being King over Israel. So likewise had Vzzah a good meaning, or a good intention, when driving the Cart wherein the Ark of God was, 
2. Sam. 6 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  and the Ark being shaken, and in danger of falling, he put forth his hand to the Ark, and took hold of it to keep it, from falling: yet because it belonged not unto him, so to do with the Ark, and that he therein did an action not commanded, nor warranted unto him from God, or his word▪ therefore, notwithstanding this his good intention, God was offended with him, and he smote Vzzah there for his error, and there he died by the Ark of God. The works than which men do of their own heads and devisings, without God's commandment, or approbation by his word, be not to be accounted amongst the number of good works, in God's censure, what fair show soever they make amongst men, or what good meaning or intention soever they have. For, that, which is highly esteemed amongst men, is oftentimes abomination in the sight of God, as Christ himself also teacheth and affirmeth. 
Luk. 16.15.   
2 But ye have further in the Papacy, works preparative, or works, or merits de Congruo, as ye call them, such as be done by a man before faith received; which ye also account good works But, first, How can a man that is not himself as yet made good, bring forth any good works? for, The tree must first be good, before it can bring forth good fruit, 
Mat. 12.13.  as Christ himself teacheth. Yea, good works, and a sanctified course of life, be the fruits of righteousness, as S. Paul declareth: and therefore, before that a man be made righteous, and justified by faith, he cannot possibly bring forth these fruits of righteousness. Again, the Scripture witnesseth expressly: that, 
Phil. 1.11.  Without faith, it is impossible to please God: How then can the works of any man, before faith received, please God▪ 
Heb. 11.6.  be accepted of him, or merit any grace or favour at his hands? The Heart is the fountain of all men's actions: and by faith it is▪ that men's hearts be purified, and cleansed, as S. Peter witnesseth. Until such time therefore, 
Act. 1●. 9.  that men's hearts be thus cleansed and purified by faith in Christ, they can bring forth no good, clean, or pure works, but works like themselves, that is, most impure, and unclean. For, to them that be uncleansed, and unbelievers, nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled, as S. Paul also directly affirmeth. 
Tit. 1.15.  And so he saith again of all the corrupt natural men in the world, until they be regenerated, converted, and justified in God's sight by faith, they be such as have all gone out of the way, they are all become unprofitable, there is none that doth good, no not one. 
Rom. 3.12.  Not without good cause therefore, hath S. Augustine before told us, that all the works of Infidels, and Heathens, 
Aug. cont. julian li. 4. c 3. & cont. 2. Epist. Pelag. ad Bonif. li. 3. ca 5.  and even the Moral virtues of the Philosophers, as they were done, and performed by them that had no belief in Christ, were no good works in God's sight, but Splendida peccata, glittering sins: Yea, he hath told us expressly: that, Good works do follow him that is before justified, and do not go before him that is afterwards to be justified. And again he saith: that, 
August. de fide & oper. cap. 14.  faith goeth before, that good works may follow: neither are there (saith he) any good works, but those that follow faith going before. And therefore touching Cornelius the Centurion, 
August. in Psal. 67. Act. 10.1, 2. &c  whose prayers to God, and Almesde●des, be much commended, before he was baptised, (whose example, the Rhemists, and other Papists, 
August. de praed. Sanct. lib. 1. c. 7. Introducis hominum genus, quod placere Deo possit sine fide Christi, lege naturae: Hoc est unde vos maximè Christiana detestatur Ecclesia August. cont. julian.  allege in this case) the same S. Augustine giveth a sufficient answer thereunto, saying: That he did not give Alms and Pray, without some faith. So likewise testifieth Beda, and that out of Gregory: that, Non virtutibus ad fidem, sed fide pertingitur ad virtutes etc. Men attain not to faith by virtues, but to virtues by faith, as S. Gregory expoundeth it: For Cornelius (saith he) whose alms before baptism (as the Angel witnesseth) be praised, came not by works to saith, but by faith to works. And again he saith: He had faith, whose prayers and almesdeeds could please God. So that at this very time of his Prayers and almsdeeds, he believed in the Messias, albeit, most true it is, that he did not then so well know Christ, or so firmly believe in him, as he did afterward by the ministry of Peter.  
3 The merits also the Candigno (as the Popish Church calleth them) be not to be reckoned in the number of good works: yea, this conceit and opinion of Merit, is it that poisoneth and marreth the works, so that they are not reputed in God's sight and censure to be good, but bad and odious works, that be done with that affection, and to that end. For, even those good works that be done, after grace and faith received, and by a man regenerate and justified, do not merit or deserve salvation, 
Gal. 5 19 Rom. 7.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Psal 3.12.  or eternal life: because in the best works, that men regenerate, or sanctified persons do, is some humane frailty, defect, or imperfection intermingled; for which defects, they are to crave pardon at God's hand, and not to stand upon the merit of them. We are all (saith Esay) as an unclean thing, 
Esa 64 6.  and all our righteousness is as filthy rags. If thou, O Lord, shouldst straitely mark iniquity (saith the Psalmist) O Lord, 
Psal. 130.3.4.  who shall stand? But there is mercy with thee that th●u mayst be feared. 
jam. 3.2.  In many things we all offend. (saith S. james) And therefore well saith S. Augustine; Vae universae iustitiae nostrae si remota misericordia judicetur: 
Agust. lib. 6. conf.  Woe to all our righteousness, if it be judged, mercy being laid aside. The wages of sin (saith S. Paul) is death: But the gift of God is eternal life, through jesus Christ our Lord. 
Rom. 6.23.  Note that he calleth Eternal l●fe, not the wages, or merit of Men, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, The free gift of God, bestowed gratis, without any purchase, merit, or desert of ours: albeit▪ jesus Christ our Lord, purchased it for us, and paid a great price for it in our behalf: through whom, 
Act. 20 28. 1. Cor 6.20.  and whose merits it is, that we obtain it. Hearing (saith S. Augustine) that death is the wages of sin, why goest thou about, O Thou, not justice of man, but plain pride, under the name of justice, why goest thou about to lift up thyself, and to demand Eternal life (which is contrary to death) as a wages due? Chrysostome also upon this place speaketh thus: He saith not eternal life is the reward of your good works▪ but eternal life is the gift of God: That he might show, that they are delivered, not by ●heir own strength or virtues, and that it is not a debt, or wages, or a retribution of labours, but that they have received all those things freely of the gift of God. Theodoret likewise, upon this place observeth, that the Apostle saith not here, reward, but, gift, or grace: for eternal life is the gift of God: for although a man could perform the highest and absolute justice, yet eternal joys, being weighed with temporal labours, there is no proportion. And so saith S. Paul himself, that, The afflictions of this life, 
Rom. 8. 1●.  non sunt Condignae, are not worthy the glory that shall be shown unto us. It is true, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, merces, a reward, is promised to those that do good works, but it is (as before is showed) merces ex gratià non ex debito, a reward of grace or favour, 
Rom. 4. ●.  and not of debt or desert, as even S. Paul himself distinguisheth. So that God giveth the Crown of righteousness, not to the merit or worthiness of our works, but to the Merit or Worthiness of Christ, and as due to us by his promise only freely made unto us in Christ. The Crown therefore of eternal life, is of mercy and favour in respect of us, but of justice and desert, in respect of Christ, who hath purchased it for us by his merits and worthiness. Wherefore S. Augustine saith well: 
August. in Psal. 83  that fidelis dominus, qui se nobis debitorem fecit, non aliquid a nobis accipiendo, sed omnia nobis promittendo: The Lord is faithful, who hath made himself a debtor unto us, not by receiving any thing of us, but by promising all things unto us. Again he saith: Non dicimus Deo, Domine redde quod accepisti: sed redde quod promisisti: 
Aug. in Psal. 32.  We say not to God, Render that, O Lord, which thou hast received of us, but render or give that which thou hast promised, Again he saith: That God crowneth his own gifts, not our merits, when he crowneth us. 
August. in Psal. 101.  What worthiness soever then is in us, it is by God's acceptation, and his accounting of us to be such, in, & through Christ, & not by reason, or in respect of any of our own personal merits, or worthiness. For, what hast thou (saith S. Paul) that thou hast not received? and if thou hast received it, 
1. Cor. 4.7.  why dost thou glory, as though thou hadst not received it? The gifts and graces of God in a man, should make him humble, and thankful; and not make him proud, as though he deserved them, and a great deal more, by reason of them. If a man give another 100 l. which he useth well; doth he thereby deserve, or can he therefore claim, as of merit or duty, to have at that man's hand, 100000. l.? Men, for good works and benefits done, may deserve praise and thanks amongst men: but what man, by doing of his duty, deserveth praise or thanks at God's hand? 
Luk. 17.7, 8, 9, 10▪  or, What Servant, for doing his Master's service and commandment, can thereupon claim to be his Master's heir? Whosoever glorieth, should glory in the Lord: 
1. Cor. 1.31.  as S. Paul teacheth. But if men do merit, then have they somewhat of their own, wherein to glory: But God alloweth no matter of glory in men, 
Rome 4.3.  with him, or in his sight: neither have they, indeed, any matter of glory in them: because, whatsoever graces, or goodness men have, they have received it of God, to whom they ought to be thankful, and for which they stand bound to perform all manner of duty unto him. So that how much merit men take to themselves, so much do they detract from the merits of Christ, and so much praise, glory, and thanks do they pull from God, to whom all praise, glory, honour, and thanks rightly and properly belong, 
Rev. 4.11. Rev. 5.12.13, 14 Rev. 19.1.3.  and are to be rendered. Yea, the Kingdom of heaven is a reward, infinitely above the value of all men's works, and therefore must needs be given of grace, and cannot be merited by men. But against men's merits, and their works of satisfaction, whereby they intent to satisfy God's wrath and justice for sins (which is only satisfiable by the death and sufferings of that Immaculate Lamb, Christ jesus) enough hath been before spoken, and therefore I here forbear to speak any further of them.  
4 But in this matter of works, this is not to be passed over, or omitted, that they also hold works of Supererogation, (as they call them) whereby they say, Men do more than they are bound unto by God's Commandments, and so do merit, not only their own salvation, but the salvation also of others, or something toward it. Can these be accounted good works, or that be held for a good and right religion, wherein such monstrous things be taught and maintained? It is more than any mere man is able to do, perfectly and exactly to keep and perform the whole law and Commandments of God: for so S. Paul himself expressly affirmeth it, to be a thing impossible, 
Rom. 8.3. Act. 13.38.39.  because of the weakness that is in all sinful flesh: and so have the ancient Fathers likewise before testified and taught. Why then do these men talk of doing all, and more than all the Commandments of God? Indeed, if any think to come to heaven by Doing (as he in the Gospel did) the Answer which Christ gave in that case is right and fit for him: that, 
Mat. 19.16. etc. Mar. 10.17. etc. Luk 10.25 26, 27, 28. Luk. 18.18. etc.  He must keep the Commandments: for Moses describing the righteousness which is of the Law, saith: That the man which Doth those things shall live by them: But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh (as S. Paul showeth) on another fashion, 
Rom. 10.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.  and consisteth in a firm believing in Christ: For Christ, who performed the law for us (it being a thing impossible for us to do) is the End, or accomplishment of the Law, 
Rome, 10.4▪  for righteousness to every one that believeth, as he there again affirmeth. And yet must none therefore hereupon conclude God to be Cruel, Tyrannical, or unjust, in giving such a Law as is impossible for men to keep: for at the first, before the fall and transgression of Adam, it was possible, and the Impossibility that is now of it, is not through any default of the Law, or of God, the giver of it, but through the imbecility and weakness, which men have brought upon themselves, by means of that Transgression. Neither was the law afterward given to any such end, that men should be able exactly and perfectly to fulfil it: and by such fulfilling of it, to have eternal life: but to show us how far we are fallen from that ability and purity we received in our first Creation, 
Gal. 3.19.21.24. Rom. 5.20.21.  and to discover and make known our sins and transgressions, both original and actual, 
Rom. 7.13.24, 25.  and the wrath and curse of God due unto us for the same; 
Rom. 7.7, 8. Rom. 4 15, 16. Gal 3.11, 12 14 15, 16, 17, 18. 22.24. Rom. 3.31. Matth. 5.17. Psal. 1.1, 2. Psal. 119.165.  and so to drive and bring us unto Christ the Saviour and Redeemer. This is one chief use of the Law, as S. Paul hath before declared. Another use of the Law, as touching the ten Commandments, is, that we should walk in the obedience of it, to the uttermost of our power; although we shall never be able, during this life, fully and absolutely to keep and perform it, by, and in our own persons. In all this, I am sure, there is no cruelty, tyranny, or injustice. Yet, we must, as I said before, endeavour to the uttermost of our powers▪ 
The reasons why men should do good works and walk in God's law and commandments. Ephe 2 8, 9, 10  to walk in it, and to do all manner of good works, although not to that end, to expect justification or salvation, by that means, yet to other ends and purposes: as namely, first, to show our obedience, duty, and thankfulness to God, for all his favours and benefits bestowed upon us: For as S. Paul saith: God hath ordained good works, that we should walk in them. secondly, that by those good works, 
2. Pet. 1.10.  and a Godly conversation, We may make our calling and election sure to ourselves, as S. Peter teacheth. Thirdly, that, Other men, seeing our good works, may thereby be also occasioned and moved, 
Mat. 5 16.  to glorify God our heavenly father, as Christ himself declareth. So that there be, as you see, other good ends, why men should observe (so much as is possible) God's Law and Commandments, and why they should do all manner of good works, though they repose no confidence of merit, or hope of justification or salvation therein. Howbeit, the Rhemists endeavour to prove works of Supererogation: First, by that which was laid out, over and beside the two pence, for the recovery of the wounded man (in Luk. 10.35.) but the doing of that was clearly a work and duty of Charity, 
Luk. 10.35.  and therefore commanded, and consequently, could not be a work of Supererogation. And as touching the other Text of 1. Cor. 9 (which the Rhemists likewise allege) where S. Paul would not be burdensome or chargeable to the Church of Corinth, for preaching the Gospel unto them, 
1. Cor. 9.12.16.18. etc.  which nevertheless he might have charged: himself showeth the reason why he did forbear, and abridge himself of the use of that power and liberty amongst them: namely, because he would not give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Vers. 12. and because he would not abuse his power in the Gospel, verse. 18. and because a necessity was also put upon him to preach the Gospel, (vers. 16.) whether he had allowance of the Church, or no allowance. This therefore was also a duty in S. Paul the Apostle, in this case, to preach the Gospel thus frankly and freely, rather than it should not be preached at all: or, rather than the Gospel should be hindered, or receive obloquy any way: and consequently, they appear to be intolerable, and super-arrogant works, of Supererogation, which be maintained in the Papacy.   

CHAP. VII.  
Concerning Predestination, and assurance of Salvation: and that being rightly understood, they Infer no manner of Licentiousness, or Impiety, but the clean contrary.  
But they proceed, challenging our Religion further, to be a religion tending to licentiousness, for that it teacheth Predestination, and assurance of Salvation in some persons: which they also call, Presumptuous Doctrine. But, first, even the Papists themselves, aswell as the Protestants, do teach, that there is a Predestination Secondly, in the Doctrine of Predestination, it being rightly and discreetly delivered, there is no danger, or inconvenience, but much conveniency, 
Deut. 29. ●● Act. 28.27. Mat. 28.20.  sweetness, comfort, and profit comprised. Yea, why hath God revealed, & published it in his word, but to the end it should be known? And (that no man might carp against it) S. Paul showeth, that which all reason, as well as Religion alloweth: namely, that God, the maker of us all, hath (at least) as much authority and power, over all men, his Creatures, to do, dispose, and ordain of them, at his pleasure, as the Potter hath over his Pots, 
Rom. 9.21.22.  or over the clay, whereout he frameth or maketh them, especially after that the whole lump of mankind was fallen in the transgression of Adam. Hath not the Potter (saith he) power of the clay, to make of the same lump, one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour? And he further addeth, 
Rom. 9.22.23.  saying: What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction? and that he might declare the riches of his glory, upon the vessels of mercy which he had before prepared unto glory? In which words ye see, that some, upon the fall of Adam were left in their sins, and so be vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction, through their own sin and corruption: and that other some be vessels of mercy, and such as God, notwithstanding their fall and corruption, hath prepared to glory. But to show this matter further, and withal to clear it of all licentiousness, and impiety: doth not S. Paul say thus? 
Rom. 8.30.  Whom God hath predestinated, them also he called: and whom he called, them also he justified: and whom he justified, them also he glorified. Here you see express mention made of Predestination of some unto glory: and withal you see that those which be thus predestinated unto glory, be the men, that be afterward at some one time or other of their life, effectually called and justified (and consequently sanctified) and at last, come to be glorified: and therefore they be, and must needs be, such as live, not a wicked, dissolute, and licentious, but a good, godly, and holy life, after that they be once so effectually called. But yet further, S. Paul speaketh thus to the chosen people of God: Ye are all the children of light, 
1. Thes. 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  and the children of the day: we are not of the night, neither of darkness: Therefore let us not sleep, as do other, but let us watch and be sober: for they that sleep, sleep in the night, and they that be drunken, be drunken in the night: but let us that are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith, and love; and the hope of salvation for an helmet: For (saith he) God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but to obtain salvation, by the means of our Lord jesus Christ, which died for us. In which words you see, that although some be appointed to wrath, yet othersome be appointed to obtain salvation, by the means of their Lord jesus Christ, which died for them: and these which were thus predestinated, and appointed, not to wrath, but to Salvation, he showeth, that even for this very cause, they should be the more vigilant, wary, and circumspect, (as touching their lives and conversations) to walk as Children of the light, and of the day, and not to be like unto those that be appointed to wrath, and be of the night, and of darkness. Again, S. Paul in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, speaking of some, To whom God sent strong delusion to believe lies (that they might all be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness) distinguishing those that were of the Elect number from them, he saith thus: 
2. Thes. 2.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  But we ought to give thanks always for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because that God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation: And there he showeth further, how after this their election, they be brought to salvation, namely, through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. So that you here still perceive, that all be not elect to salvation, but some only: and that those that be thus elected, be such as be afterward sanctified by the spirit of God, and believe the Gospel and word of truth, and so come in the end to the salvation appointed for them. S. Paul again, to the same effect, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, saith thus: Blessed be God, even the father of our Lord jesus Christ, which hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly things in Christ: as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him, 
Ephes. 1.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. etc.  in love. In which words you likewise see, that not all in a generality, but some only be elected: and that those which be thus ordained, and elected to life and salvation, were (in God's purpose and decree) so ordained, and elected, antequam iacerentur fundamenta mundi: 
The end of Predestination is, that men should live godly and holy lives: and not that they should live licentiously or as they list.  before the foundations of the world were laid: But then here observe withal, that those which be thus elected, and predestinated of God to Salvation, be not so predestinate, and elected, to the end, they should live licentiously, wickedly, or carelessly; but to the end, They should be holy, and without blame before him, in love: for so be the very direct words of the Apostle. Wherefore it is apparent, that S. Paul, from this matter and doctrine of Predestination, and electing of men to salvation, gathereth, not any argument of Licentiousness (for neither can such argument from thence be rightly deduced, what soever Atheists, Papists, or others thereupon untruly infer) but clean chose, from hence, he gathereth (as likewise all the rest of God's children do) matter to bless, praise, and thank God, for ever, and ever▪ and thereby provoketh men, to show forth the fruits of that their thankfulness, by a continual godly life, and an holy conversation. For, indeed, what will move a man to thankfulness, and to show his obedience towards God, both in his thoughts and affections, and in his words, and in his works, and every manner of way, if his election to salvation, decreed and purposed with God before the foundations of the world were laid, will not move him unto it? seeing he was then in God's hand, to have disposed of him, as of a vessel, either to honour, or dishonour, at his own good and free pleasure? there being then no matter of merit or desert in him, why God should cho●se him more than another? yea, at that time of his ordaining and appointing of him to salvation, he might, if he had so pleased, have otherwise disposed of him, and might have left and refuse● him (as he did others) to go with them to everlasting wrath, and eternal horror and damnation. Infinite and unspeakable therefore must such a one needs conceive the love of God to be towards him, in this case, and such as can never be sufficiently magnified. Yea, thus again from this predestination and election of God, doth S Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians likewise infer, (as it is indeed most forcible thereunto) matter of argument to persuade to all Christian virtues, and to all godliness and holiness of life: for thus he saith: Now therefore as ●he elect of God: holy, and beloved, put on tender mercy, 
Colos. 3.12, 13.  kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering, forbearing one another, and forgiveing one another, if any man have a quarrel to another: even ●s Christ forgave you, even so do ye etc. Mark here also, how from this that they were the Elect of God, he gathereth this Argument to persuade to all goodness, godliness, and Christian virtues. And so likewise doth S. Peter also frame an Argument from thence to persuade to all holiness of life. Ye (saith he) are a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the virtues of him, that hath called you out of darkness, into his marvellous light. By all which you see, I hope, sufficiently, 
1. Pet. 2.9.  that out of this doctrine of Predestination, can no Argument for licentiousness, or carelessness of life, be rightly deduced, but the clean contrary. For although God hath predestinated and foreordained, what shall become of all men, as he hath likewise of all things else, we are not therefore to grow careless and dissolute, but, all our chief care, study, & endeavour should be this, namely to examine ourselves, our hearts & ways, affections & works, & thereby see, whether we be of the number of those that be elected & predestinated to salvation, yea, 
Luk. 10.20.  or no: And if we find that we are, therein to rejoice, with pouring forth everlasting praise and, thanks unto God, 
Ephes. 1.3, 4, 5, 6. & ●▪  for so special, ineffable and incomparable a favour, and during all our life, to show forth the fruits of that thankfulness, by a continual endeavour to walk in the ways of God, & godliness. And if any, upon examination of himself, do not yet find the marks & tokens of God's children within him, and of such a one as is predestinated to salvation, 
The right use of the doctrine of predestination.  he is not therefore to be discouraged utterly, or to despair, but to know, that he may be for all that, of the number of God's Children (if he neglect not to use the means, which God hath appointed in that case) inasmuch, as, God may hereafter, at some one time or other, before his death, call him to faith, and repentance, and regenerate and sanctify him by his spirit, & so testify and make known the same unto him. For as it is true, that Whom God hath predestinated, 
Rom. 8.30.  them also he calleth: so no less true is it, that God hath also set his appointed times and means, when and how he will call them unto himself, whom he hath so predestinated: which thing, Christ jesus also himself showeth, in the Parable, namely, that some were called very soon, and at the third hour, some at the sixth hour, some at the ninth, and some at the eleventh hour: and some are called, even at the last hour, as was the Thief, crucified with Christ. 
Mat. 20.1.2, 3.4 5, 6, 7.  So that God calleth some early and betimes in their youth, and some in their riper, 
The doctrine of predestination teacheth no man to despair so long as life lasteth, but to use the means which God hath appointed to bring men to salvation.  and elder years, and some not till their old age, and latter days of their life, and some not till the very last hour of their days: and consequently, so long as life remaineth, there is a possibility for men to be called: and therefore no reason is there why any should despair, (as likewise, none ought rashly, or unadvisedly to presume) upon this doctrine.  
2 Now then to show unto you the truth of that other point (as being an appendent hereunto, namely, that even in this life, a man may come to be assured, that he is one of the number of those that be elected and predestinated to eternal life and salvation: 
Touching assurance of salvation.  consider first, what S. Peter writeth, saying: Brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, 
2. Pet. 1.10.  ye shall never fall. Here you see it precisely and directly taught by S. Peter, that men not only may, but aught so far to endeavour, namely, to make their calling and election sure to themselves: And he there further showeth them, 
2. Pet. 1.5, 6, 7, 8 9, 10.  how they may attain unto this assurance, namely, by having, doing, and using of those excellent christian virtues, and courses he there mentioneth. Again, doth not S. Paul speak thus in plain terms? Try yourselves, whether ye be in the faith or no: Examine yourselves, Know ye not that Christ jesus is in you except ye he reprobates? 
2. Cor. 13.5.  Where he likewise declareth, that all that be sound Christians may, by good trial and examination of themselves, find, perceive, and Know, that Christ jesus is in them, and that they belong unto him. This confidence, knowledge, and assurance had that holy man job, for thus he saith: I am sure that my redeemer liveth etc. & though, af●er my skin, wormes destroy this body, 
job. 19.25, 26, 27.  yet shall I see God in my flesh: whom I myself shall see, and mine own eyes shall behold, and none other for me. Yea, this persuasion, and assurance had also S. Paul, and not only He, but all the rest of God's Children have likewise this confidence and assurance: for thus he speaketh in the name of them all: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, 
Rom. 8 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? as it is written; For thy sake are we killed all the day long: we are counted as sheep for the slaughter: nevertheless, in all these things, we are more than Conquerors, 
Data sunt signa quaedam & Indicia manifesta s●lutis, ut indubitabile sit cum esse de numero Electorum, in quo ea signa per manserint Bernard▪ in Septuag. Serm. 1.  through him that loved us: For, I am persuaded (the words of your Translation, declaring the same thing, be, Certus sim, I am sure, or I am assured) that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor Principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us, from the love of God, which is in Christ jesus our Lord. In these words you see, that S. Paul speaketh not only in the singular, but in the plural number, and consequently, of others aswell as of himself, even of all the elect people of God, that they all, aswell as he, at some one time or other of their life, have this strong confidence, and unremovable assurance, that nothing shall be able to separate Them from God's love toward them in Chris. 
Rome▪ 8.14.  For he saith again, that as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And again he saith: 
Rome 8 14.  That spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. 
Rom. 8.16.  Who then having that spirit within him for a Witness, can make any doubt of it? Likewise speaketh S. john, saying, 
1. joh. 4.13.  Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit. For by that spirit it is, that We know (as S. Paul again witnesseth) the Things that be given to us of God. But S. john saith again thus: Dear beloved, 
1. Cor. 2.12.  Now are we the sons of God, but yet it doth not appear, what we shall be: 
1. joh 3.2, 3.  But we know, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him: for we shall see him, as he is: and every man that hath this hope in him, purgeth himself, even as He is pure. Mark here still, that he saith, they Know it: and therefore it is no uncertain opinion, or doubtful hope, but an assured hope, or hope with assurance. Which assured hope, or knowledge of their own salvation, whosoever have by the testimony of God's spirit within them, we see here by this express testimony of S. john, that they are not idle, negligent, careless, and licentious persons, but such as continually labour & strive against their own corruptions, and defilements, and so to be purged more and more from them. far therefore from carelessness, and licentiousness, doth also this doctrine touching assurance of salvation, appear to be. For not every one that saith he is assured of it, is, by and by assured, but this is a matter, as you see, that requireth a great trial and examination of a man's self, and is joined with a continual care, desire, striving, and endeavouring, to walk in the commandments, and ways of God: it being in very deed, the most comfortable▪ joyfullest, and highest step of Christianity, and the Summum bonum, or chiefest felicity, that any man can reach to, in this life: For, this causeth a joy, 
1. Pet. 1.8.  even a True joy to the heart and soul of a man, and such a joy as cannot be expressed. But than you ask, how he is sure of continuing & persevering in the way of godliness, unto the end: for you object, that the godliest man that is, often sinneth, and may fall. Whereto, I answer, that most true it is, he often sinneth and falleth, but God still raiseth him up after his falls, 
Concerning Perseverance unto the end.  by a godly sorrow and a true Christian repentance for those sins, and by amendment of life afterward: so that such a one neither doth, nor can finally fall, 
Psal. 37.24.  or perish: for as it is written in the Psalm, Though he fall, he shall not be cast off: for the Lord putteth under his hand. to raise him up again. 
Pro. 24.16.  And so saith Solomon also, that the lust man falleth seven times, but, he riseth again. And these things be spoken of him that is a lust and righteous person indeed, and not of an Hypocritical and counterfeit person, or of such a one, as only in his own opinion, or in the opinion of others, is a righteous person, and not so in very deed, nor in the sight of God. For he that is a righteous person, only in his own opinion, or in the opinion of other men, and not so in very deed, may fall utterly and finally away, and then shall not all his former righteousness, that he had in his own supposal, or the supposal of others, be mentioned or regarded, as the Prophet Ezechiel showeth. And so also doth Christ himself speak of s●me, 
Ezech. 18.24.  which when they have heard the word of God, receive it, at the first, with a kind of joy, & for a while believe, 
Luke 8.13.  but in time ostentation, they go away, because the word of God was sown in them, 
Mat. 13.20, 21.  as in stony ground, which, for want of sufficient moisture, & deep rooting, withered, 
Ma●. 4.5. ●6▪ ●7·  & in fine utterly decayed. But this temporary faith which lasteth but for a while, is not the faith of Gods elect, nor the true, lively, justifying faith, heretofore mentioned. For this true, lively, justifying faith, never utterly fadeth, nor falleth away, but the man that hath it, 
Psal. 1.3.  is like a Tree planted by the rivers of waters, that will bring forth her fruit in due season, whose leaf shall not fade, as it is said in the Psalm: and he is the good ground, 
Luke 8.15.  into which the seed of God's word is not only sown, and received with joy, but kept also, and which having moisture sufficient, and being deeply rooted, 
Matth 13.23.  persevereth and continueth unto the end, bringing forth fruit with patience. 
Mark 4.8.20  And therefore also doth S. Paul say, that, 
Coloss. 1.23.  Men continued or persevere, that be grounded and established in the faith: which kind of grounded, established, and justifying faith, whosoever have, most certain it is, that they shall be glorified and saved; (for so S. Paul hath before expressly told us, that whom God justifieth, he also glorifieth) and consequently, 
Rom. 8.30.  they must needs have perseverance unto the end. This is also further witnessed, where S. Paul saith again expressly of them: 
1. Cor. 1.8.  that jesus Christ shall confirm them unto the end. And again he saith: 
1▪ Thess. 5.24.  Faithful is he that hath called you, which will also do it. And so likewise testifieth S. Peter, that all Gods elect, are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation. 
1. Pet. 1.5.  They then having so strong a Keeper, as the power of God, to support, uphold, and preserve them, until they arrive at the Haven of all happiness, namely everlasting salvation: what doubt can be made of their perseverance and continuance to the end? for none can pull them out of his hand, 
joh. 10.28, ●9.  as Christ himself witnesseth. And therefore doth S. Paul speak confidently in the person of all Gods elect, being justified and sanctified persons, in this sort: We know, 
2. Cor. 5.1.  that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building from God, that is an house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. Mark that he saith, they Know it. And thus again it is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Call to remembrance, 
Heb. 10.32, 33, 34.  the days that are passed, in which after that ye had been enlightened, ye endured a great fight in afflictions, partly whilst ye were made a gazing stock, both by reproaches and afflictions, and partly, whilst ye became companions of 〈◊〉 which were so tossed too and fro: For both ye sorrowed with me for my bonds, and suffered with joy the spoiling of your goods: knowing in yourselves, that ye have in Heaven, a better and an enduring substance. Observe here still, that he saith, they Knew by a testimony within themselves, (namely by the testimony of God's spirit within them, 
Rome 8.16.  (which is therefore called the Earnest of that their Inheritance) that the same heavenly Inheritance, 
Ephe. 1.13, 14.  and ever enduring substance▪ did belong unto them. And so again testifieth S. john, saying thus: These things have I written unto you, th●● believe in the name of the Son of God: 
1. joh 5.13.  that ye may know, that ye have eternal life. Note that he here again saith, that God's people are to Know, that they shall have Eternal life. And he further saith: that, If we receive the witness of men▪ the witness of God is greater: 
1. joh. 5.9, 10, 11, 12.  For this is the witness of God▪ which he testifieth of his Son: He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the witness in himself: He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he believed not the record, that God witnessed of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: He that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. And again it is written: 
joh 3.36.  that, He that believeth in the Son, hath everlasting life: and he that obeyeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. And again, Christ jesus himself saith: Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, 
joh. 6.47.  hath everlasting life. And sundry other such promises there be. That man then which considereth these promises of Eternal life, to as many as be Believers in jesus Christ, and that withal by good examination findeth himself firmly to believe in him, 
Deus tibi de hoc mundo recedenti immortalitatem pollicetur: & tu dubitas & fluctuas: hoc est Christum credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere etc. Cyp●. de mor●al. Heb. 6.17, 18, 19  and to have that true, lively, and justifying faith, can no way doubt of his everlasting salvation, except (which were most impious and detestable) he will doubt of the truth of that which God hath spoken, and promised, and that so often, and so earnestly, yea, as with an Oath, & with so vehement an asseveration. For, (as it is further written, in the Epistle to the Hebrews) God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise, the stableness of his Counsel, bound himself by an oath: that by two immutable things (wherein it is impossible that God should lie) we mig●●● have strong consolation, who have our refuge to hold fast the hope that is set before us, which we have as an Anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast. Where, beside all the former testimonies, you perceive very plainly, that the hope of Gods elect, in this life, 
Regnum coelorum vult Dominus sine aliqua incertae voluntatis ambiguitate sperari: Alioquin justificatio ex fide nulla erit, si fides ipsa sit Ambigua. Hillar. in Matth. cap. 5.  is not an uncertain or doubtful manner of hope, (as the Rhemists and other Papists would make it), but an assurance, or hope without any doubting or fear of being frustrated: for it is here called, Animae Anchora tuta, ac firma: The Anchor of the soul, and such and Anchor, as is Sure and steadfast: so that there is no fear or doubt to be had of it. Yea what fear, or doubt, can there be of this matter, when it here appeareth, that, GOD, both by promise, and, oath (two immutable things, in either of which it is impossible that he should lie) hath tied and bound himself unto us, to the end we should have this assured and strong consolation. 
jam. 1.6, 7.  And therefore would S. james also have the faith of a Christian, to be without any doubting, or, wavering at all. And likewise the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 10.22.  and to the Romans, requireth in every true Christian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ an Assurance of faith, and such a strong faith, as is without any doubting, staggering, distrust, or wavering: 
Rom. 4.18, ●9, 20, 21 etc.  for so S. Paul showeth by the example of Abraham. I grant that if a man look but upon himself, and go no further then to himself, and his own demerits, 

Presumere non de operatione tua sed de Christi gratia etc. bona presumptio. Ambr. de Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 4.  
Tota presumptio tua, Deus sit Aug●st. in Psal. 85. Psal. 42.5.11. Psal. 43.5. Rom. 7.24, 25. Gal. 5.17. 2. Cor 4▪ 8, 9, 10 etc. Ps 46.1, 2, 3. &c Psal 27.14. Matth. 16.18.   he shall therein find matter sufficient and abundant, to condemn himself: but if, renouncing all confidence in himself (as he ought) he find himself to be a firm believer in Christ, and so consider himself as he is in Christ jesus, the Saviour, and remembreth withal, God's immutable promise of eternal life, to as many as have that firm, true, and lively faith, in him; he cannot (as I said before) but rest assured of his salvation, except (which were most abominable) he will make God a liar. It is true, that even God's children, sometimes, are cast into Dumps, and very great perplexities, and have not their consolation and faith, at all times strong alike: but yet as God still raiseth them after their falls, so doth he also, in his good time, remove again, all those doubtful perplexities, distrusts, and dismays, and maketh their faith, at last, so strong and eminent, as that the power and gates of Hell itself, be not able to prevail against it. For, God's children (which not only hear the word of God, but be careful also to do it) be, by Christ jesus himself, likened to the wise man, that built his house upon a Rock, 
Matt. 7.24, 25.  and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blue, and beat upon the house, but it fell not, because it was builded (not upon the sands, but) upon a sure Rock. Whereby we see, that whatsoever storms do arise, or winds and tempests do come upon God's children, yet God supporteth them, and maketh them to stand, for all that, invincible. Yea, they are, in the end, more than Conquerors (as S. Paul speaketh) through him that loved them. 
Rom. 8.37.  Howbeit, it is a good Caveat and admonition against rash Presumption, and arrogant and deceitful confidence, which S. Paul giveth, saying; Let him that thinketh he standeth, 
1. Cor. ●0. 12.  take heed lest he fall: for a man may think himself to stand, when he standeth not, & so may easily deceive himself, if he take not very good heed. And therefore do both those Apostles, 
2. Cor. 13.5. 2. Pet. 1.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  S. Paul, & S. Peter, require a great search, trial, and examination, diligence, and endeavour, to be used in this matter, that so, men, through an overweening conceit, or false persuasion, deceive not themselves. It is true likewise, that Gods elect and sanctified people, are to work out, that is, to proceed, or, to go on forward, in the race of their salvation, with fear and trembling, 
Phil. 2.12.  (as S. Paul admonisheth) to make them the more careful and watchful over themselves: but this trembling in the presence of God's great, powerful, and incomparable Majesty, and this awful fear, which they bear, and are to bear unto him, doth not hinder, but doth rather affirm, and confirm, this assurance of salvation before spoken of, within themselves. For the fear toward God, which all God's children have, and are to have, is not a slavish or servile fear, such as Reprobates and Devils have, which is only in respect of punishment, torments, and of condemnation ●nor any such fear, as is joined with a continual distrust, and doubting of God's love: but it is a filial fear, such as kind, well natured, and dutiful children bear to their fathers, and such a fear as is mingled with faith, and with a sense and feeling of the love, even of the everlasting love of God toward them, in Christ jesus. For which cause, S. Paul saith expressly: 
Rom. 8.15.  that, They have not received the spirit of Bondage, to fear any more, but the spirit of Adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father. So that such is the fear (joined with faith and love) that is in God's Children, as that they have nevertheless in the end, Boldness, 
1. joh. 4.17.  even in the day of judgement, as S. john expressly testifieth: for, if God be on their side, who can be against them? And sith God hath justified them, 
Rom. 8.31, 32, 33, 34. etc.  who can condemn them? Yea, who can lay any thing to their charge, as S. Paul speaketh▪ and in an holy and heavenly sort, exulteth and triumpheth? But all this while, do you not perceive how miserable the popish Church is, wherein no such faith or confidence is to be found, but at the most, no better but doubtful or uncertain hopes, which yield a very poor, or no comfort to the soul of a man?   

CHAP. VIII.  
Concerning Reprobation: wherein God's doings, and the Doctrine of the Protestants, be justified, against Objections, Cavils, and Calumnies of Adversaries.  
THat there is a Reprobation, aswell as an Election, is a thing manifest: for, S. Paul saith of some: that, God hath delivered them up unto a Reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, being full of all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, 
Rome 1.28▪ 29. etc.  maliciousness etc. He saith again of some: that they be abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. 
Tit. 1.16. 2. Tim. 3.8.  And again he saith of some, that they be men of corrupt minds, and reprobate concerning the faith. Yea (if there were nothing else) the very term of Electing some unto salvation, importeth that there is a Reprobation, or refusal of the rest that were not Elected. For what is Election (if you well observe the force and nature of the word) but the choosing or singling out of some from the rest? so that Reprobation, is the opposite or contrary to Election, as Damnation is the opposite or contrary to Salvation. To be a Reprobate than is nothing else, but to be refused or rejected as touching salvation, or not to be elected thereunto. For the better understanding whereof, we must know, that God made Adam, good and righteous, 
Ge●▪ 1.26▪ 31.  in the beginning; but he afterward, through the temptation of the Devil, 
Ecclesiastes 7.31.  and his own consent thereunto, fell from that his Integrity and purity, and so all Mankind, being enclosed in his loins, 
Gen. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. etc.  fell togethet with him and in him: for, In him all sinned, 
Rom. 5.12.  as S. Paul expressly affirmeth, and were all by nature (thus corrupted) become the Children of wrath, as he likewise speaketh in another place. 
Eph. 2.3.  God beholding this fallen Lump of Mankind, who by this their sin and transgression, had, 
Rom. 9.15, 16, 17, 18. Eph. 1.3, 4, 5, 6. Rev. 20. 1●.  all alike, deserved condemnation, was pleased nevertheless, to take & elect some of them to salvation in Christ, and to relinquish the rest, leaving them in that their sinful estate to go to condemnation. And therefore be the Elect (upon whom God was thus pleased to show mercy) called Vasa misericordiae, The vessels of mercy: as chose, the rest, which were not so Elected, 
Rom. 9.22, 23.  but relinquished and rejected, that is to say, the Reprobates be called, Vasa Irae, the vessels of wrath, fitted (as S. Paul speaketh: through their own sin and corruption) to destruction. So true is it, that their perdition or destruction is of themselves: 
Hos 1●. 9. Lam. 3.22. Eph. 1.4. joh 17.6.9. joh 6.37.39. Rom. 5▪ 9 Gal. 3.13. Eph. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  and that the salvation of the rest, namely of the Elect, is of God, and of his mere grace and bounty. For, as the Elect, be elected in Christ, and given to him, to be redeemed and to be saved from Wrath, and the curse of the Law: and be therefore in the times appointed of God, quickened, renewed, regenerated, justified and sanctified, and so come in the end to be glorified: So on the other side, those that be the Reprobates do, after their transgression in Adam, lie dead in their sins▪ without being quickened, 
2. Cor. 4.3▪ 4. Rome 11.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  renewed, or, regenerated, and without having any Saviour or Redeemer appointed for them, and be blinded in their errors, and hardened in their transgressions, until they come at last (through their own default) to their due and deserved just Condemnation. For, as touching saving graces, 
Rom. 11.7.  the Elect only have obtained them, but, the rest have been hardened, as S. Paul expressly affirmeth. There is then a Remnant (as he again speaketh) according to the election of grace. 
Rome 11.5.  And consequently, not all in a generality be chosen, 
Mat. 20.16.  but some only. Yea, Many be called (externally, and by the outward preaching and ministry of the word) but for all that, few be chosen, as Christ himself also witnesseth. And for further proof hereof, it is expressly said of some kind of sinners, namely, of Reprobate sinners, that, it is a thing impossible that such should be renewed by repentance: 
Heb. 6.4, 5, 6. Rom. 2.5. Heb. 12.17.  for which cause, it is also said of Esau, that, He found no place for repentance, though he sought the blessing with tears: And again it is said of some: that they did not believe: yea, that, non poterant credere, they could not believe: 
joh. 12.37.39.40.  And the reason is there yielded: 
Deut. 29.4. Ezech. 36 26.27.  because God had blinded their eyes (by his not giving them light) and hardened their hearts (by his not mollifying of them) so that by reason of their own natural blindness and corruption (attracted to themselves by the fall of Adam) remaining unaltered, they could neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor be Converted, that he might heal them. Wherefore, not of Reprobate sinners, but of such as be unfeigned, true, and sound converts unto God and godliness, (which none be, but the Elect) is that sentence in the Prophecy of Ezechiel meant, and to be intended, which saith: that, God willeth not the death of a sinner. 
Ezech. 18 23. Ezech 33.11.  For if he be not such a true convert, but a counterfeit, or one that continueth to the end in his wickedness, and unrighteousness, 
Ezech. 18.13. Ezech 33.9. etc.  shall he live? he shall not live, sith he hath done all these abominations, but he shall die the death, and his blood shall be upon him, saith God himself, by the same Prophet Ezechiel, in the very same Chapters. In those two Chapters then of Ezechiel (if you well consider them) you may readily and easily find two sorts of sinners to be comprised and mentioned: namely, the one sort, such as turned from their righteousness, that is, from that course of righteousness and godliness, which they seemed at first to hold, to a course of unrighteousness, and ungodliness, continuing in that wicked course unto the end: such sinners, saith God in those places, shall surely die: and the other sort of sinners, such as repent and return by a sound conversion unto God, and unto the ways of righteousness persevering in those good & godly ways, unto the end, (which none do, but such as be the Elect) such sinners shall not die the death, but such shall surely live, as is likewise said in the same Chapters. So that even by those two Chapters, it appeareth, that God doth will the death and destruction of some kind of sinners. But this is yet further evident, by those wicked and ungodly sons of Eli the Priest: who, when their father gave them good counsel, and godly admonition, 
1. Sam. 2.25.  they nevertheless, obeyed not the voice of that their Father: because (saith the Text) the Lord would Destroy them. Observe well those words. Agreeably whereunto, S. Peter also, 
1. Pet. 2.8.  speaking of certain, which stumbled at the word, and were disobedient, saith: that, they were thereunto even ordained▪ Again, speaking of certain godless men, he saith: they were as bruit beasts led with sensuality, 
2. Pet. 2.12.  and made to be taken, and to be destroyed. Wherewith agreeth that of Solomon also, in his Proverbs, 
Pro. 16.4.  saying: The Lord hath made all things for his own sake, yea even the wicked for the day of evil. And so likewise testifieth S. jude: 
jude, vers. 4.  for, speaking of certain ungodly men, that turned the grace of God into wantonness, he saith: that, they were before of old ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to this judgement, or, to this condemnation. By all which, it is infallibly manifest, that God seeing all men to have sinned in the transgression of Adam, hath ordained and decreed, to permit and suffer, some of them to run on in the course of wickedness and ungodliness, until they come, in the end, to their justly deserved destruction and perdition.  
2 In vain then, and most untruly is it objected against the Protestants, that they make God the Author of sins and high time it is, for all to cease their slandering of them in that behalf. For the Protestants in their doctrine, clean chose, 
God is not the Author of sin.  do teach, that although God decreed to permit sin, to come into the world, yet he never made it, nor was the Author or worker of it: yea God made man good at the first; 
Gen. 1 31.  yea, all things that he made, were in their creation, very good, as is expressly written in Genesis. The corruption of man, and the sin that came unto him, was brought in, and procured another way, namely, after his creation, by the persuasion and temptation of the Devil, that subtle Serpent, and by man's will consenting thereunto, as is likewise declared in Genesis: 
Gen 3.1, 2, 3, etc.  so that, not God, but the Devil, and man together, consenting to that temptation and persuasion of the Devil, were the Author and efficient cause of sin in man, at the first, and so continue Authors and workers of sin in men unto this day. And therefore is it said: that, Satan entered into judas Iscariot, to stir him up, to betray jesus. 
joh. 13.27.  And likewise doth S. james write thus: 
jam. 1. 1●.  Let no man say when he is tempted; I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man, etc. Yea it is the Devil, even that wicked Spirit, That worketh in the children of disobedience, 
Ephe. 2.2. 2 Tim 2.26. God withholdeth his grace from some, but infus●●h not wickedness into any. jam. 1. ●4. Ephes. 2.3. Rom. 17. Non f●cit voluntates malas, sed utitur iis, ut voluerit. lib● cap. 3.2. Cor 46. Gen 1.2, ●, 4. Divinae sapientiae virtutis, & potentize, est, non solum bene facere, quae natura Dei est,- sed etiam illud maximè, ut id quod per malos excogitatum est, ad bonum aliquen finem, & utilum, de ducat & utiliter iis quae videntur mala, utatur. Clemens Alexand. storm. lib. 1.  as S. Paul witnesseth. And again he saith: that, Men are ensnared by the Devil, and held captive by him, to do his will, until such time as God set them free, and do deliver them by his grace and power. For God doth not put, instill, or infuse wickedness into any, but withholdeth his graces from Reprobates, and so they not only sin by reason of their own concupiscence, and nature corrupted and depraved through the transgression of Adam, but do further, by degrees, grow obdurate in their sins, and so in the end come to their just condemnation. Wherefore, God appeareth to be, in sins committed, not a cause efficient, but deficient, or, wanting, in that he leaveth some men to themselves, and giveth not unto them, those sanctifying and saving graces which he giveth to his elect: For neither indeed is he bound or compellable to give those graces to any, but to whom he pleaseth, nor do they properly, or, by his appointment, belong to any but to the elect. It is true nevertheless▪ that God ordereth, disposeth and useth, (as lawfully he may▪) all men's sins to serve his own glory, and good pleasure▪ And herein is his power and wisdom highly to be admired, who can thus one of the sins of men, and Devils, draw matter serving for his own glory: as likewise most admirably he made the light to shine forth out of darkness. How great glory did God get to himself, by that proud and mighty King▪ Pharaoh, whose heart was so much and so long hardened against the people of God? Insomuch, that himself saith thus of him: For this cause, have I appointed thee, to show my power in thee, and to declare my Name throughout all the world, Exod. 9.16. Rom. 9.17. In like sort may it be said, that for this cause, God hath appointed Devils, and reprobate men, to show his glory by their destruction, and in the mean time, to use their wickedness to serve his own ordinance. 
Si peccaveris ne putes hominem fecisse quod voluit, & Deo accidisse quod noluit. August. in Psal. 110.2.  Sometimes, therefore, (as the Schoolmen themselves do also say) Deus vult peccatum, n●n quatenus est peccatum, sed quatenus est poena peccati: God will have sin to be done by men, not simply for the sin's sake, but as it is to be a punishment for another sin, formerly committed. Which point, namely, that God will sometime have one sin punished with another, is very evident: for God punished the Adultery of King David, 
2. Sam 12.9, 10, 11, 12.  with another like sin of Absalon his son, who lay openly with his father's Concubines, and in the sight of Israel: And the Text witnesseth that God himself would raise up this Evil against King David; 
2. Same ●6. 21, 22.  for David did this wickedness secretly, but I (saith God) will do this thing, before all Israel, and before the Sun. In which Act of Absalon therefore, 
Quis non ista iudicia contremiscat, in quious agit Deus in cordibus malorum hominum, quicquid vult: reddens eis secundum merita illorum. Et: manifestum est Deum operari in cordibus hominum, adinclinandas, illorum voluntates, quocunque voluerit, si●e ad bona pro misericordia, sive ad mala, pro, meritis, illorum: judicio utique suo, aliquando aperto, aliquando occulto, semper autem justo. Aug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca 21. Rom. 1 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. Intelligendum est. Omnia vel adjuvante Domino perfici, vel deserente permitti: ut intelligas tamen, Nolente Deo, nihil prorsus admitti. August. de praedestinatione & gra. cap. 15.  it is apparent, that God had to do, though not simply for the sin sake, yet so far forth, as it served for a requital, or, punishment, of the sin and adultery committed formerly by King David, with Vriahs' wife. S. Paul saith likewise, that the Gentiles when they knew God by the creation of heaven and of earth, & of all the things which they saw visibly before their eyes: yet they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: when they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools for they turned the glory of the incorruptible God, to the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds and fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things▪ Wherhfore God gave them up to their own hearts lusts, unto uncleanness, to defile their own bodies, between themselves. And he further saith: For this cause God gave them up to vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men left the natural use of the women, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such recompense of their error, as was meet: For, as they regarded not to acknowledge God, even so God delivered them up into a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, being full of all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of Envy, of Murder, of Debate, of Deceit, etc. Where you plainly perceive, how even amongst the Gentiles, their not glorifying of the Creator of heaven & earth, as God, (according to such knowledge of him, as by the creation of all things, they had received) was punished by diverse and sundry other sins, into which they fell and wherein God himself had an hand, 
Rom. 1. 2●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so far forth as they served for recompenses, requitals, or punishments, for former sins committed: for it is said in the Text; For this cause, 
Ver●● 24.  God gave them up to their own hearts lusts etc. And again: For this cause, God gave them up to vile affections, etc. And again: 
Verse 26.  As they regarded not to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up into a reprobate mind, 
Verse 28.  to do th●se things which are not convenient, etc. In like sort it is said of some living in the days of Antichrist, that, 
2. Tess. 2 10, 11, 12.  because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, therefore God sent them strong Delusion, that they should believe lies, that they all might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Where you see again, that he punisheth one sin with another, in that he will have them, to have this strong delusion to believe lies, and false doctrines: For it is expressly said, that God sent this strong delusion upon them; namely, as a punishment (as it is indeed a most just, and grievous one) for their contempt of his Gospel, & neglect of his word and truth. Sometimes again, God permitteth a sin to be done, for the trial & proof of his own servants and children: as was the sin of the Shabaeans, and Chaldaeans, in the violent taking away of jobs goods▪ 
job 1.13.17.  for the further trial and proof of jobs faith, virtue, and patience: and as is the sin of persecution, of God's servants, 
jam. 5.11.  for their better trial and proof likewise; for so S. Peter declareth, & withal showeth, 
1 Pet. 4.12.19. 1. Pet. 3.17.  that, Ita vult Dei voluntas: Gods will, will have it so. And sometimes again, God permitteth sins to be done and multiplied by men, 
Rom. 2.5.  thereby to heap up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and against the day of the declaration of the just judgement of God, and thereby to procure to themselves the greater damnation, as the Scriptures speak: and thus 〈◊〉 all Reprobates commit their sins. 
Matt. 23.14.33, 34, 35. jam 3.1.  But sometime again, did God permit a sin, to the end, there might be a way made and opened, for declaration both of his justice, and Mercy, toward mankind: and thus he permitted the sin and fall of Adam, our first father. For, if Adam had not sinned, but had always remained in his estate of purity and innocence wherein he was created, neither could God's mercy towards any, nor yet his justice towards any, have appeared in the race of mankind: inasmuch as, where no sin, no● sinner is, there can be no condemnation for sin in justice; neither can any mercy be showed or exercised, but towards the miserable, and such as s●and in need of it, and have transgressed. Although therefore God made Adam good in the creation of him, yet he made him mutably good, that is, in such an estate, as that he might possibly fall. For which cause, he gave him freewill, either to stand or to fall, at his own election. So that, there was in him a possibility to fall; as also a possibility to have stood, if he had would: but the Devil tempting him, and he yielding and consenting to the temptation, he then fell, through his own default, as appeareth. Whereupon S. Augustine saith: 
August. in Enchir. C. 30. de verb. Apost. ser. 2. degra. & lib. arbit. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 8. etc. De perfect. lusty. ●at. 9 Retract. lib. 1. cap. 1.  that, Homo libero arb●trio malè us●●, & see, & illud perdidit: Man having ill used his freewill, destroyed both himself, and it. So that now since the fall of Adam, liberum arbitrium captivatum, non nisi 〈◊〉 peccandum valet: free will being captivated, i● of no force but to sin, as the same S. Augustine affirmeth. Again he saith: Quia peccavit voluntas, secu●a est peccantem, peccatum habendi dura necessitas; Because the will had offended, there followed the sinner, an hard necessity of having sin. And again, he saith: that, Naturae nostrae dura necessitas, merito praecedentis iniquitatis ex●rta est: The hard necessity of our nature, arose out of the merit or desert of the before going transgression. Since the fall of Adam then (as the same S. Augustine further saith) Voluntas in tantum est libera, in quantum est liberata: Man's will is so far forth free, as it is made free by God: For as he saith again; Hominis, non libera, sed à Deo liberata, voluntas, obsequitur: Man's will, not free of itself, but so far forth as it is made free by God, doth yield obedience. But yet howsoever man's Will is now become thus thrall, and captive unto sin: yet is it free from constraint. And of this freedom in respect of constraint, it is, that S. Augustine is ever to be intended, wheresoever he acknowledgeth men to have free Will: and therefore do not mistake or misunderstand him in this point. For, indeed, it is not by forcing, violence, constraint, or compulsion, but by his sweet internal motions and persuasions, that God, ex nolentibus facit volentes, of unwilling maketh men willing, 
Aug. cont. 2. ●p. Pel. l. 1. c. 19  as S. Augustine himself teacheth and affirmeth. Now, that out of the fallen Lump of mankind, it was, that God showed his Mercy to some, in Electing them to salvation, and his justice to othersome, in not Electing them: this is apparent; because S. Paul saith directly, that Election is neither of the willer, 
Rome ●. 16.  nor of the Runner, sed miserentis Dei, but of God that showeth mercy. For which cause also, the Elect, upon whom GOD thus showed Mercy, be called the vessels of mercy: and the rest upon whom he showed not this mercy, 
Rome 9.22, 23▪  but left them (as he then saw them) in their sin and transgression, be said to be the vessels of wrath. But as nothing cometh to pass in this world, but what God, before the world was made, decreed and determined with himself, either to do, 
jere 10.23. Pro. 21.1. Ephe. 1.11. Lam. 2.17. Eph. 1.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8▪ 9, 10, 11. etc.  or to permit to be done: so accordingly he decreed and determined before the foundations of the world, to permit this sin and fall of Adam, and thereout to make this his Election of some unto glory and salvation, in and through Christ, and to leave the rest in their sin unto condemnation. For, that, God did decree, or, purpose to permit Adam to fall, 
Psal. 115.3. Psal 135.6. Eph. 3.4, 5.9 11 Rom. 16.25.26. Col. 1.26, 27. 'tis 1.2, 3. 1. joh 4.9. 1. Pet 1.1, 2. 1. Pet. 1.18, 19 1. Pet. 1.20. 2. Tim. 1.9, 10.  beside the event of it, (which doth sufficiently declare it,) it is further evident, because S. Peter also, writing to the Elect, saith: that they were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled and without spot: and that he, namely Christ, was ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in the last times, for their sakes. S. Paul likewise testifieth the same, in his Epistle to Timothy. Inasmuch then, as both these Apostles do thus clearly affirm, that Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world, to be, as he is, a Redeemer and Saviour, of all the elect, from their sins: (for, for this cause it was, that he had the name of jesus, which signifieth a Saviour, given unto him, because he was to save his people from their sins, 
Matt. 1.21.  as the Angel himself witnesseth): I say, seeing Christ, was thus ordained, before the world was made, to be a Redeemer and Saviour of people from their sins; it must of necessity be granted, that the fall of Adam was also decreed to be permitted, 
Rom. 5.11,  whereby men might become sinners: for by the fall of Adam it was, and not otherwise, that sin entered and was to enter into all mankind. Neither, indeed, needed there, nor possibly could there have been any Redeemer, Saviour, or deliverer from sin▪ unless sin had first been, and had made an entrance into the world. And therefore well doth S. Gregory say: 
Greg exposit. in 1. Reg. cap. 4.  Et quidem nisi Adam peccasset, Redemptorem, nostrum carnem suscipere nostram non oportuisset— Dum pro peccat●ribus. Deus homo, nasciturus erat: That verily if Adam had not sinned, our Redeemer should not h●ve taken our flesh upon him— Sith that for sinners it was, that God was to be become man. And to the same effect speaketh also Saint Augustine, saying: 
Aug Enchir. cap. 27.  that, Melius judicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere: God judged it better, out of evil, to work good, then to suffer no evil at all to be. And this is further declared: 
Gal 3.22.  for Saint Paul saith expressly; That the Scripture hath concluded all under sin: that the promise by the faith of jesus Christ, 
Rome 3.9 etc. Rom. 3.19.  should be given to them that believe. Again he saith: That, ●ll, both jews and Gentiles, be under sin etc. that every mouth may be stopped, and that all the world might be made subject to the judgement of God. And again, he saith: There is no difference▪ 
Rome 3.23, 24, 25, 26.  for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness. Again he saith: that, God hath shut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all, 
Rom. 11 32.  even upon all those, whether they were jews or Gentiles, whom he so purposed to take to mercy, in and through CHRIST. By all which, you may perceive, that GOD did purpose, or, decree to permit, the sin and fall of Adam, and for what cause and reason it was so permitted, as likewise that he permitteth other sins also; in which permission of his, his will is always included: for against his will he permitteth nothing, 
Prov. 21.1. jer. ●0. 23. Act. 17.28. Psal. 135.6.  neither can any thing come to pass against his will, that is, whether he will, or no: But he it is that ruleth, ordereth, and governeth the whole world; & all things therein, and doth, both in heaven and in earth, whatsoever he pleaseth. Yea, Bonum est ut mala sint: alioquin non s●●eret deus, ut mala sint: Non sinit autem nolens utique sed volens: 
August. in Enchirid. c. 98. & in Psal. 110.2.  It is good (saith S. Augustine) that there should be evil or sin: otherwise God would not suffer or permit it to be: And verily, he permitteth it (saith he) not against his will, but with his will. Again, he saith: 
August. Enchir. c. 95.  Non fit aliquid, nisi omnipotens fieri VELIT, vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo: There is nothing done, unless God WILL have it to be done, either by suffering it to be done, or by doing of it himself. In like sort saith Hugo: that when God doth good, 
Hugo de Sacr. lib. 1. c. 12. par. 4.  and permitteth evil, his will appeareth in both: Quoniam esse vult quod facit, aut permittit: Because he will have that to be: 
Deus est vitiorum nostrorum ●on Author sed Ordinator· August. in Ench●rid. cap. 99  which he either doth, or permitteth to be done. Deus vult esse malum, & in eo, non nisi bonum vult: God doth will evil to be, and therein he willeth not but what is good, saith the same Hugo. For what is ill done as it cometh from men, is well done so far forth as God hath to do in it, he being the orderer and ruler of it, and the disposer of it to good uses, and ends in his purpose. And therefore doth S. Augustine say again: that Deus quas● dam voluntates suas, utique bonas, implet per malorum hominum voluntates malas: God doth accomplish his own will, 
August. Enchir. ad Lam. c. 101.  being verily good, by the evil wills of evil men. Although then, God moveth and ruleth all men, and their wills, affections, and actions (because in him it is, that all do live, move, 
Act. 17.28.  and have their being) yet is he not for all that, the Author of the pravi●ie, or wickedness that is in those men, or in their wills, affections, or actions: no more than he that moveth, stirreth, or rideth upon a Lame Horse, or that ruleth and governeth him, can be therefore said to be the cause, or Author of his lameness, or of any other his defects As touching the fall of Adam then▪ and original sin, you see how it was caused without any coaction, or compulsion from God: and as touching actual sins, they flow and come from that corruption of men's nature, accrued unto them by reason of that first transgression. If therefore any here object, in defence or excuse of Reprobates, that since the transgression of Adam, they sin necessarily, and cannot but sin by reason of their Nature corrupted, and remaining in them, unaltered, and uncleansed. I answer, first, that they have drawn upon themselves, this Corruption, and necessity of sinning, 
Rome 5.12. 2. Tim. 2.26. ●phes. 2.3.  by that their fall and transgression in Adam. And secondly, although God doth not cleanse, purge, sanctify, or purify them, nor doth give those saving graces to them, which he doth to the Elect: yet he is not therefore to be taxed, or quarrelled against: because, God is debtor to no man: but may at his own most free pleasure, out of that fallen lump of mankind, choose whom he would to salvation, and refuse whom he would, and accordingly, give, or withhold his saving graces. Thirdly, consider, that there be also Elect Angels, aswell as Elect Men: and consequently, Reprobate Angels, 
●. Tim. 5▪ ●1. Mat. 25.41. 2. Pet 2.4. jude vers. 6. joh. 8.44.  aswell as reprobate men: Now the Angels, that fell from their first estate, and are become Devils, do sin (as all men know) necessarily, and cannot but sin: and yet are they not therefore excused. If then a necessity of sinning, in Devils, will not serve to excuse them: how can it serve to excuse reprobate men? wherein, the difference is ever to be remembered, between necessity, and coaction. For howsoever reprobate men, aswell as D●vels, do sin necessarily, yet doth not God force or compel them to sin, but as they have brought sin upon themselves, through their own default: so by reason of their depraved natures, they still sin, and that willingly, and readily, & of their own accords, without any enforcing, coaction, or compulsion from God. Yea, fourthly, a necessity of a thing to be done, in respect of God's purpose, will, and decree, doth not excuse him that doth it to an other end and purpose, as namely, to satisfy his own lewd mind and wicked will and affection. This appeareth, and that very specially and particularly, in judas Iscariot: who, together with his Complices, did nothing in that his sinful and detestable act, of betraying jesus, but what the hand and counsel of God had before ordained to be done: 
Act 2.23. Act. 4.27▪ 28.  (for so the Scripture expressly and directly witnesseth): and yet did not this counsel, purpose, or decree of God, excuse the sinner. For Christ jesus himself saith: that, A woe, 
Mat. 26. 2●.  nevertheless belonged, to that man by whom the Son of man was betrayed: and that, it had been better for that man, if he had never been borne. Christ jesus again saith thus: It must needs be that offence; come: 
Mat. 18.7.  but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh. Where you likewise see, a necessity of sinning and of offences, and yet that this will not excuse the sinner or offendor for all that. God saith again, 
jer. 10.5, 6, 7. etc.  he would send proud Ashur (the rod of his wrath) against his people, the jews: so that it was God's decree and purpose, which Ashur therein executed: yet because he executed this will and decree of God, with another meaning, and to another end, and purpose, namely, to satisfy his own cruel, proud, 
Gen. 45.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 &c▪ Gen. 50.15, 16▪ 17, 18, 19, 20, ● 21.  and ungodly mind, therefore he, for his part, sinned and deserved punishment. The Brethren of joseph also, sold joseph into Egypt, and it was Gods will, providence, and purpose, that it should be so: But God had one purpose and meaning in it, 
Act 7. ●.  and they another: for God thereby meant to provide for his Church and people, and for the good of joseph: and they on the otherside, did it, as being moved with envy, and of an evil meaning toward him, and therefore were guilty of sin, even in their own consciences, notwithstanding that God's dscree and purpose was therein also executed, Shimei likewise railed upon King David, and cursed him, 
2. Sam. 16.5, 6, 7, 8. etc.  and it was God's decree and purpose that it should be so: for the Lord had bidden him to curse David, as David himself confessed: yet hough he therein executed the will and decree of God, was not he therefore for his part excused; because God had one meaning in it, and he another: For God meant so to put David in remembrance of some sin, 
1. King. 2.44 45 46.  and thereby to check and humble him: but Shimei did it, so to satisfy his own wicked and malicious mind, and therefore was guilty of sin, for which also he was afterward punished. Thus you see, I hope, that God's decreeing, and purposing (in his own hidden counsel and secret will) to permit sins to be committed, will not serve to excuse sinners, sith they commit their sins, not to any such end, or, with any such mind or purpose, as thereby to do and perform God's will, or any of his secret, and sacred decrees, (which be things, for that present, unknown unto them) but to another end and purpose, namely, to satisfy their own lewd, licentious, and wicked wills: which is always matter sufficient to make them inexcusable. 
Bernard. in Can. Serm. 81.  And therefore, well may that saying of S. Bernard, be applied to a reprobate man: that, Voluntas inexcusabilem, & incorrigibilem necessitas facit: His will doth make him Inexcusable, and a necessity of sinning Incorrigible.  
3 But against this matter of Gods reprobating, or refusal of any, as touching salvation, is objected that place of S. Paul to Timothy, 
1. Tim. 2● 1, 2, 3, 4.  where he saith thus: I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings, and all that are in authority etc. for God will have all men to be saved. But the meaning of these words is evident, that he will have of all sorts and degrees of men that shall be saved, even Kings and Princes, aswell as of any other sort: for of them, you see, he specially speaketh. 
August. Enchir. cap. 103. Greg. in 1. Reg. lib. 5. c. 4.  And so doth S. Augustine and Gregory also expound those words. And indeed, what other sense (all circumstances of the Text being well considered) can be set upon them? For to set this sense upon them, namely, that God will have all to be saved in a generality, without any exception, were directly contrary to the rest of the Scriptures, 
Mat. 24.40. Mat. 25.41.  which witness directly, that God will have some to be damned. Yea, if God would have all to be saved, in a generality, what should, or can hinder, but that all, without exception, should be saved accordingly? For, who was ever able to resist his will, or to hinder the execution thereof, that it should not come to pass? 
Rom. 9.19.  Howbeit, they say, That God would, and men will not, and that this is the reason why some are damned, because themselves will not be saved. But what is this else, but to make Gods will subject to men's will, and to be as it were, a waiting servant, and attendant upon their pleasures? so that he shall will their salvation, when they will it themselves; and shall also nill it, when they nill it: which, beside that it maketh God's will, as variable and mutable as men's wills, 
jam. 1.17. Mal. 3.6.  (a thing dishonourable unto him, and untrue) it maketh also men's salvation, and damnation, to consist in their own power and pleasures: which is as absurd, as if you should say, it is in the power and will of the lump of Clay, to choose of what sort and fashion it shall be, and to what use it shall be applied, and what part thereof shall be a vessel to honour, and what to dishonour. For a Potter hath not more full, or more absolute power, over the Clay, and the Pots which he maketh thereout, then God hath over all Men, and Angels, and over all other his creatures, to do, ordain, and dispose of them, 
Rome 9.20, 21. jer. 18.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Esay 45.9.  and every of them, at his own most free and uncontrollable pleasure: as the Scriptures do clearly testify, often using, and as it were delighting themselves with this comparison, & resemblance. It is true, that no father hath such an high and absolute power over his Children, nor King over his Subjects, nor Master over his Servants: the reason is apparent, because these be not the makers of their Children, nor of their Subjects, nor of their Servants, but God was the maker of them all, as of all things else: and therefore as touching this point, the cases be not like. And yet, if Children offend, it is in the power and pleasure of the father, to correct which of them he will: or if Subjects offend, the King may punish, or pardon whom soever of them he pleaseth: and if Servants offend, it is also in the power and pleasure of the Master, to punish, or to spare whom he list. Doth it not then consist much more in the will and pleasure of God, the Creator and maker of all men, especially, after that all mankind was fallen in the transgression of Adam, to choose, or refuse whom he pleased? If then you do but observe this comparison and similitude of the Potter, which the Scripture so often useth, or some such like, wherein there is a Maker, considered, with such power and authority, as he hath over the thing, made by him, being the work of his own hands: This matter will then be so plain and evident unto you, as that even by light and force of reason, you will be compelled to confess, that the thing made, is ever subject to the will, ordering and disposing of him that is the maker, and not the maker, to the will of the thing made. And even this doth also S. Paul himself acknowledge and teach in this very particular matter, and thereupon he further saith expressly of God: that He hath mercy upon whomsoever he will, 
Rom. 9.21. etc. Rom. 9.18.  and whomsoever he will he hardeneth. And again he saith, that God spoke thus: I will have mercy, on whomsoever my pleasure is to have mercy: and I will have compassion on whomsoever my pleasure is to have compassion. 
Vers. 15.  So then (saith he again) it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, 
Vers. 16.  but in God that showeth mercy. By all which is most manifest, that this great matter concerning the salvation and damnation of men, consisteth not in the will and pleasure of men, but in the will and pleasure of God, and in his ordering and disposing. Would you have this matter yet further declared? then call to your remembrance what is written of Esau: namely, that he would have inherited the blessing, 
Heb. 12.17.  and yet was rejected, for he found no place to repentance, 
men's salvation dependeth not upon the will of men, but upon the will and pleasure of God. Num. 23.10.  though he sought the blessing with tears. Here you see, that Esau would fain have inherited, and fought it even with tears, and yet was rejected, and had this special grace of a true repentance not yielded unto him. Again, did not wicked Balaam desire to die the death of the righteous, and that his last end might be like his? Moreover, did not the foolish Virgins, aswell as the wise, desire to enter in, unto the Wedding, 
Mat. 25.11.12.  and say: Lord, Lord, open to us, and yet were excluded? Again, doth not Christ jesus himself say to some: Ye shall se●ke me, 
joh. 8 21.  and yet ye shall dye in your sins, and whether I go, thither can ye not come? And again, doth he not say thus? 
Luk. 13.24. It is a most manifest truth, that many cannot be saved, not because themselves will not: but because God will not, saith Augustine, Epist. 107. add Vital. Rome 11.7. joh. 10.26. Act. 13.48.  Strive to enter in at the straight gate: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. You see then, that many and sundry persons, would attain to the everlasting felicity of God's people, and to a most blessed happiness, and salvation, and yet cannot, because God will not, as having otherwise ordained of them: And so again witnesseth S. Paul, saying thus: Israel hath not obtained that he sought: but the Election hath obtained it, and the rest have been hardened. Again, Ye believe not (saith Christ to some) because ye are not of my sheep. And again it is written Crediderunt quotquot erant ordinati ad vitam aeternam: Only so many believed as were ordained to eternal life. And therefore also is this faith called, fides Electorum Dei, the faith of God's Elect, as being proper & peculiar unto them. Again, it is written of some people: 
Tit. 1.1.  that, To them it is given, to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to others it is not given. 
Matt. 13.11.  Yea and Christ jesus himself speaketh thus unto God his Father, saying: 
Voluntas Dei omnium, quae sunt ipsa est causa. Aug. de gen. cont. Manich. lib 1. cap. 2. Mat. 11.25. Heb. 4.2.  I give thee thanks, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid th●se things from the wise, and men of understanding, and hast opened them, unto Babes: It is so, O Father, because such was thy good pleasure. Again, it is written of some: that, The Gospel and word of God preached unto them, and which they heard, profited them not: why? because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard it. Which faith is God's gift, and bestowed where he pleaseth. Again it is written: that at the word and preaching of Christ jesus, and most wonderful and mighty Miracles, which he did, many believed, 
joh. 12.37.39.  yet some believed not: yea, They could not believe, saith the Text. Again, it is written of some men: that they have such hardness of heart, that it is a thing impossible for them to be renewed by repentance. 
Heb. 6.4, 5, 6. Rom. 2.5.  And what is the great and supreme reason of all this difference amongst men, but this, that some are Elect, and some Reprobate, some are ordained to salvation, and some to damnation, and according to that diversity of men, God either giveth or withholdeth his saving graces?  
4 It is a thing well known to all true Christians, that none can be saved, unless they have an unfeigned and hearty repentance, and a true and lively faith in Christ jesus (which is always accompanied with a care to walk in God's ways, and in obedience to his commandments). Now, this repentance, and faith, be both the gift of God, and be not in men's powers to have them at their own commands, or at their own wills and pleasures, and consequently it must be granted, that men's salvation doth consist, not in their own wills and pleasures, but in Gods will and pleasure. That, Repentance, is the gift of God, S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles expressly witness, 
Acts 5.31.  affirming that it is God that gave repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And so again doth S. Paul expressly declare: that, Repentance is the gift of God. 
2. Tim. 2. 2●.  Therefore is it said also in the Lamentations of jeremy: 
Lam. 5.21.  Turn thou us, O Lord, unto thee, and we shall be turned: And likewise in the prophecy of jeremy, 
jere. 31.8.  thus: Convert thou me, and I shall be converted. And that, Faith also, is the gift of God, the Scriptures do clearly witness. 
1. Cor. 12.9.  For which cause, S. Paul saith expressly: that, Not by works, but by grace, men are saved, through faith: 
Eph. 2.8, 9  and that they have this faith, not of themselves: for it is (saith he) the gift of God. Seeing then that none can be saved without this faith, and, repentance: and that faith, and repentance, 
Against the free will of men, in things belonging to God's kingdom.  be both the gift of God, and that men have them not of themselves, nor within their own power, it must of necessity be granted, that men's salvation consisteth not in the power & will of men, but in the power and will of God, who is the giver of those saving graces. Where, withal, you may perceive, how erroneous and false, that doctrine and conceit of men's freewill is, as touching things celestial and divine. For, what freedom of will, in things appertaining to God's service and kingdom, can he have, that is ensnared by the Devil, and held captive by him, to do his will, (as Saint Paul speaketh), 
2. Tim 2.26. joh. 8.36.  until it please God to deliver, and set him free? Or, what freedom or forwardness hath any man (since the fall of Adam, and man's nature corrupted and depraved by that means) to come unto God, or godliness, of his own natural powers, and abilities, especially when Christ jesus himself also saith thus; No man can come unto me, except the father which sent me, 
joh. 6.44.  do draw him? For, if he must be drawn before he can come (as here it appeareth that he must) it showeth that he hath backwardness enough, 
Deus facit, ut velimus: Ille facit utfaciamus: It is God that maketh us to will, and it is he that maketh us to do, saith S. Aug. de gra. ●t lib. arb. ca 16  but no forwardness, at all, of himself to come unto God. And this again the Scripture witnesseth, in Gen. 6.5. and Gen. 8.21. that (until God work in a man) the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart, be only evil continually. And so also witnesseth S. Paul, saying (in 2. Cor. 3.5.) that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Yea S. Paul saith further expressly: that, The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God: 
1. Cor. 2.14.  for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. If the corrupt natural man cannot so much as perceive or understand the things of God, until he be enlightened by God's Spirit, and have received from him supernatural grace, how can he possibly will, or affect those things, which he understandeth not? 
Col. 3.9, 10. joh 3 6, 7, 8. Gal. 6.15. Heb. 6.4. Rom. 12.2. jam. 1.5, 6.  For the understanding power or faculty, must go before, as being the director of the will and affections. Again, do not the Scriptures require, the old man to be put off, and the new man to be put on? and men to be regenerate and borne anew? to become new creatures? to be enlightened? to be changed by the renewing of their minds? and such like? What do all these phrases and manner of speeches, declare, but that man's nature, since the transgression of Adam, is horribly polluted, defiled, and corrupted, and that they have, 
1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Gal. 5.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. jam. 1.17, 18. Eph. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  now none of these supernatural qualities, within them, by virtue of their own natural powers and abilities? S. Paul again, directly showeth, that these and all other good graces and Christian virtues, whatsoever, be wrought in a man by God's spirit, and be the fruits of the same his spirit. And S. james also teacheth the same, as likewise all the rest of the Scriptures do▪ Yea, S. Paul saith expressly: that Men are dead, through their sins and corruptions, 
Quid tantum de Naturae possibilitate praesumitur? vulnerata, sauciata, vexata, perdita est: vera confessione non falsa defensione opus habet. August. de nat. & gra. cap. 53. We have Will in ourselves: but to will well, or to will that which is good & godly, is of God, saith Bernard de gra. & liber. arbi●. Phil. 2.13.  until they be quickened and made alive by the operation and working of God, within them. If then since the fall of Adam, we be all Dead men, in respect of our own selves, until God by his spirit, work in us, to quicken us: it is clear, that in respect of our own natural abilities, we have no more power to come unto God, than a dead man hath power in himself, to rise again, or to walk, stir, move, go, or to do any action of life: for which cause also, Regeneration, is called The first resurrection, Rev. 20.6. It is true, that men have an understanding, and a will: but to understand well and rightly, the word of God, and things pertaining to God's kingdom, or to will and affect the same divine things, cometh not from men, but from God, who enlighteneth that their understanding which was before dark, and maketh their will and affections inclined and to consent unto godliness, which were before perverse, and inclining another way. And therefore doth S. Paul say again, most plainly, thus: It is God, which worketh in you, both the will, and the deed, even of his own good pleasure. Agreeably whereunto, God himself also speaketh thus: 
Ezec. 36.26, 27.  A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your body, 
God must cause & make men to consent to his ways, and to walk therein, before they can do it.  and I will give you an heart of flesh, that is, a soft and mollified heart, and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them. Where, likewise you see, that Gods working, and grace, doth frame & make men's wills and affections good, before they have any goodness in them, or readiness to obey him, and before that they can give consent to his motions or walk in his ways. And thus is it a thing evident, that God's Love, and good Will, toward us, is antecedent, and goeth before our love and good affection toward him: for so Christ jesus himself also witnesseth, saying; 
joh. 15.16.  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. And so also witnesseth S. john, saying expressly: Herein is love, not that we loved God, 
joh. 4.10.  but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a reconciliation for our sins. 
joh. 4.19.  And again he saith expressly: We love him, because he loved us first. Now then seeing it is manifest throughout the whole course of men's salvation, that God's love, and his good will, and working, is first, precedent, and goeth before all good wills and loves of men, toward him again: and that men's good wills, consents, loves, and affections, towards him, are caused, wrought, and procured, by himself, and come in the second place, as a thing following after: it must needs be granted, that Gods will, doth not depend upon men's will, as an attendant thereupon, to follow it; but chose, that men's will doth depend upon God's will, for him to order, frame, and dispose it, as pleaseth him. And therefore you now perceive, 
Pro. 21.1. jere. 10.23.  I trust, that this great matter of Salvation▪ dependeth not upon the will of men (for if it did, who would be damned?) but upon the will of God, who giveth those his saving graces of a lively faith, and of a true Christian repentance and conversion, to whom he pleaseth. For as S. Paul saith again expressly: 
Ephe. 1.11.  He doth all things according to the counsel of his own will. Howsoever than men are bidden in the Scripture to repent, convert, return, to walk in God's ways, and to keep his commandments, and such like; yet thereupon it followeth not, that men have free will and power of themselves, to do these things: for it is before proved unto you, that it is God, that by his grace, and spirit, working in men, maketh them both willing, and able, to do these things, and to consent to his divine motions, 
Deus facit volentem, hoc est voluntati suae consentientem: Bernard de gra. & lib. arb. Deut. 30.19. Psal. 25.4, 5.  before they can do it. Yea, albeit they are bidden to choose life: yet it is God that must teach and direct them, before they can make a right choice in that case: And therefore doth the Psalmist say, Show me thy ways, O Lord, and teach me thy paths: Led me forth in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation: And again he saith: What man is he that feareth the Lord? Him will he teach the way that he shall choose. 
Vers. 1●.  But to conclude, How can men's salvation depend upon their own wills, when as long before they were borne, or had any being in the world, or any will at all, 
Ephes. 1 4. 2. Tim 1.9, 10. 1. Pet. 1·19, 20. Mat. 25.34.  they were (with GOD, and in his counsel, determination, and purpose) elected thereunto, namely, even before the foundations of the world: as the Scriptures do clearly and directly testify?  
5 But then they further object, that S. Paul saith thus: Whom God foreknew, them he did predestinate etc. moreover, whom he predestinated, them also he called: and whom he called, 
Rom. 8.29, 30.  them also he justified: and whom he justified, them also he glorified. Here God's foreknowledge is mentioned, as going in order, 
Touching the foreknowledge of God.  before his predestination: and this his foreknowledge (say they) showeth, that God did foresee, and foreknow, what men would be, and what works and merits they would do, when they should be living in this world, and that according thereunto he made his predestination: and so they make, not Gods will and pleasure, but men's future wills, works, and merits, so long before foreseen, & foreknown, the Cause of Gods predestinating them to salvation. It is true in very deed, that God did foresee, & foreknow, what men would and should be, as likewise he foresaw, and foreknew whatsoever was afterwards to happen or be in the world: but thereupon it followeth not, 
Act. 15.18.  that the good works of men which he so foresaw, and foreknew, were the original and antecedent cause of his Predestination of them to eternali life: for they might be a consequent, and an effect of his predestination of them, for all that, (as indeed they were) and not the Cause. For Christ himself saith: They were ordained, to this end, to bring forth fruit, and that their fruit should remain. 
joh. 15.16.  And so also testifieth S. Paul: that they be God's workmanship, created in Christ jesus, unto good works, 
Eph. 2.10.  which God had before ordained, that they should walk in them. Neither could God foresee, or foreknow, any merit of salvation to be in men's works, whereto no such merit belongeth: Neither could he foresee, or foreknow, any free or forward Will in men, after the fall of Adam, of their own natural abilities, for the walking in the ways of God, as is also before declared. But this he might, and did, indeed, foresee, and foreknow, namely, the fall of Adam, whereby all mankind was (in respect of themselves) most miserable wretches, liable to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation: He did also foresee, and foreknow, Christ jesus his Incarnation, Passion, Satisfaction, Righteousness, and Obedience, and that he should be the Saviour and Redeemer of all his Elect, For which cause it is said by S. Paul: That they which be Elected, were elected in him, that is, in Christ, the mediator, 
Eph. 1.4. 1 Cor 15.45. Heb 7.22. 1. Tim. 2.5. Phil. 2.6, 7, 8.  and their head, and appointed Saviour, and Redeemer: who being the second Adam, did interpose himself, and as their surety, did undertake for them, to answer whatsoever Gods justice, would demand to be performed by him, in their behalf. And as for the rest which were not Elected to salvation, but refused, they being not so beheld, nor considered in Christ, but as being out of him, (and consequently, as they were, in, and after the transgression of the first Adam) they lie still in that their most woeful estate, as▪ having no Surety to undertake for them, nor Saviour, appointed to deliver them from the wrath and curse of God, to them, for their sins, in his justice belonging. And therefore doth the Scripture speak in this sort of them: namely, that, The wrath of God abideth upon them, as being never taken away in Christ. 
joh. 3.36.  And as they were borne in sin, and live in sin, so Christ jesus himself saith: that they die in their sins. So that they never had, nor shall have remission of their sins, 
joh. 8.21.24.  nor deliverance from the curse and wrath of God, through the death and satisfaction of Christ jesus.  
6 For whereas some here object, that Christ died for all, in a generally, the Schoolmen answer it with a distinction, namely, that Christ died for all, sufficienter, but not efficienter, that is, sufficiently, but not efficiently, that is to say, his death, (in respect of the greatness, worth, and value of it, he being the Son of God, aswell as Man) was sufficient for all in a generality, and is therefore propounded as a salve to all if all can take hold of him, and apply him unto themselves as a Saviour, by a true and lively faith: But because all cannot do this, (for none have this true, lively, and justifying faith, but Gods elect only) therefore he died efficiently, that is, his death was effectual and beneficial only to Gods Elect. Wherefore also well doth he distinguish, whether it were Augustine or Prosper: Qui magnitudinem pretii, 
Ad artic sibi faliò impositos art. 1.  distinguit a proprietate redemptionis: which distinguisheth the greatness or sufficiency of the price, from the propriety of redemption. Agreably whereunto S. Ambrose likewise saith: that, Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est: specialiter tamen pro nobis passus est, 
Ambros. in Luc. cap. 7. lib. 6.  quia pro Ecclesia passus est: Although Christ suffered for all, (excluding none from the benefit of his death, if they believe in him) yet specially, or in a special manner, he suffered for us that do believe in him, because for his Church it was that he suffered. And so likewise testifieth S. Hierome: that Christ gave his life, a redemption, not for all, but for many, that is, (saith he) for them that believe. In like manner doth S. Paul say: that, God gave him to death for us all: that is, for all Gods elect, whereof he was one: 
Hironym. in Matth. 20.28.  For so also S. Augustine interpreteth it (in joh. tract. 45.) Pro nohis omnibus tradidit illum, Sed pro quibus nobis praescitis, Praedestinatis, justificatis, Glorificatis: He gave him to death, for us All: But for which Us? namely, 
Rom. 8. 3●.  for them (saith he) which are the foreknown, the Predestinate, the justified, and the Glorified persons. Again, 
Heb. 2.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. etc.  in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, it is said, that, Christ, Tasted death for all: but in the verses that follow, he showeth the special meaning of those words, viz. that those All, were sanctified persons, the brethren of Christ, the Children which God had given him, and the Children which he, by that his death, and passion, was to bring unto glory: For which cause, he is also there called, the Prince of their salvation. In like sort it is said in the second Epistle to the Corinth's▪ that Christ died for all: but in the words following, 
2. Cor. 5.14, 15.  he explaineth the matter, and showeth, that he died for all such, as finding themselves dead in themselves, should afterwards live, not unto themselves, any longer, but unto him that died for them, and rose again: which kind of godly and new life, none do live, but the elect only. Again, in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, he speaketh thus: God hath not appointed us unto wrath, 
1. Thes. 5.9, 10.  but to obtain salvation, by the means of our Lord jesus Christ, which died for us. Observe here likewise, that he maketh Christ jesus, in a special and peculiar manner, to die only for those which be appointed to obtain salvation, by the means of him, and not for the rest, which were appointed unto Wrath: for he there manifestly distinguisheth between those two sorts of people. Again, S. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaketh thus: Husbands love your wives, 
●phes. 5. ●●.  even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it. Where you see also, that he appropriateth the benefit of the death of Christ, to his Church, which he so entirely loved. Yea, Christ jesus himself affirmeth the same, saying: 
joh. 10.11, 12.  that, He is that good Shepherd, which giveth his life for his Sheep. And again he saith: Greater love hath no man then this: that a man bestow his life for his friends: ye are my friends, 
joh. 15.13.14.  if ye do whatsoever I command you. By all which appeareth, that Christ, in respect of the propriety of redemption, gave his life, and died only for his Church, for his Sheep, for his Friends, that would obey him: which is as much to say, as that he died specially and properly for the Elect. Yea, he was, in God's purpose, intended, and ordained to come into the world, for the redemption of the Elect. So S. Peter likewise testifieth directly: for writing his Epistle to the Elect of God (1. Pet. 1.2.) he saith: 
1. Pet. 18, 19, 20.  that, They were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled, and without spot: and he there further saith expressly: that, Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world, but was declared in the last times for their sakes. Where you see it precisely affirmed, that Christ was ordained to come, and did come into the world, for the Elect sake. And so also doth S. Paul declare, in his Epistle to Timothy. And this likewise doth Esay show, in his Prophecy, saying; 
2. Tim. 1.9, 10.  Unto us a Child is borne, & unto us a Son is given, that is, unto the Church and people of God, of which number the Prophet was one, 
Esay 9.6.  that so speaketh. Again, S. Paul, writing to the Church and people of God, distinguishing them from the rest, saith thus unto them: Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price: Therefore glorify ye God, in your body, and in your spirit, 
1. Cor. 6.19 ●●.  for they are Gods. Again, in the Acts of the Apostles, it is said to be, The Church of God, 
Act. 20.28.  which Christ hath purchased with that his blood. Yea, this is so evident, that by the All, for whom Christ died, is, in respect of redemption and remission of sins, meant all the elect only, that for the clearer illustrating of it to be so, the Scripture itself often useth in stead thereof, this word, Many: As in the Gospel according to S. Matthew, Christ jesus himself saith thus: This is my blood of the new Testament, that is shed for many, 
Mat. 26.28.  for the remission of their sins. Again he saith: The son of man came not to be served, but to serve, 
Mat. 20.28.  and to give his life a redemption for many. Mark that in both those places, he saith, That he gave his life to be a ransom or redemption, not of all in a generality, but of Many, that is, as I said before, of the Elect only. 
Heb. 9.28▪  So likewise it is said in the Epistle to the Hebrewes: Christ was once offered, to take away the sins of many. And again it is said by S. Paul: that, 
Rom. 5.19.  By the obedience of one (namely of Christ) many shall be made righteous. And so again it is said in Daniel: that, The Messias should be slain, 
Dan. 9.26.27.  and that he should confirm the covenant with many. But beside all this, S. Paul speaketh yet further, very plainly, thus: 
Rom. 5.8. ●▪  God setteth out his love toward us, seeing that whilst we were yet sinners. Christ died for us: much more than being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath, through him. Observe here, first, that he saith, Christ died for us, that is, for us that be of God's Church and people, for he speaketh in the person of them, and in their behalf: and secondly, observe, that he maketh this an argument (as it is indeed) of God's great and special love towards them, that he sent his son to die for them: what can be more plain to show, that, in God's purpose & intention, Christ died, not for the redemption of all in a generality, but of the Elect only, whom he so especially and entirely loved? In like sort testifieth S. john, saying: In this appeared the love of God toward us (mark still that word, 
joh. 4.9.  Us) that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. And again he saith: Herein is love, 
Verse 10.  not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a reconciliation for our sins. Here you likewise see, that the sending of his son is an effect and argument of his most dear and special love toward his Church and people. If then this be (as indeed it is) an argument of such high, special, and incomparable love, in Christ, to give himself to death, and likewise in God his Father, to send him into the world to that end, and that this special and incomparable love belongeth only to the Elect, it must needs be granted, that Christ his death, being an argument of such unspeakable and especial love, was only for the Elect, in God's intention and purpose: for those only be the men whom he so entirely and unspeakeably loved, and not the other. But consider what Saint Paul yet further writeth, saying thus: Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, 
Ephe. 1.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.  which hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly things, in Christ, as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world: that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Who hath predestinated us to be adopted through jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure, of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, whereby he hath made us accepted in his blood: by whom, we have redemption, through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to his rich grace, whereby he hath been abounding toward us. In which words you may again perceive, that those only that were Elect before the foundation of the world, be the men that be there said to have redemption through Christ's blood, even the forgiveness of sins: and that for these two incomparable benefits, namely of their Election before the foundations of the world, and of their Redemption through the blood of Christ, they can never bless God sufficiently, nor yield him sufficient thanks. Yea, the Redemption, which Christ by his blood hath purchased for any, is an Eternal Redemption, as the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly affirmeth it: 
Heb 9. 1●.  and therefore if all in a generality, aswel bad, as good, and Reproprobate aswell as Elect, should have redemption by the death of Christ, it should be an Eternal redemption, (as here you see) even an everlasting discharge and forgiveness of all their sins, and so then should none be damned at all, but all, aswell one sort as another, should be saved: which if it be gross and absurd, false and untrue; that also must be held gross, absurd, and untrue, whereupon this followeth. But consider yet further, that the blood of Christ jesus, the Son of God, is not dumb, dead, vain, idle, or ineffectual blood, but it is ever powerful and effectual, to all those for whose benefit it was intended to be shed: and therefore, beside that, it is called by S. Peter, precious blood, or the blood of price, and value, 
1. Pet. 1▪ 19  whereby God's Church and people were bought and purchased, it is further said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be speaking blood, 
Heb. 2.24.  and that it speaketh better things then that of Abel. For, indeed, the blood of Abel, spoke and cried for revenge against a Malefactor: but chose, the blood of Christ, speaketh for mercy, peace, love, reconciliation, and atonement, towards sinners, and malefactors. 
1. joh. 1.7. Coloss. 1.20. Rom. 5.9. Heb. 10.10. 1. Tim. 1▪ 15.  Yea the blood of Christ hath these virtues, attributed unto it, namely to cleanse from all sin, to reconcile, to justify, to sanctify, and to save sinners. Seeing then the blood of Christ is of that great force, virtue, and efficacy, and that none are cleansed, from their sins, reconciled, justified, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only, it is apparent, that, that so precious, prevalent, powerful, and saving blood of his, was shed for the redemption of the Elect only, and not of the Reprobate. And therefore do the Saints and elect people of God, in the Revelation, sing this Song, unto that Immaculate Lamb, Christ jesus, saying thus: Thou art worthy to take the Book, and to open the seals thereof, 
Rev. 5. ●.  because thou waste killed, and hast redeemed us, to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. Yea, by the efficacy and virtue of Christ his death, his burial, and his resurrection, it is, 
Rom. 6.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.11. Col 3.1, 2, 3. Phil. 3.9, 10.  that Gods elect dye to sin, and bury sin, and be quickened, and rise to newness of life: which thing Reprobates cannot do. Again, it appeareth, that Christ in his death, suffering, and satisfaction, which he made to the law, and to God's wrath and justice, bore the person only of the Elect, to clear and set them free: insomuch that of them only, it is said, that they be In Christ, 
Rom. 8.1. 1 Cor. 1.30. Phil. 3.8, 9 Col. 2.10, 11, 12, 13. Rom. 6.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Col 3.1. Eph. 2.5, 6.  and that they were circumcised ●n him, or in his circumcision: that they died together with him in his death: that they rose together with him in his resurrection: that they ascended with him into heaven, and there sit with him in heavenly places. By all which manner of speeches, it is evident, that the Elect, and Elect only, be accounted his members, and knit, and conjoined unto him. Yea such is this near conjunction and union, between Christ the head, and the Elect his members, that considered together, they be called, 
1. Cor. 12.12.  very Christ, by S. Paul. And therefore it is apparent, that the Reprobates, which are to be damned, were never In Christ jesus, nor made satisfaction to God's justice in him, for their sins, nor died with him, nor rose again with him, nor ascended with him into heaven, nor have any union or communion with him. And this is further yet more evident by this, that Christ jesus himself doth directly disclaim all Reprobates, in the prayer which he maketh in the behalf of all the Elect, 
joh. 17.9.  which his Father gave him, saying thus: I pray for them: I pray not for the world: but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Observe this well: for here you see that Christ prayeth and maketh intercession only for the elect, and utterly disclaimeth to pray for the world, that is, for the Reprobates of the world. Sith then the Reprobates have no part nor portion in the prayer and intercession of Christ: by what right shall they have any part or portion, in his death or sacrificing himself, upon the Cross? For the Priesthood of Christ, consisteth, chiefly, in these two points: namely, in his oblation or sacrificing of himself upon the Cross, & in his prayer or intercession: and seeing the Reprobates never had nor have any interest in the one, neither can they have in the other. And therefore also, is Christ recorded to be an High Priest, 
Heb. 10.21.  only to the house of God.  
7 But against this is objected, that of S. john, where he saith thus, 
joh. 1.29.  of Christ: Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Howbeit, you are to understand, that the word, world, as it is sometimes taken, 

Reconciliatus mundus, ex Inimico liberabitur mundo. Aug Tract. in joh. 1 ●1.  
Mundus igitur odit mundum: Inimicus, Reconciliatum: Damnatus, salvatum: Inquinatus mundatum. August. Tract. 87. in joh. & Epist. 48. joh. 3 16, 17. Sed iste mundus quem Deus in Christo reconciliat sibi, & qui per Christum salvatur, & cui per Christum omne peccatum donatur, De mundo electus est inimico, Damnato, contaminato. August. Tract. 87. in joh.  
August. colla● 3. Carthag. cum Donat. cap. 265. ibidem cap. 273. 2. Cor. 5.19. Rome 4▪ 6, 7, 8. Matt. 25.41. joh. 4.13, 14. There is Mundus salvandorum: and Mundus Damnandorum. August. in joh. Tract. 87. & epist 48. Matth. 1.21. 1. joh. 1.2.   for the Reprobates in the world, as in that speech of Christ before going, where he saith: I pray not for the world: (and in other places likewise): so it is sometimes also taken in the Scriptures, to signify Gods elect in the world. As for example, in the Gospel according to S. john, it is said thus: God so loved the world (namely, the Gentiles as well as the jews,) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, (whether jew, or Gentile,) believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life: for God sent not his Son into the world, that he should condemn the world, but that the world through him should be saved. Here, by the World which is to be saved▪ cannot be understood any Reprobates, but Gods elect only; for they only be those that are to be saved, through him. For as for such as be Reprobates, all men know that they are to be damned, and not to be saved. And therefore also doth S. Augustine so expound that place. Again, S. Paul saith: that, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto him▪ not imputing their sins unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Where likewise by this word (World) are meant only Gods elect in the world: inasmuch as they only be those blessed ones, which be reconciled unto God, & which have not their sins imputed to them: For, as for the Reprobates, they are the accursed ones, and were never reconciled unto God, but have their sins imputed unto them, and charged upon them, and for which therefore they are condemned in the end, to everlasting torments. And so doth S. Augustine expound that place also. Again, S. john saith thus: Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit, and we have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Here likewise, by the World that is to be saved, cannot be understood Reprobates, but Gods Elect only: because to these only is Christ a Saviour, and to these only doth salvation belong. And so again S. john saith: that, Christ is the Reconciliation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins also of the whole world: that is, not only for the sins of God's people, which then lived in the days of S john, whereof himself was one, but for the sins of all Gods elect, wheresoever, or whensoever living, from the beginning of the world, to the end thereof. And so doth S. Augustine again expound that place likewise: 

August. in Tract. 87. in joh.  
Christus passus est pro salute mundi salvandorum.  
Euseb. hist lib. 4. c. 15. Rom. 9.15.16.   And in this sense, it is, that the word, world, is used by S. john, in the place before objected, where he saith: that, Christ is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, that is to say, of all Gods Elect in the world, at what time or age soever they lived, from the beginning of it, to the end. Neither in this case can the reprobates complain of any injustice offered them, from God: because, Mankind being fallen from that integrity wherein he was created, it was in God's power and pleasure, to provide a surety and Saviour, for whom he would, and to show mercy to whom he would, and to withhold his mercy also from whom he would. As likewise, if diverse have committed treason or rebellion in a kingdom against their King, it is in the power of the King, to show mercy, and to give a pardon to whom he will, and to withhold his mercy and pardon from such as he pleaseth, and to leave them in their offences unto condemnation, and to be executed.  
8 Now then (the former point being cleared) let me return, and come to answer more succinctly, to that text before alleged, where S. Paul saith: Whom God foreknew, them he predestinated etc. 
Rom. 8.29.30.  First, it is evident, that he with approbation foreknew the Elect in Christ jesus, 
Eph. 1 4.  their appointed Saviour, but the reprobate, he never knew in that manner, but as being extra Christum, out of Christ, and consequently, as they were in their transgression, by, and after the fall of Adam (wherein they be liable to condemnation) having no surety, or Saviour for them prepared or appointed. Secondly, when he there teacheth, that Men were predestinated according to God's foreknowledge: The same S. Paul▪ to declare and expound those words, saith in another place: that they were predestinate according to his purpose: 
Ephes. 1.11.  by conferring of which places together, you may easily perceive, that by God's foreknowledge, his purposing to predestinate those whom he did predestinate, is understood. For (saith he in this place to the Ephesians) Men were predestinate according to the purpose of him, that doth all things by the counsel of his own will. 
Ephes. 1. ver. 11.  And again he there saith: that they were predestinate, according to the good pleasure of his own WILL. 
Eph. 1.5.  God's foreknowing of them then in this case, appeareth to be, his fore-purposing to approve of them, and to account of them, as of his Elect and predestinate people to eternal salvation. Which may yet further appear by the contrary, namely, by the Reprobates, whom he never so foreknew▪ or knew at all, with that approbation; and therefore will he say unto them in the last day: Nunquam novi vos etc. I never knew you. 
Mat. 7.23. Mat. 25.12.  Sicut enim quos reprobat Dominus, nescire dicitur: Ita, quos ad salutem praedestinavit & praeordinat cognoscere rectè dicitur: For as the Lord, whom he reprobateth, is said, not to know: so those, 
Cyril. expos. in Joh. 7. c. 6.  whom he hath predestinated, and preordained to salvation, he is rightly said, to know, saith S. Cyril. And so saith Thomas Aquinas, that, 
Thom. in Rom. 8.  Quos praescivit scientia approbationis, hos & praedestinavit: Whom God foreknewe, with his knowledge of Approbation: 
justin. Mar●. cont. Triph●n.  them he did also predestinate. To come then to the point: Sunt praesciti, ut crederent: Men were foreknown that they might believe: saith justin Martyr. Non eliguntur, qui● credituri: sed eliguntur ut credant: Men were not elected, 
Aug. de prad. ca 5. & 17.  because they did afterwards believe, but they were elected that they might believe, saith S. Augustine. And so saith S. Paul also expressly: that they were predestinate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ to the adoption of Sons: which adoption, or, being made the Sons of God, 
Ephes. 1.5.  is by faith in jesus Christ, as himself in another place directly witnesseth. 
Gal 3.26. 1. Pet. 1.1.2.  And so S. Peter also saith: that men were elected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. unto obedience, and unto the sprinkling of the blood of jesus Christ. Again, S. Paul hath before told us: That God hath chosen or elected us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love: Non quia futuros tales, 
August. Enchir. cap. 19 &. cap. 98. & de prad. cap. 8.  nos esse pr●scivit, sed ut essemus tales, per ipsam▪ Electionem gratiae: Not because he foreknew that we should be such, but that we might be such, by the very election of grace, saith S. Augustine. By all which you clearly may perceive, that, not foreseen, or foreknown faith in Christ, not any foreseen good works, (the fruits of the same faith) nor any sanctity, or obedience that men have, or perform unto God, be the cause of their predestination to eternal life, but a consequent, and an effect of it. And this, S. Paul also, yet further and fully showeth, where he maketh men's effectual Calling and justification (and consequently, Sanctification) and Glorification also itself, to depend all upon this, that, God hath predestinated them. 
Rom. 8.30.  And even this predestination likewise, he maketh to depend upon his foreknowledge, that is, upon his fore-purposing of them, 
Eph. 1 11. Rom. 8. ●8 29.  to this eternal glory in his own secret approbation of them, and Counsel had with himself, before the world was made. And again S. Paul yet further declareth it, 
2. Tim. 1.9.  saying: that, God hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to h●s own purpose and grace, which was given to us through Christ jesus, before the world was. Be not these words, most plain, direct, and express, for this purpose? But yet again he saith: There is a remnant, through the election of grace: and if it be of grace, it it is no more of works: 
Rom. 11.5.6.  otherwise, grace were no more grace: But if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work were no more work. Yea, again, speaking of the two Children of Rebecca, jacob, and Esau▪ he saith, that, the one was loved, and the other hated, and that before they were borne, and when they had done neither good, nor evil: That the purpose of God according to election, 
Rom. 9.11.12.13  might stand, and not of works etc. What would you have more? For by all these Texts (and sundry other, which might be cited if need were) it is abundantly manifest, that not future faith, or future good works, but the mere good pleasure and will of GOD, and his own most free purpose, and Counsel, had with himself, (otherwise termed, his foreknowledge) was, and is the first primary, and original cause of men's predestination to eternal life. And consequently, you may withal perceive, that not future unbelief, or future bad works, but Gods own mere pleasure, will, and purpose, was, and is likewise, the original cause of the Reprobation, or refusal of them, that were refused, or not elected. For the Election of the one sort from the rest▪ and the reprobation, that is, the preterition, or refusal of the rest, that were not elected, being done, both at one time, must needs both have one and the self same primary and original cause, namely, the free and uncontrollable will, purpose, and pleasure of the Almighty.  
9 For, indeed, beside the will of God (which is ever Just, and the highest and supreme cause of all things) what cause or reason can be showed on men's behalf, 
Dei voluntas, rerum est necessitas. August. de civet. Dei. lib. 5. c. 8.9.10. & de gen. ad l●t. lib 5. cap. 5.  why God should Elect and choose that particular man to salvation, and refuse this? why he should choose jacob, and refuse Esau? or why he should choose Paul, and refuse judas Iscariot? If you answer and say, that original sin was, and is the cause of that difference: Do you not consider, that jacob had original sin, aswell as Esau? and that Paul had it aswell as judas? and that all the Elect have it, aswell as the Reprobate. So that if Original sin (wherewith, all, are infected alike) had been the cause of Reprobation, then should all have been reprobated, one aswell as another. And this even Bellarmme himself saw, 
Bellarm de gr●. & lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 16.  affirming that the cause why God hated Esau before he was borne, was not original sin: for if that had been the cause, he should for that cause (saith he) aswell have hated jacob▪ as Esau. Yea, Gods electing of some, (and consequently, his reprobating or refusing of the rest, whom he did not elect) was (in respect of the purpose and decree of it) before the foundations of the world were laid: 
Ephes 14. 2. Tim. 1.9. 1. Pet. 1.20.  howsoever in respect of the manifestation of it, it was not till after the Creation, and fall of Adam: How then could any sin, 
Rom. 16.25 26. Colos 1.26, 27· Eph. 3.8, 9, 10, 11. Tit. 1.2, 3.  either Original, or Actual, be the cause, when at the time of the purposing, of this reprobation, as also of Election, neither men, nor Angels, nor world was made, nor any sin committed? If you answer, that although sin were not then committed, yet God foresaw it should afterward be committed, and that sin thus foreseen, was the cause of the decree or purpose of reprobation: you know that God did foresee sin, aswell in the Elect, as in the Reprobate: and therefore, if sin foreseen, should be i cause, of the purpose or decree of reprobation, than again should all have been purposed or decreed to be reprobated, in as much as, sin was foreseen, to be in all the people of the world. If you reply, and say, that although sin was foreseen in all, yet it was with a difference: because some, namely (the Elect) were foreseen to be believing, and repentant sinners, new Creatures, mortified, regenerated, justified, and sanctified persons; 
Act. 13.48. Ephes. 1.4.5. joh. 15.16. Eph. 2.10. Mat. 25.34.35.36. Rom. 8.30.  and so were not reprobates: I answer, that this faith, repentance, effectual calling, mortification, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and all saving graces whatsoever, were so foreseen in the Elect, not as antecedent causes, but as consequents and effects of that their predestination, and election, and as dependants thereupon: for so is it before proved, and apparent, and therefore the Reprobats, on the otherside must be deemed to have their occecation, and obduration in their sins, and their unregeneration, unmortification, unsanctification, uneffectual calling, and the absence, defect, or want of saving graces, not as Antecedents, but as Consequents likewise, and Events following that Decree of their not Election, otherwise called their Reprobation. And this will be yet the more evident, if we inquire & search whence this difference of sinners ariseth, namely, that some be mollified, repentant, regenerate, justified, and sanctified persons, and that some others be not so: Is it not because God doth bestow those his saving graces upon the one sort, and not upon the other? And why doth he bestow them upon the one sort, and not upon the other? Is it not because the one sort be Elect, and the other Reprobate? And why be the one sort Elect, and the other Reprobate? can any other reason be yielded for it, but Gods own mere will and pleasure? You see then, that in the conclusion, you must be forced in this case, to have recourse, to the mere pleasure and will of God, 
Mat. 11.25, 26. Ephe 1.5.9.  and to make that (as indeed it is) the true, highest, and supreme cause, why God chooseth this man, and refuseth that man, and accordingly giveth his sanctifying, and saving graces, to the one, and not to the other. It is true nevertheless, that Reprobation hath an eye, relation, or respect unto sin (for no man is damned, or decreed, or intended to be damned, but in respect of sin) but thereupon it no more followeth, that sin, was the cause of the reprobation of the one, then of the election of the other: For Election, (aswell as Reprobation) was made with an eye, relation, or respect unto sin, it being made in mercy, 
Rom. 9.16.  and mercy evermore presupposeth misery: and misery, evermore presupposeth sin, and transgression, beginning and arising, by, and in the fall of Adam: whose fall, God then beheld, when he made this his decree. Sin than gave the occasion, but was not the cause of the decree, either of election, or reprobation. Wherefore, mankind, considered as he was fallen, was indeed, Subiectum circa quod, the subject matter, about which, God's predestination, or preordination of men (either to salvation, or damnation) wrought, and was employed: but it neither was, nor could be, Causa propter quam: the cause, why amongst men so fallen, this particular man was chosen, and that particular man was refused, but it was Gods mere will and pleasure only, that made that difference: For which therefore, the Elect are everlastingly to praise, magnify, and thank God: and the Reprobate, who through their own default, have procured their own deserved perdition, and damnation, have no cause to complain of any but of themselves, 
Ephes. 1.4.5.6. Hoseah. 13.9.  in respect of that their fall in Adam, and other their transgressions, since that time added thereunto.  
10 But there yet remain some to be answered, who upon this doctrine of Predestination, reason thus: That if they be ordained to salvation, they shall be saved whatsoever they do: and if they be ordained to damnation, they shall be damned, whatsoever they do: and therefore they will be careless of all Religion, and without regard of any thing that is good, or godly. But whilst these men talk thus licentiously, and dissolutely, and seem by such speeches, to have as yet little or no fear of God, or care of his religion: yet do they not know, for all that, whether they belong to the number of Gods elect, or to the number of the reprobate, and so long it will be good for them, in the mean time, to use the means which God hath in that case provided, to bring men unto salvation, and to eschew those ways that lead to damnation: For howsoever as yet, any have not the marks and tokens of God's children, appearing in them, (that is, faith in jesus Christ, repentance, godliness, regeneration, and sanctification) yet for all that, possibly they may have them, hereafter, before they die, if they neglect not the means, which God hath appointed in that behalf. If a man lie sick, and good wholesome physic, and meats, and drinks, should be proffered unto him, for preserving of his life, and he should refuse all and answer thus: if God have ordained me to live, I shall live, though I take neither physic, nor meat, nor drink: and if he hath ordained me to die, I shall die, what physic, meat, or drink, soever, I take: and therefore I will be careless of all, and take nothing. Would not every man, that hath his right wits, hold this for a very foolish speech, and an absurd manner of inference? And is not then the other of speech, and inference, touching Predestination, as ridiculous, foolish, and absurd? Questionless it is, as every man of understanding, easily perceiveth. These kind of senseless, wicked, and licentious inferences, therefore the Protestants, in their doctrine of Predestination, abhor, and detest, as they are, indeed, justly worthy. For as God hath ordained men to salvation, so he hath ordained ways and means, that bring thereunto, which must not be neglected. Some man, again, is so blasphemous, and bold, as that he dare bark and rail against God, and his doings in this matter, as though he were unjust, or partial, for that he is reprobated, and not ordained to salvation, aswell as another: sith at the time of that his reprobation, or refusal, he no more deserved to be refused, than others, whom nevertheless it pleased him to elect and ordain to salvation. To whom I answer, first, that he which thus speaketh, knoweth not, (as I said bsfore) nor can tell for certain, as yet, whether he be of the reprobate number, yea, or no: for he may be, for all that, of the number of Gods elect, for aught that, as yet, he knoweth to the contrary: for so long as a man liveth in this world, God hath his times, to call men, unto himself, and to repentance, and to a true lively faith in jesus Christ, the Saviour. So that none, during this life, aught to prejudice himself, with despairful conceits, or to give a final sentence of condemnation, before hand, against himself: for it is a thing which lieth not in his power, so to do, nor in his knowledge, so to determine of himself, before the time. But, secondly, I answer, that there is no partiality or injustice in this case. Indeed there might be partiality and injustice, if both believing well, and rightly, and living good and godly lives alike, the one should nevertheless be saved, and the other damned: but in this case, where both after the fall of Adam, be sinners alike, and no more merit in the one, then in the other, there it was a most free thing in God, to give mercy and pardon to the one, and not to the other. And herein is no more partiality or injustice, then when two have committed felony or treason alike, the King pardoneth the one, rnd not the other: or when a man hath two debtors, that be alike bound unto him in several bonds, he forgiveth his debt to the one, and challengeth it of the other. Is there any injustice in this? If you go higher, and say, that God decreed to permit the fall of Adam, you have been before answered, that his decree or purpose to permit him to fall, did not compel or enforce him to fall, but left him still to his own free will he received in the creation, whereby he was enabled to stand if he had would. It therefore still appeareth, that the fault is to be ascribed, and to rest wholly and altogether upon themselves, in respect of their fall in Adam and other their sins, since that time, added thereunto. Can any then, accuse God of any injustice? For shall not the judge of all the world do right? Or, 
Rom. 3.4, 5, 6.  can he do wrong or injustice to any man, or in any thing he doth? Or do not they justly deserve their damnation, which are damned for their sins & due deserts? Or was it not a most free thing in God, to do, and determine of all his creatures, which way soever it pleased him? especially of men, after their fall? For all being fallen in the transgression of Adam all might justly have been condemned: and it was of his mere mercy, that he was pleased to save any. But, again, shall men challenge, this authority over all the things themselves do make, & whatsoever is the work of their own hands, to do, ordain, and dispose of it, at their own will? 
Rom. 9.20. Esa 45.9. jer. 18.6.  And shall not God the maker and creator of all things, be allowed the like authority, over all and singular men, to do, decree, purpose, ordain, and dispose of them, and every of them (being his creatures) even as pleaseth himself? What a gross, strange, injurious, and unreasonable dealing were this, in men, not to allow that in God, which they allow in themselves? Doth not Christ jesus himself, yet further give a full and sufficient answer in this case, saying thus: Is it not lawful for me to do as I will with mine own? 
Matt. 20.15.  is thine eye evil, because I am good? Consider well these words: for they show plainly, that God may do with all his creatures as pleaseth himself: and, that, if God bestow, mercy, kindness, love, and favour, toward one, which he bestoweth not upon another; for this goodness and liberality of God, no other should have an evil eye, or envious heart, or a murmuring or blasphemous tongue. Besides, God is Debtor to no man. 
Rom. 11.35.  Why then should any exclaim against God, for that he was not elected to salvation, nor had saving graces given unto him whilst he lived? For is God compellable, or standeth he tied and bound to give any men salvation, and saving graces, whether he will or no? or otherwise then at his own pleasure? Again, Who hath been his Counsellor, 
Rom. 11.34.  saith the Apostle? Was it fit, or meet, think you, that God, the creator of all, should not do and determine of all his works and creatures which he made, without calling silly men, or other the work of his hands, to counsel? Do or will men hold it reasonable, to ask counsel or advise of the things themselves do make, what use it shall serve for, or what shall become of it? or do not men first purpose and determine of every thing they make, before it be made, to what use it shall serve, and to what end it shall be? And if these things be thus amongst men, shall not the like be allowed unto God? O the intolerable audaciousness of men, that dare thus stand in contention, against God their maker! Although therefore it be true, that by the transgression of Adam, the Elect and the Reprobate were both sinners alike, and in respect of themselves, both worthy of condemnation alike; yet it pleased God (who hath full and free power in himself, to do whatsoever he will) to put a difference betwneene them, and to show mercy to the one sort and not to the other. Yea in very deed, how could it be otherwise, seeing both justice and Mercy were thus determined of God, to be showed among the children of men, upon their fall? For if all had been saved, where had been his justice? And again, If all had been damned, where had been his Mercy? To the end therefore, that both his justice and Mercy, might appear to sinful men, it is, that some men, 
Rome 11 22. Rom. 9.18.22, 23.  upon the fall of Adam, be thus to go to damnation, and other some to salvation. If as yet any man conceive not the depth of this high point of God's predestination, let him not reject, nor monsterlike blaspheme, that, which he understandeth not, but let him, in all humility, reverence and justify God, in all his words and works; admiring and wondering at the height and depth of that wisdom, which he is not able to reach unto: And let him, in this matter, do as S. Paul did, crying out thus: O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom, and the knowledge of God How unsearchable are his judgements, 
Ro●. 11.33.  and his ways past finding out? And let him also stay with patience, until the day of the declaration of the just judgement of God: for such a day there is, as S. Paul expressly affirmeth. So that, 
Rom. 2.5.  howsoever wicked, blasphemous, and ungodly men, do sometimes speak most impiously, of God and of his doings herein: yet at that day of the declaration of the just judgement of God (if not sooner) it will be manifested, that all the judgements, decrees, and doings of God, are just, and such as no exception can be taken against. And let men learn in the mean time, to accuse and condemn themselves, and their own ways, as unjust, and unequal, and ever justify God, and acknowledge his ways and works, to be (as they are) most holy, most just, and most equal, 
Ezech. 18.25.29.30.  as God himself also declareth by his Prophet Ezechiel. And let us all confess, that according to his own will he worketh, in the army of Heaven, 
Dan. 4.32.  and in the Inhabitants of the earth: and that none can stay his hand, nor may say unto him, what dost thou? as it is written in the Prophecy of Daniel. And let us likewise say, as the Saints speak in the Revelation, saying thus: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and, 
Rev. 4.11.  for thy wills sake, they are, and have been, created.   

CAP. IX.  
Concerning the Sacraments: and that there be but two Sacraments of the New Testament, properly so called, namely Baptism and the Lords Supper: and that, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Orders, and Extreme unction, be no Sacraments, properly. And that the Sacraments administered▪ do not give grace ex opere operato, by the work or action wrought or done, but grace cometh and is given another way.  
THe word, SACRAMENT, is sometimes taken in a general or large sense: and so it may comprehend all manner of Signs, which God gave men, at any time, to assure them of the undoubted truth of his promise, in any matter whatsoever: In which sense, the Tree of life in the Garden, may be said to be, to Adam, a Sacrament, or, sign, of his life received from God, and that he should not die, so long as he continued in his obedience. The Rainbow also, in this sense, might be termed a Sacrament, that is, a sign to Noah, and his posterity, that the world shall never more be destroyed with a flood of waters: and sundry such like. But we here speak not of Sacraments in such a general signification, or large acception of the word, but as it is strictly and properly taken: viz. of such Sacraments as God hath left to be usual and ordinary in the New Testament, and appointed to be signs and scales of our communion with Christ, and of that righteousness we have by faith in him. In this sense, a Sacrament being taken, is a visible sign and seal, ordained of God, whereby Christ, and all his saving graces, by certain outward rites are signified, exhibited, and sealed up unto all the faithful: of which sort there be two, namely Baptism and the Lords Supper. Baptism succeedeth in the place of Circumcision, 
Gen. 17.11. Rom. 4.11. Act. 2.38. Gal. 3.27.  and the Lords Supper, in the place of the Passeover: And as Circumcision was not only a visible sign, but also a seal, to Abraham, of the righteousness he had by faith in Christ: so is Baptism likewise, & the other Sacrament also of the Lords Supper, not only a sign, but a seal also, 
Mat. 26.26, 27, 28.  to every several & particular faithful man, of the full and free remission of all his sins, and of that immaculate, perfect, & complete righteousness, which he hath by and in Christ jesus. Where, therefore, you may note by the way, that the Doctrine, of Assurance of Salvation, is a most certain, true, and undoubted doctrine, inasmuch as these very Sacraments themselves, do assuredly testify, and seal up the same, even to every several and particular faithful, and godly person, that receiveth them. S. Augustine, sometimes, useth the word, in the large sense and acception: but when he speaketh of Sacraments in the more proper and strict sense, he reckoneth them, as we do, saying: 
Aug. de Symb. ad Cathe●a.  Haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta: These be the two Sacraments of the Church. And again he saith: that, Christ and his Apostles, have delivered unto us, a few Sacraments, in stead of many: Baptism, and, the Lords Supper. 
Aug. de doctrine. Christi lib. 3. cap. 9  So S. Ambrose likewise, treating purposely of the Sacraments, speaketh of two, as the reformed Churches do. Yea▪ Innocentius the third, speaking of them, 
Ambr. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 1.  maketh mention of these two which we receive, not of the rest which we refuse. And even Cardinal, Bessarion, also, saith: Haec duo sola Sacramenta, in Evangelijs manifestè tradita legimus: 
Bessar. de Sacr. Eucharist.  We read these two●Sacraments only, to be manifestly delivered in the Gospel. It is true, that Bellarmine proveth the word (Sacrament) to be sometime given in some writers, to the other five: but that is, as I said before, when the word is taken in a general or large signification (for any Sign or token) in which case it may indeed more properly be called a Sign, than a Sacrament. These five therefore, namely, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Orders, and Extreme unction, we reject from being Sacraments, properly, and strictly, so called: the other two, (namely Baptism and the Lords Supper) we embrace, as being altogether perfect and sufficient, not only to enter and plant a man into the Church, but also to cherish, increase, confirm, strengthen, and maintain, him in it, unto the end; and therefore no need is there of any more, to be Sacraments, for any of those uses, ends, or purposes.  
2 First then touching Confirmation. It is granted that the Christians in the ancient Church, caused their Children, after that they came to years of discretion, to come before the Bishop, who examined them in the principles and fundamental points of Religion, and instructed them further, for their confirmation therein: and that this action might have the more reverence and esteem, he laid his hands upon them, and prayed unto God for them, that he would increase and continue the good things, that he had begun in them. But howsoever this was a laudable usage, yet doth it not follow, that therefore it was a Sacrament. Yea, your manner of Confirmation, with Chrism, or, Oil, (for you make, this Oil, to be the outward sign of this your supposed sacrament) hath no institution or commandment from Christ, & therefore it can be no Sacrament: for it is well known, that every sacrament must have an outward visible sign, or element, ordained and appointed of God, for that purpose: as in Baptism, the outward visible sign, or element, is water: and in the Lord's Supper, the outward visible signs or elements, be bread and wine: and all these, of Gods own instituting, and appointing. But what institution or appointment from God, can be showed, for this your Chrism, or, oil, to be used, as a visible sign, in Confirmation? Just none at all in God's book. Inasmuch therefore as this outward visible sign of Chrism, or Oil, used in Popish Confirmation, is none of Gods instituting, it can be no sacrament. It is true, that we, find in the Scripture, that the Apostles, sometimes used Imposition, 
Act. 8.17. Act. 19.6.  or, laying on of hands: but, therein we read of no Oil, or, Chrism, they used. Yea moreover, by that their imposition or laying on of hands, the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost were given (as appeareth in the same places of Act. 8.17.18.19. etc. Act. 19.6.) which power of giving the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost by that means, is now ceased, and is not to be found in the Popish Church at this day, nor in any other Church, and therefore should not be attempted. Howbeit, as touching another kind of Imposition of hands, used in the ordination of Ministers, shall be afterwards spoken.  
3 Concerning Penance. The Papists call it Penance, which the greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins, Poenitentia, or rather Resipiscentia, and we call it, Repentance: which consisteth properly in the change of the mind and affections, and, not so much, in the outward afflicting and punishing of the body. Yea, the outward afflicting and punishing of the body any manner of way howsoever, is to no purpose, if there be not, inwardly, a true change of the mind and affections. You may call it Penance, if you will, externally so to punish the body: but allowable or good Christian repentance, it will never be, without a change of the mind, and alteration of affections, and becoming a new man. For, Repentance, is an outward, true, godly sorrow for sins committed, joined with fervent prayer unto God, for the forgiveness of them, and hath in it, an earnest desire, purpose, and endeavour, not to commit them any more: and is indeed, a dying to sin, and a walking in newness of life: and is testified, by fasting, weeping, and mourning, and by such outward tokens, and declarations of it, as we read of in holy Scripture to be approved. Now that this which we call Repentance, and the Papists call Penitency or Penance, is no Sacrament proper to the New Testament, is hereby manifest: First, because it was in the time of the Old Testament, and ever since the time of man's fall and transgression, required in all ages, and of all persons, that they should repent for their sins committed. Secondly, it wanteth a visible sign instituted of God, for this purpose, to make it a Sacrament: such as water is in Baptism, and such as bread and wine is in the Lord's Supper: and for want of this outward sign also, it can therefore be no Sacrament. But Bellarmine saith that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when after his resurrection, he said to his Apostles: Whose sins ye remit, 
joh. 20. 2●.  they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained: and he saith further, that the words of absolution, 
Bellar de Poenit. lib. 1. cap. 10.  be the outward sign, and that the remission of sins, is the grace thereby signified. This is far fetched to prove it a Sacrament. But first, I demand of Bellarmine, or of any other, How words of Absolution, or any words whatsoever, uttered and spoken, can be an outward and visible sign? Words be audible, I know, when they be uttered and spoken, but how are they visible, when they cannot be seen? for not audible, but visible signs, be required to a Sacrament. Yea, if words uttered by a Pastor or Minister, be, a sufficient outward sign, to make a sacrament, then should the preaching of the Gospel, and ministry of the word, be also a sacrament, which hath that outward sign, & the grace also of reconciliation, unto God, (wherein absolution and remission of sins is included) thereunto belonging. 
2. Cor 5.18, 19, 20. Rom. 1.16. 1. Cor. 1.21.  And by such reckoning, would there be no difference, between the ministry of the Word, and the ministry of Sacraments. But, as I said before, not an audible voice uttered, but a visible sign, and that of Gods own instituting and appointing, is required to make a Sacrament. Yea, although Christ in joh. 20.23. gave authority to his Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel, to declare and pronounce absolution, and remission of sins to believing and repentant persons; yet thereupon it followeth not, that therefore Repentance should be a Sacrament: for every good, godly, and allowable thing, is not, by and by, to be called a Sacrament, in that sense of the word, that we here speak of. Yea you may by as good reason, aswell make faith, and belief, a Sacrament, as repentance: for, Faith, is also necessary and requisite for the remission of sins, as well as Repentance. But there is, indeed, no cause, or, necessity, that Repentance, or, Penance (as ye call it) should be made a Sacrament, for this purpose: because Christ hath appointed other to be Sacraments, serving to this use and end, namely, to testify and seal up, remission of sins, to every faithful and repentant sinner, viz. Baptism, and the Lords Supper. For, Baptism, is expressly affirmed to be the Baptism, of repentance, for remission of sins, 
Mark. 1.4.  Mark 1.4. And so saith S. Peter also: Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the Name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. 
Act. 2. ●8.  So that Baptism is a Sacrament and seal unto us of the remission of all our sins, as well actual, as original, upon our faith and repentance And so is also the Lords Supper, another Sacrament, given for the same use, end, and purpose, viz. to signify, testify, assure, and seal up unto us, the remission of all our sins, whatsoever, or whensoever committed, upon our repentance, & faith in Christ: Which thing, Christ himself also declareth, when he teacheth it to be a Sacrament of that blood of his, which was shed for many, for remission of sins. 
Mat. 26.28.   
4 And that Marriage, or Matrimony, is also no Sacrament, proper to the new Testament, and the Christian Church, is a thing very evident: First, because it was a thing instituted in Paradise, and was before the Law, and under the Law; and in the times of the old Testament, used and observed, aswell as under the new Testament. Secondly, because Marriage, may be (as it is) amongst Infidels, and unbelievers, and such as be out of the Church & society of the faithful. For the Matrimony of Infidels is lawful, God instituting it for all mankind: and therefore it cannot be a Sacrament, proper to the Christian Church, 
●. Co●●7. 7.  and to the members of Christ only. Thirdly, because it is not common, and commanded to all Christians: For it is not required, nor of necessity, that all in the Church should be married: for every one hath his proper gift of God, some one way, some another. 
Mat. 19.10, 11, 12.  Fourthly, it hath no promise of remission of sins, or of salvation annexed unto it, as Sacraments ought to have, being strictly, and properly taken. Fiftly, it hath no outward visible sign nor word of Institution from Christ, to make it a Sacrament, and therefore it can be none. For whereas Bellarmine saith; that the word of Institution, is: I take thee etc. and the external sign, 
Bellarm. de matr. lib. 1. cap. 6.  be the persons that be married. These be strange conceits: For, first, these words, I take thee &c, be words devised of men, and not of Christ his institution, and be words only expressing the mutual consent of the parties that are to be married. Again, the outward visible sign in a Sacrament, must be material, and real (and not personal) as water is in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper: and therefore the persons married, cannot be the outward visible sign. Besides, the married persons, be the receivers of this pretended and supposed Sacrament, so that they cannot be also the sign: For the sign, and the receiver, in every Sacrament, must needs be diverse, and distinguished. If any object, and say, that Marriage is the sign of an holy thing, namely, of the spiritual conjunction between Christ and his Church: I demand, who instituted it to be so? Yea, it was not instituted to that end, to be a Sacrament of our conjunction with Christ (howsoever it may resemble it) but for other ends and purposes, as namely, to avoid fornication, and adultery etc. 
1. Cor. 7.2.  But further, all signs, comparisons, or resemblances of holy things, must not be counted Sacraments, in that sense of the word we speak of: For then, how many Parables, comparisons, or similitudes there be of holy and heavenly things, in Scripture, so many Sacraments should we have: and then the Rainbow, the Sabbath, a grain of Mustardseed, Leaven, a Draw-net, a Vine, a Door, and sundry such other things, should we make Sacraments. But the greatest reason, whereof they are most confident, is out of Ephes. 5.32. which their vulgar translation, 
Ephes 5.32.  and the Rhemists read thus: This is a great Sacrament. Howbeit, in the Original (which is ever to be followed) the words be these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: This is a great mystery. Now every thing that is a mystery, is not, by and by, to be concluded to be a Sacrament; for then godliness should be a sacrament, because it is said to be a mystery. 1. Tim. 3.16. God's will is also said to be a mystery. Ephes. 1.9. The obstinate unbelief of the jews, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, is likewise called a mystery. Rom. 11.28. That all shall not die, but that some shall be changed at the coming of Christ to judgement, is also affirmed to be a mystery. 1. Cor. 15.51. Yea, Iniquity is also called a mystery. 2. Thes. 2.7. And yet none, I think, will be so unwise as to conclude all these to be therefore sacraments. But the Apostle himself preventeth & answereth this objection, affirming▪ that this great mystery he speaketh of, consisteth, not in carnal Matrimony, but in the spiritual conjunction between Christ and his Church: This is a great mystery, but I speak (saith he) concerning Christ and his Church. So that the marriage between Christ and his Church, 
Ephes. 5.32.  and the conjunction and knitting of them together (which is not natural, and carnal, as that of the husband and the wife is, but spiritual) is the great mystery, or secret, he there expresseth himself, to mean & speak of. And therefore doth Cardinal Caietane ingenuously confess, 
Caietan. in Eph. 5.  (upon this text of Ephes. 5.32.) that these words prove not Matrimony to be a Sacrament. And indeed, it is very evident to all that duly consider that text, and the circumcumstances of it, that the Apostle bringeth not marriage in that place, as a similitude, to represent the near conjunction between Christ and his Church: but chose, he bringeth, and mentioneth the great love of Christ, and the near, & mystical conjunction between him and his Church, as a similitude and argument, to declare and enforce the love that should be of the husband toward his wife: For that is the main matter, scope, and point of exhortation, the Apostle there aimeth at, as is express and apparent by the 25. Verse. and so from thence to the end of that Chapter.  
5 Now concerning Orders. By Orders, we understand, the ordination of Ecclesiastical Ministers to their ministry, by Imposition, or laying on of hands. Here than I would be glad to know, why, or for what reason they should hold this to be a Sacrament? Is it, because it is a good work, and an holy action? But it is answered before, that every good work, and godly, and holy action, is not to be reckoned for a Sacrament: Or, do they make it a Sacrament, because it hath in it an outward sign of an holy thing, accounting the ordination, or, consecration to the ministry, to be the holy thing, and the imposition, or laying on of hands, in that action, and for that purpose, to be the outward sign? But hereunto is answered, that every outward sign of an holy thing, or of an holy action, is not sufficient to make a Sacrament: for then Prayer, with lifting up of hands, 
1. Tim. 2.8.  should be likewise a Sacrament; end sundry such like. But it must be an outward sign of this particular holy thing, namely, of the remission of our sins, and of our conjunction, 
1. Cor. 10.16▪  and communion with Christ, or otherwise, it is no Sacrament, in that sense of a Sacrament which we speak of. Yea, it must be not only a sign, 
Rom. 4.11.  but a seal also of that our uniting and conjunction with Christ, as is before declared: which thing, because the act of Ordination of Ministers, by imposition of hands, is not, therefore it can be no Sacrament. Again, the Sacraments be such as be common, & belong to all sorts and degrees of Christians; aswell to the lay sort, as to Ecclesiastical Ministers: as appeareth by the example of these two confessed and undoubted Sacraments, viz of Baptism, and the Lords Supper: but these orders be proper and peculiar unto those only that be of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, and extend no further; and therefore they can be no Sacraments in that sense of Sacraments that we speak of.  
6 The last supposed Sacrament in the Popish Church, is, Extreme unction, or last anointing, or annealing, as they call it. But how do they prove this to be a sacrament? We read indeed, in Mark 6.13. that the Apostles of Christ being sent abroad, did cast out Devils, 
Mar 6.13.  and anointed many that were sick, with oil, and healed them: But we see this reckoned amongst the rest of the miracles, which those Apostles had power given them to do, in those times of the first preaching and planting of the Gospel, to win the greater credit unto it. Agreeably whereunto it is said: that, They went forth and preached every where, 
Mar. 16.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.  the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. But, beside, that it is thus reckoned among the rest of the miracles, the effect, or event did also declare it to be miraculous: because, as many as were in those days anointed by them, were healed, as the Text itself affirmeth. 
Mar. 6.13.  Now, can, or do Popist Priests in like sort, in these days, by their anointing with oil, cure and heal the sick and diseased, as they in the Primitive and Apostolic Church, miraculously did? All men know, they neither do, nor can. S. james likewise saith to the Christians of those Primitive and Apostolic times, in this sort: Is any sick among you, let him call for the Presbyters (or, Elders) of the Church, 
jam. 5.14, 15, 16.  and let them pray for him, and anoint him with oil, in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him: For Sins, commonly, be the cause of men's sicknesses and diseases. And because God pardoneth such as repentantly acknowledge and confess their sins, and faults, and not such as hide them, and will justify themselves therein; he addeth further, saying thus: Acknowledge your faults, one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed: for the prayer of a righteous man availeth much, if it be fervent: teaching them hereby, that they ought freely to confer one with another, touching their diseases and sicknesses, & to confess the sins which be the cause of them, one to another, that so they might help one another with their prayers unto God for their recovery: for S. james doth not say, that it was the bare anointing with oil, that did heal or save a man from death, or raise him up from that his sickness, wherewith he was visited, but it was, Anointing with oil, in the name of the Lord, that is, such as had prayer, invocation, and calling upon the name of the Lord, joined with it: And therefore in the next words he showeth, that prayer was added, and that it was the prayer of faith, that did preserve or save the sick, and that recovered, and raised him up again. What then is there in all this, to prove this Unction, or, the anointing with oil to be a Sacrament? Is it because in this healing, there was used, an external ceremony, or an outward visible sign▪ but it is before showed, that, that is not sufficient to make a Sacrament: yea, then might the curing of the diseased by the water of the Pool of Bethesda (joh: 5.2, 3, 4. etc.) be called a sacrament: & the anointing of the blind man's eyes, with clay, made with spittle, together with his washing in the Pool of Siloam (joh. 9.6.7.) might also, by as good reason, be termed a Sacrament: and sundry other such actions, wherein outward visible signs were used, should become Sacraments; which it were absurd to affirm, in that sense of the Sacraments we here speak of. But this Unction, or anointing with oil, in the Apostles times, can be no Sacrament, in that sense of a Sacrament, that we speak of, for sundry reasons. First, because it served, only for the healing and curing of the body: For, as for the forgiveness of sins, there mentioned, and prayer used for that purpose, they tended all, in this case, to this end, to work the effect of healing: for the cause of the sickness, (which was sins) being removed by the prayers of the faithful, the effect (which was the sickness, 
1. Cor. 12.30. Mar. 6. 1●.  or disease, caused by those sins) was also removed. Secondly, it was a gift of healing, that was in those days miraculous, to cure and heal the sick in that manner: which miraculous, and extraordinary power of healing, is now long since ceased: and because it was a thing miraculous, and extraordinary, and is not ordinary and perpetual, it therefore can be no Sacrament. For, who is he, at this day, that hath this miraculous gift of healing the sick, by anointing them with oil? I Popish Priests had it, it would appear in their extreme unctions, and anointings, but no such thing appeareth: For what sick man do they recover, or restore to health, by that means? Yea, they use not this their unction, and annoyling, but when the sick party lieth in extremity of sickness and is no way likely to recover, and indeed, most usually dieth, notwithstanding these their anointings, and whatsoever else they do. Thirdly, the Sacraments whereof we speak, be such as be common, and appliable to all the members of Christ, aswell when they be well and in health, as at other times: But this their extreme Unction, belongeth, and is applied only to those that be sick, and at such times as they be in their extremest sickness, and therefore it can be no Sacrament. Fourthly, they use this form of words in it: By this anointing, and his most holy mercy, God doth forgive thee whatsoever thou hast offended, by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. Whereby appeareth, that they make this their extreme Unction, to extend, but only to such sins, as the man hath committed, by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, & touching, that is to say, by those his exterior five senses: But those that be true Sacraments indeed (as is evident by Baptism, and the Lords Supper) be not so particularly limited, or restrained, but be Sacraments to a faithful and godly man, of the full remission and forgiveness of all sins, committed not only, by those his five outward senses, but any other way else whatsoever, either by thought, word, or deed. And therefore, this their extreme Unction, can be no Sacrament, rightly and properly so called.  
7 Now remaineth to be showed, that even those that be the very true Sacraments indeed, do not give grace, ex opere operato: For they very erroneously, attribute remission of sins, to the Sacraments administered, as namely, to Baptism, and the Lords Supper, ex opere operato, even by the very work done and performed: whereas it is not, in very deed, the external water in Baptism administered, that hath this power and virtue in it, to take away sins, or to cleanse and purge them: neither is it the consecrated bread and wine, in the Lord's Supper, that hath this power and virtue in it: For so to suppose and imagine, were to attribute that to the outward signs or Sacraments, which rightly and properly belongeth to Christ jesus: 
joh. 1.29. joh. 1.17. Heb. 9.28. Heb 1.3.  inasmuch as he only is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: and, it is his blood only, that cleanseth us from all sin, as S. john expressly witnesseth, and all the rest of the Scriptures accord. For which cause it is again said in the Revel. of S. john: that it is Christ, 
Rev. 1.5.  that hath washed us from our sins in his blood. Seeing then it is Christ and his blood only, that washeth, purgeth, and cleanseth, in very deed, and materially, from all sins: the water in Baptism administered, must not have this power and virtue attributed unto it, nor also the consecrated bread and wine, in the Lord's Supper, received. You will then demand, why, or in what sense it is, that in the scripture, the water in Baptism, is said, to cleanse, to sanctify, to regenerate: I answer, that it is said so to do, not that it hath these virtues enclosed in it, 
Ephes 5.26. Tit. 3.5.  or did these things efficiently, or materially, but for that it doth them sacramentally, and significatively,: that is to say in plainer terms, because the water in Baptism, is a Sacrament, sign, and seal unto us, of that regeneration, sanctification, and cleansing, which we have through Christ: 
1. Cor. 12.11. joh. 3.6, 7, 8. Gal. 5.22.23, 24 25, 26.  For it is God's spirit, that efficiently worketh faith, repentance, regeneration, sanctification, or whatsoever other supernatural grace in a man, and not the element of water. And therefore also did S. john Baptist, say to those whom he baptised, thus: 
Mat. 3.11. Man gives water: but God gives the holy Ghost: saith H●erome upon Esay 14.  I Baptism you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes, I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the holy Ghost. Where you plainly see, that S. john Baptist acknowledgeth, that he, in his Baptism administered by him, gave but water, and that it was Christ that gave the holy Ghost: 
Grace's is not from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the spirit, saith Basil. lib. de spiritu sanct. ca 15. 1. Pet. 3 21. There is one water of the Sacrament an other of the Spirit: The water of the Sacrament, is visible: the water of the Spirit is invisible: That washeth the body, and signifieth what is done in the soul: By this, the soul is cleansed and healed, saith Aug. Tract. 6. in Epist joh.  and consequently that in the elemental water the holy Ghost was not contained, nor included; but was to come another way. Saint Peter hath a like speech, saying: That, Baptism doth save us: not that it is the material cause of our salvation (for Christ jesus only, is our Saviour in that sort) but for that it is a sacrament, sign and seal, of that salvation which we have by jesus Christ. And thus you see, how all the scriptures stand well together, and be rightly reconciled: whereas, otherwise, according to their sense, there would be a confusion and repugnancy. Yea, if it were true, that the very external act of Baptism performed, did, ipso facto, regenerate, cleanse, sanctify, and save: then should all without exception, that be baptised, be also regenerated, cleansed sanctified, and saved souls: But this you neither do, nor will affirm, and therefore no reason have you to affirm the other, whereupon this must necessarily follow. In like sort▪ if consecrated bread and wine, externally distributed and received in the Lord's Supper, did, ipso facto, give grace and remission of sins, than might judas that Traitor, or any other the most wicked and ungodly reprobate, that externally receiveth that bread and wine, receive also grace and remission of sins thereby: which it were very gross and absurd for any to affirm. Yea S. Paul himself showeth, that there be some unworthy receivers, that be so far from receiving grace and remission of sins by it, that chose, They eat and drink judgement, 
1. Cor. 11.29.  or condemnation, to themselves, as he speaketh and directly witnesseth.   

CHAP. X.  
Concerning the Popish Mass, and the Popish Priesthood thereto belonging.  
NOw give me leave to tell you how detestable a thing your Popish Mass is, which ye nevertheless so much and so highly reverence, being misled by the doctrine of your Teachers: For ye say, that your Priests do therein, offer up Christ jesus, every day, or often, to his Father, and that in a bodily manner, and affirm it moreover, to be a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of men. What? can any that profess Christ, or Christianity, be so absurd as to believe, that Christ is often, or daily, offered up, in a bodily manner, to his Father, for the sins of men? Do not the Scriptures themselves proclaim, that Christ jesus was, in that his bodily sacrifice, to be offered but Once, and not often? 
Heb. 9 25, 26.28. Heb. 10.14.  and do they not withal expressly testify, that with that one Oblation or offering, He hath consecrated for ever, them that are sanctified? What needeth then, or how can there be any more bodily offerings of him, then that one, whereby he offered himself, once, upon the Cross? Yourselves (again) do say, that this bodily offering up of Christ in your Mass, is unbloudie, and consequently, hath in it no effusion of blood: whereupon it must needs be granted, that therefore it cannot possibly be a propitiatory sacrifice, or take away the sins of men: For, the Scripture saith expressly, that without effusion of blood, 
Heb. 9.22.  there is no remission of sins. But beside all this, there is also no other Priest appointed of God, for the offering up of Christ jesus in a bodily sacrifice, but Christ jesus himself only: who therefore did perform it, in his own most sacred person, and is also the only Priest according to the order of Melchisedech. For, 
Heb. 5.5, 6▪ 9, 10.  ye must be put in mind, that the Scripture mentioneth not, Priests, plurally, according to the order of Melchisedech, as though there were, or might be many or sundry, according to that order, but it mentioneth only One according to that Order; 
Heb. 5.5, 6.10.  affirming this one, to be jesus Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, manifestly declareth. Yea, very plainly, 
Heb. 7.15, 16, 17.  doth that Epistle show, that though there were in the Old Testament, under the Levitical and Aronical Priesthood, many, that were Priests in succession, one after another, the death of the one, causing the other so to succeed: yet is it not so, in the New Testament, under that Priesthood which is according to the Order of Melchisedech: where is showed, that Christ jesus, 
Heb 7.23.24.  who is the only Priest according to that Order, hath neither Vicars, nor successors, in that his Priesthood, nor possibly can have; because himself never dieth, but liveth and continueth a Priest for ever according to that order. For which cause, it is there further said directly, 
Heb. 7.20, 21, 22, 23. Ver. 24.  that he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, such a Priesthood, as doth not pass▪ go, or, is conveyed from him, to any other. Seeing then there neither be, nor aught to be any more Priests according to the Order of Melchisedech, but only One, which is Christ jesus: and that this Christ jesus, was in bodily sacrifice to be offered also but Once, and not oftener: and that himself is also the sole and only Priest allowed and appointed of God to make that bodily oblation: which bodily oblation of his, is also only propitiatory. How intolerably blasphemous, and abominable, be and must needs be, those Popish Priests, that dare arrogate to themselves that particular honour, office, place, and person of jesus Christ, and say, that they offer him up, in a bodily manner, and that often, and that their sacrifice of the Mass, is a propitiatory sacrifice? We know, that Christ instituted a Sacrament, in bread and wine, in commemoration and remembrance of his body crucified and his blood shed for our sins: But that bodily sacrifice of his was not performed by any but by himself, nor was it done at this time of his instituting of this Sacrament, but afterward, when actually, and in very deed, he made that sacrifice of himself upon the Cross, and said Co●summatum est, It was then finished. And therefore when Christ said at his last Supper, to his Apostles, and consequently to the rest of his Ministers, their successors, Hoc facite etc. Do this in remembrance of me, he bade them to administer that Sacrament in such manner and sort as he did it, but he did not thereby make them Priests to offer him up in a bodily and propitiatory sacrifice, 
Vocatur Sacrificium & oblatio, quia memoria est & represen●atio veri Sacrificii & sanctae Immolationis factae in ara Crucis. Lomb. lib 4. dist. 12.  as is by Popish Priests most impiously and absurdly suggested and surmised. And yet it is granted, that ancient Fathers do call this supper of the Lord, a sacrifice: but they so call it a sacrifice, in respect it is a memorial of that bodily sacrifice of Christ performed upon the Cross, as even Peter Lombard himself expressly telleth you. As also, it may be called a sacrifice, in respect of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and other spiritual sacrifices, which at these times, the godly offer up unto God. For which cause, those ancient Fathers do also call it, an Eucharist, that is, a Thanksgiving: noting it, even thereby also, to be, not a Propitiatory, but an Eucharistical sacrifice. A memory of this sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, we have received (saith Eusebius), to celebrate at the Lords Table, 
Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10.  by the signs of his body, and of his healthful blood, according the divine Laws of the New Testament. Christ (saith S. Augustine) is our Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, 
August. octog. trium quaest. 61.  who offered himself a sacrifice for our sins, and hath commended the similitude of that sacrifice to be celebrated in the remembrance of his passion. We keep (saith Theophilact) a remembrance of the Lords death. 
Theoph. in Heb. ●●.  And again: We keep a memory of that Oblation wherein he offered himself. Our high Priest (saith Chrysostome) is he which offered the sacrifice that purgeth us, etc. But this which we do, 
Chrys●st. hom. 17. ad Hebr.  is done in remembrance of that which was done by him: for do ye this (saith Christ) in remembrance of me. And again he saith: We celebrate the remembrance of a sacrifice. By all which, and sundry, other sayings which might be cited (if need were) out of ancient Fathers, you may easily perceive, that howsoever they call this Sacrament a sacrifice, they mean it not to be any Propitiatory or Bodily sacrifice, but that (in the proper appellation), it is rather to be termed (as themselves here declare) a similitude, memorial, or remembrance, of that sacrifice of Christ, which himself performed upon the Crosse.  
2 And yet the Rhemists, and other Popish Teachers say, that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, specially in this respect of the sacrifice of his body and blood instituted at his last supper, in the forms of bread and wine: in which things, they say, Melchisedech did sacrifice. But first, they cannot prove, that Christ instituted this sacrament of his last supper, to be his very bodily sacrificing of himself: yea it is before apparently disproved: for his very bodily sacrifice was done only by himself, upon the Cross, and that but once, and that sacrifice only is propitiatory, and no other. And how is it possible, that that which is a representation, similitude, remembrance, and sacrament of that sacrifice, should be the very sacrifice itself? But secondly, why do they or any other, talk of fo●●es of bread and wine? for ye know, that they were not the forms, or accidents of bread and wine, 
Gen. 14.18.  but very substantial bread and wine, which Melchisedech brought forth to Abraham, and his people, for their refreshing after their battle and slaughter of the kings. Yea if they had been bare forms and accidents of bread and wine, and not very bread and wine in truth and in substance, they would have given Abraham and his company, but very small and slender refreshing. This example therefore of Melchisedech▪ in giving, not the forms or accidents of bread and wine, without the substance, but very bread and wine substantially, to Abraham and his soldiers, for their refreshing, doth prove strongly, against them, that in this sacrament of the Lords Supper, not the bare forms or accidents of bread and wine, but the very substance itself of bread and wine, doth remain. But thirdly, why do they say, that Melchisedech sacrificed in bread & wine, when there is no such thing in the Text? He offered no sacrifice of bread and wine, but brought forth bread and wine, for the refreshing of Abraham, and his Army. 
joseph. Antiquit. lib. 1. cap. 10.  And so saith josephus: Melch●sedech gave liberal entertainment to the Soldiers of Abraham, and suffered them to want nothing for the sustenance of their life. This another writer likewise approveth, 
Petrus Comest. hist. Shil. in Gen. 45.  saying: Melchisedech, king of Salem, offered unto him, bread and wine: which josephus, as it were expounding, saith: he ministered to his Army the duties of hospitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary: and, beside, he blessed God, which had subdued to Abraham, his enemies: for He was a Priest of the highest God. Yea, even the Hebrew word also, (which signifieth not, obtulit, or, sacrificavit, but protulit or eduxit) declareth the same: for the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hotsi, quod perinde sonat ac si dicas, exire fecit, hoc est, eduxit, seu, protulit: which is as much, as that Melchisedech caused bread and wine to come forth, or to be brought out to Abraham and his company: but it hath no such sense in it, as that he sacrificed bread and wine. Whereupon, the greeks have also translated it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, protulit, he brought forth. But yet further to show unto you, that Christ, is the only Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and in what sense he is so, that Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 7.1, 2, 3.  thus compareth Christ, and Melchisedech, together: That as Melchisedech was both a King and a Priest, so likewise is Christ; And as Melchisedech was a King of righteousness and of peace, so is Christ: for he brought in everlasting righteousness (as it is said in Dan. 9.24.) and is also the true King of peace, as having by his mediation, made peace between God and Vs. Yea, as Melchisedech was not only a King, but a Priest also of the most high God: so is Christ, who with the sacrifice of himself upon the Cross, hath redeemed all his people, and blesseth them, and maketh intercession for them. Again Melchisedech, is said to be without father, without mother, without kindred, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, (which things be thus affirmed of Melchisedech, because in the Scriptures, neither his father, nor his mother, nor his ancestors, nor his death, are recorded): And such a one is Christ, the son of God, without a father as he is Man, and without mother as he is God, being Eternal, without beginning of days, or end of life. And as Melchisedech is said to be and continue a Priest for Ever: so is Christ, who liveth and continueth ever, a Priest, by reason of that his everlasting and unremovable Priesthood, perpetually resident, and inherent in his own person. Thus, Melchisedech, (a Type and figure of Christ) and Christ himself, be resembled and compared together. By all which, you may infallibly perceive, that Christ only, and none but he, is or can be, a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and consequently, that Popish Priests be extremely audacious and impudently impious, that dare and do challenge to themselves, to be Priests according to that order.  
3 Howbeit, there be Priests, nevertheless, under the New Testament: for, all true Christians whosoever, be Priests, and are expressly so entitled in the holy Scriptures; not, that any of them, are to offer up Christ in a bodily sacrifice, but that they are to sacrifice their own bodies (as S. Paul declareth, 
Rom. 12.1. ) by killing and mortifying their own lusts and concupiscences, and other their vile affections, and consecrating themselves wholly unto God and his service. Christ hath made us (saith S. john) Kings and Priests, even to God his Father. S. Peter likewise saith thus: Ye are a chosen generation, 
Rev. 1.6. 1. Pet. 2.9.  a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, set at liberty, that ye should show forth the virtues of him, that hath called you out of Darkness, 
1. Pet. 2 5.  into his marveylous light. And again, he saith: Ye, as lively stones, be made a spiritual house, an holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. In which places, you see, that All generally whosoever, that be the member of Christ, are, and be termed Priests: and withal you see the reason, why they are so entitled; namely, not because they are to offer any bodily sacrifice of Christ, but in respect of spiritual sacrifices (as S. Peter here expressly calleth them) which they are to offer up unto God. Of which sort is the sacrificing of their own bodies, before mentioned by S. Paul, 
Rom. 17.1. Heb. 13.15. Psal. 141.2. Psal. 4.5. Heb. 13.16. Rom. 12. 1●▪  and the sacrifices likewise of praises, and thanksgivings, and of prayer which ascendeth up like incense unto God, the sacrifice also of righteousness, of doing good, and giving alms, and distributing to those that be in necessity, and such like: for, all these be called sacrifices. And hereby also is verified the Prophecy in Malachy, 
Mal. 1.11.  where God saith thus: From the rising of the Sun unto the going down ●f the same, my Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place, Incense shall be offered to my Name, and a pure offering: for my Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. I say, this Prophecy is verified, not by any supposed carnal or bodily sacrificing of Christ, in the Popish Mass (which is a most ungodly and impure thing) but by those spiritual sacrifices before mentioned, which All Christians every where are to offer up unto God. 
Rev. 1.6.  Neither ought it to seem strange to any, that all the Members of Christ generally, be they men, or women, be thus termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Pet. 2.5.9.  Sacerdotes, that is, Priests: for ye see it is by the Scriptures clear, and evident, and therefore must be confessed. Wherefore also Tertullian saith: Nun & Laici, Sacerdotes? 
Exhort. ad Castitatem.  Be not Lay people also Priests? As for those that bear Ecclesiastical office in the Christian Church, they have no where throughout all the New Testament, this term, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacerdotes, that is, Priests, specially, or properly, given unto them, but they are, there, evermore called by other names: as, Bishops, Pastors, Doctors, Presbyters, Deacons, Ministers, and such like: so carefully doth the whole New Testament, shun that word, Sacerdotes, that is, Priests, from being attributed to the Ministers of the Gospel, specially, or peculiarly, 
Let a man so esteem of us (saith S. Paul) as of the Ministers of Christ. 1. Cor. 4. ●. So that the term of a Minister of Christ, or of the Gospel, is to be reverenced, and not to be scornfully, or skoffingly mentioned, as it is by sundry in the Papacy▪  but useth it as a name general, and common to all Christians. It is true nevertheless, that in the ancient Fathers they be sometimes called Sacerdotes, and the Lords ●able also is suitably, in the same ancient Fathers, sometimes called an Altar: Howbeit, these be not proper, but alluding and tropical speeches, signifying that as in the jewish Church they had an Altar, and Priests to offer sacrifices thereupon; so in the Christian Church they have a Communion Table, and Christian Ministers, and Christian people, who are there to celebrate the memory of Christ's bodily sacrifice, and to offer up the sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and such other spiritual sacrifices, as belong to Christian Ministers and Christian people, to offer. But none of these things do prove any bodily sacrifice of Christ, to be actually and really performed in the Sacrament: yea, if, that, in the Sacrament, were his very bodily sacrifice, what was, or needed that, which was performed on the Cross, the next day? or what name will you give unto it? Was not that which was performed on the Cross, the very true Propitiatory bodily sacrifice? You cannot deny but it was. What other thing than can this Sacrament be, but a Sacrament, that is, a similitude, representation, and remembrance of that propitiatory bodily sacrifice of Christ, once done and performed in his own person, upon the Cross, for all the Elect?  
4 But you allege, that Christ having taken the bread, said; This is my Body: Howbeit you should consider withal, that after that he had taken the Cup, he said likewise▪ 
Mat. 26.27, 28. Mar. 14.23, 24.  This is my blood: and yet, for all that, was not the very Cup, his very blood. If then in these words, ye admit (as ye do) a figure or figurative speech; why should ye not likewise in the other words, (of, This is my body) admit a figure or figurative speech? Yea, if by reason of these words, This is my Body, you will infer, that the very substance of the bread is changed into the very substance of the natural body of Christ (which change, ye therefore call Transubstantiation): then may I by force of these words uttered of the Cup, This is my blood, infer likewise, that the very substance of the Cup is changed into the very substance of the natural blood of Christ: or, if you will take the words as they be recited by S. Paul, and S. Luke, 
Luk. 22.20. 1. Cor. 11.25.  namely thus: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood: I may aswell conclude, that the very substance of the Cup is turned and changed into the very new Testament, or new Covenant, which were very absurd. We grant, that the bread is Christ's body, and the wine is his blood, in a Sacramental phrase, and sacramentally, but not literally, and substantially, or, by way of Transubstantiation, as ye most strangely imagine. So that the Argument appeareth to be fond and vain, when men reason thus: Christ said of the consecrated Bread, that it is his body: Ergo, it is his Body, naturally, substantially, and by way of Transubstantiation: For this is more than ever CHRIST spoke: and it may be (as indeed it is) his Body otherwise, namely, Sacramentally, figuratively, and Significatively. And so also do the ancient Fathers themselves expressly declare, 
Tertul cont. Mar. lib. 4  and expound it: as namely, Tertullian saith thus: Hoc est corpus meum, id est figura corporis mei: This is my body, that is (saith he) a figure of my body. And S. Augustine saith likewise: Non dubitabit Dominus dicere, 
August. in Psal. 3. & cont. Adimantum manichaeum cap. 12.  hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui: The Lord doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. And yet we grant, that after consecration, there is a change (as the ancient Fathers also affirm) but that is as touching the use, and end, and not as touching the substance: For, that which was before common bread, and common wine, is now, after consecration, become sacramental bread, and sacramental wine, signifying, and figuring out unto us, another thing: namely, the bread doth then signify, and figure out unto us, the body of Christ, which was broken and crucified for us: and the wine signifieth & figureth out unto us, the blood of Christ, which was poured out and shed for us. So that, the Bread, and the Wine, which in common and ordinary use, serve only for sustenance of the body, now, after consecration, signify, and represent unto us, that which is the very true food of our souls, and the sustenance of them to eternal life: and do import unto us, that as verily as we receive the Bread, and Wine, outwardly, with our bodily mouth: so verily, and certainly do we also receive Christ jesus, and the benefit of his death and passion, inwardly, by our faith, which is the mouth of the soul. For, as bodily meat, must have a bodily mouth, to receive it: so that which is spiritual meat, and sustenance for the soul, must have a spiritual mouth to receive it by. And this is that eating of Christ's flesh, & drinking of his blood, which is spoken of in S. john's Gospel, when he is thus received and applied, not by a carnal, or corporal, but by a spiritual mouth, namely, by faith. For, whereas some, in that sixth Chapter of S. john's Gospel, hearing Christ speaking of eating of his flesh, 
joh. 6 53, 54▪ 55.56.  and drinking of his blood, said, it was an hard speech, & grew offended at it: Christ, to remove all that conceited hardness, and offence, taken at those his words, answered, and said: that, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, are spirit and life: So that ye must take the words which Christ there spoke unto them, concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, not literally, grossly, and carnally, as the Capernaits did, but in a spiritual sense, and meaning. And so doth S. Augustine, in diverse places tell you, that they are to be expounded. For he saith expressly: 
August. de doct. Christ. lib. 3. c. 16. in joh. 6. tract. 26. & tract. 25.  that, Credere in eum, est manducare, To believe in jesus Christ, is, in that place of S. john, to eat his flesh. Yea, to show that the words be not to be taken literally, or carnally, but figuratively, the same S. Augustine giveth this reason, saying: that otherwise by commanding, to Eat the flesh of a man, 
August de doct. Christ. lib 3. c. 16  and to drink his blood, he should seem to command an heinous or wicked thing: Figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni dominica esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa, & vulnerata sit. It is therefore (saith he) a figure, or figurative speech, commanding that we must communicate with the Lords passion, & sweetly, & profitably keep in memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us. When he saith expressly, that it is a figure, or figurative speech, what doubt should ye make of it? But yet further, upon the 98. Psalm, he bringeth in Christ, speaking thus to his Disciples; 
Aug. in Psal 98.  Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum: non, hoc corpus quod videtis, manducaturi estis, & ●ibituri illum sanguinem, quem fus●ri su●t, qui me crucifigent: Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: Spiritualiter intellectum, vivificabit vos. Understand ye spiritually that which I have spoken: ye are not to eat this very body which ye see, and to drink that blood which they shall shed, which shall crucify me: It is a Sacrament that I have commended unto you: it being spiritually understood, shall quicken you. What can be spoken more plainly? yea, this point, Christ himself cleareth yet further in the 51. Verse of that Chapter, saying: The Bread that I will give, 
joh. 6. 5●.  is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Where we must of necessity understand, not the bread in the Sacrament, but himself, and his flesh and Body crucified, and sacrificed upon the Cross, to be that Bread he there speaketh of. So that to apply Christ crucified by faith, 
joh. 6.33.35.48 5●, 51.58▪  unto a man, as his Saviour and Redeemer (whether it be in the Sacrament, or at any other time, without receiving the sacrament) is to eat his flesh, and to drink his blood, as S. Augustine again expoundeth and declareth it, De Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 21. & de Civit. lib. 21. cap. 21. And this is yet further manifest, by conferring the 54. Verse of that Chapter, with the 40 Verse: For whereas Christ in the 54. Verse, speaketh thus: Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
joh. 6.54.  hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: to declare the true meaning of those words, he speaketh after this sort, in the 40. Verse, producing the same thing in effect, and saying thus: Every man which seeth the Son, and believeth in him, 
joh. 6.40.  shall have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. By comparing of which two verses together, it appeareth, that, to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood, is in that place, nothing else, but for a man to believe in him, and so to apply him as a Redeemer and Saviour, to himself in particular, for eternal life. Which thing he again declareth in the 47. Verse, saying thus: Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
joh. 6.47.  he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. But he yet further explicateth the matter, in the 56. Verse. and sayeth thus: 
joh. 6.56.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Whereby appeareth, that, to eat Christ's flesh, and to drink his blood, is all one with this, to have Christ dwelling in us, and us in him. Now then, how doth Christ dwell in us? S. Paul answereth, and telleth us directly: that He dwelleth in us by faith. It is then still undeniably manifest, that, the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood, 
Ephes 3.17.  is nothing else, but, as I said before, to believe in Christ, or, to have a true & lively faith in him, whereby we apprehend and apply him as a Redeemer & Saviour unto ourselves, in particular, and whereby it is, that he dwelleth in us, and we in him, and so are united unto him, not by a carnal, but by a spiritual mean and union. And so S. Paul again showeth, that the union or conjunction which we have with Christ, is not by any bodily, but by a spiritual means, and manner: for, he that is joined unto the Lord, is one spirit, saith he: and therefore also doth S. Paul, call Christ, spiritual meat, 
1. Cor▪ 6.17.  and spiritual drink, and saith, that even those Ancestors of the jews, which lived in Moses time, long before the Incarnation of Christ, did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, 
1. Cor. 10.1, ●, ● 4.  for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. These Ancestors of the jews, that thus did eat Christ, and drink Christ, so long before his Incarnation, aswell as we, could not possibly eat him in a bodily manner, or carnal fashion (for Christ as yet, in their times, had not taken his humanity, or manhood, nor was incarnate) it remaineth then, that they did eat him, and drink him by their faith, and after a spiritual manner: for in a carnal, or bodily sort, (as is apparent) they could not possibly eat or drink him. And seeing that they did eat the same spiritual meat, and did drink the same spiritual drink that we do, it must be granted, that we likewise do not otherwise eat Christ, or drink Christ, but in the same manner, namely, spiritually, and by faith. But again, if those words of Christ in that sixth Chapter of S. john's Gospel, were to be understood as ye suppose, than it would also follow, that judas, that traitor, or any other Reprobate whosoever, that did receive that sacramental Bread and Wine, should also be saved, and have eternal life: for in that Chapter, Christ saith expressly, thus: Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. 
joh. 6.54.  But whosoever externally eateth the Sacramental bread, and drinketh the Sacramental wine, hath not eternal life (for as S. Paul showeth, There be some that eat of that bread, and drink of that Cup unworthily, 
1. Cor 11.27.  and so eat and drink judgement to themselves) and therefore the external eating of the sacramental bread, and drinking of the sacramental wine, is not the eating of the flesh of Christ, nor the drinking of his blood, which is spoken of, and intended in that place. Yea, at that time when these words were spoken, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not yet instituted, as Lyra also well observeth. These reasons than may suffice to satisfy reasonable men, 
Lyra. in Psal. 110.  for answer to that sixth Chapter of S. john, which ye so often urge in vain, because by this time, I trust, you perceive, how that your supposed bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, by way of Transubstantiation, cannot thereout possibly be forced, or concluded. But yet further, to the end it may not seem strange unto you, that Christ should call the bread his body, when it was not in very deed, his body naturally and substantially, but a sign, remembrance, and figure of that his body: you are to understand, that it is an usual and ordinary phrase, and speech in Sacraments, and namely, aswell in Sacraments of the old Testament, as of the new, to call the sign by the name of the thing signified. As for example; Circumcision was one of the Sacraments among the jews: and the Paschal Lamb was another, under the old Testament. Now, Circumcision, was directly called the Covenant: 
Gen. 17.13.  which nevertheless, was not the very Covenant itself, but a sign of the Covenant: For, the Covenant itself was this: 
Gen 12.13. Gen. 17.1, 2, 3, 4. etc.  that, In Abraham's seed, all nations should be blessed, and that God would be their God, and they his people. So again, the Paschall Lamb, was directly called the Passeover: when as nevertheless, it was not the very Passeover itself, but a sign and token of the Passeover: For the very Passeover itself, 
Exod. 12.11. Mat. 26.17.  was this: that an Angel passed over the houses of the Israelits, sparing them, and smote the Egyptians, their enemies: and this is also called, eating the Passeover, 
Mat. 26 17.  when as, but the sign of the Passeover only, namely, the Paschall Lamb was eaten. In steed of Circumcision, Baptism succeedeth amongst Christians: and in the place of the Passeover, succeedeth the Lord's Supper: What marvel then can it be, or should it be, to any Christian, that Baptism should be termed Regeneration: 
Tit. 3. ●.  which is not the very Regeneration itself, but a sign and token of regeneration: for the Regeneration itself, is the renewing of the man, to the Image of God, wherein he was at first created, which is a thing, begun to be wrought in him in this life, not by the very external act of Baptism, performed and administered, but inwardly, by the operation of the holy Ghost. And likewise, it ought for the same cause, to seem nothing strange to any, that the Bread, in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is called his body, when as nevertheless, it is not his very natural and substantial body, but a figure, sign, and token of that his body. As for the reason which ye draw from the omnipotency, or almightiness of Christ, whereby he is able, as ye say, to make his very essential, and natural body, out of bread: you must first prove, that it is his will to have it so made, before ye dispute of his power, or omnipotency. For, no man doubteth, but that he can do many things, which nevertheless he doth not do, nor will do. It is an Axiom in the Art and rule of reasoning, that a Posse ad Esse, non valet argumentum: and therefore that God can do such a thing, and such a thing, ergo, he hath done it, is no good argument. But that you may the better conceive, the weakness of this your argument, grounded upon God's omnipotency in this matter, take another like unto it in this sort: Christ saith of the Cup: This is my blood: And he by his omnipotency, 
Mat. 22.27.28. Mar. 14.23, 24.  is aswell able to make the very Cup, his very essential and natural blood, as the bread his body: ergo, the very Cup is his very essential and natural blood. Again, Christ saith, that he is a Vine, 
joh. 15.1. joh. 6.58.  and that he is also Bread: and by his omnipotency, he is aswell able to make himself, a very Material Vine, or, very material Bread, as he is to make bread his natural body, ergo, he is a very Material Vine, or, very Material Bread. These arguments be like yours, when you say thus: Christ saith, the Bread is his body: and he is by his omnipotency able to make it his very essential and natural body; Ergo, it is his very essential and natural body. I hope, by this time, ye see the vanity and absurdity of this manner of reasoning. But you still urge the words of Christ, and say, that he saith; It is his body: and we must not (say you) make him a Liar, and therefore it is his very essential and natural body. God forbid, that any of us should go about to make Christ a liar, who is all Truth, and the teacher of all Truth, neither doth any of us go about it: but we say, that Christ is true in those his words, but men speak more than is true, when out of those words of his, they teach and affirm, that the bread is become (by way of Transubstantiation) his very essential and natural body: For Christ doth not say so, that it is his very essential and natural body by way of Transubstantiation (as they infer) but his words are only, that it is his body. And it may be and is his body, as I said before, though it be not his body by way of Transubstantiation. For if it be (as it is) his body figuratively, sacramentally, and significatively, I trust his words are found true enough, without any such Popish gross supposition. Because Christ saith, the Cup is his blood; shall he therefore be supposed, a liar, or, untrue, except the very material Cup, be believed, in very deed, to be his very essential and natural blood by way of Transubstantiation? or because Christ saith that he is a Vine, shall he by and by be concluded to be false or untrue, unless it be believed that therefore he is turned and transubstantiated into a very natural and substantial Vine? But moreover, if it be Christ's natural and substantial body in very deed (as you say it is) show us some way, how we may be induced to believe it, or how it may be proved or appear to be so: you answer, that Christ his body, is there, miraculously. But I reply again, that if it be there miraculously, it must be there visibly, and so appear to the outward senses: for it is of the property of every miracle, to be visible, and to appear to be so, to the eye, & to the rest of the outward senses: as when Christ turned water into wine, 
joh. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Exod. 4.1, 2, 3.  it did appear to be no longer water, but wine to the outward senses. So likewise when Moses rod was turned into a serpent, it appeared to the eye & outward senses, to be no longer a Rod, but a Serpent. If therefore the bread be turned (as ye say) miraculously, into the very natural body of Christ, it must likewise appear visibly to the eye, and to the outward senses, so to be: namely, no appearance of bread must any longer be there, and on the other side, only the very natural body of jesus Christ must appear to the eye, and the outward senses of the Receiver: but clean chose, there is no natural body of Christ jesus, appearing to the eye and outward senses of the receiver, after consecration, but bread only: ergo the very natural body of jesus Christ is not there miraculously, as Papists most absurdly affirm. But although they cannot show Christ his very natural body to be there by way of transubstantiation, yet (say they) they do believe it to be so: and they say withal, that it is as well to be believed, as the creation of the world, the resurrection of the dead, a virgin to bear a child▪ namely Christ jesus, & such like. But whilst they speak thus, I pray let them tell me, can their supposed real bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, by way of Transubstantiation, be as well proved by the Scriptures, as the creation of the world, the resurrection of the dead, the bearing of a child by a virgin, or as the rest of the things which they mean, and are directly found in the Scriptures? I am sure it cannot: for all that can be said, for your Transubstation, hath been examined again and again, but no such matter can be proved or appear. Why then do they match those things together, which be nothing like? Yea, why be any so unwiselie confident, as to say, they believe, and verily believe, this real bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, by way of transubstantiation, when they can no way show it by any manner of proof, or probability? What? will men believe, & unremovably believe, things without wit, sense, reason or religion, & for which they have no manner of colour or warrant at all in Scripture, from God, or his word▪ If they be such credulous people, they may believe, if they will, any thing whatsoever, be it never so incredible, or absurd: for if their will and fancy, shall be held for a sufficient r●●son, who shall be able to dissuade them? Howbeit, I would desire you to be better advised, and though it be to the utter overthrowing of your fancies and wills, to yield to that puissant, and unvanquishable truth, which not only reason, but all right faith and religion also, requireth at your hands: for even faith and religion, aswell sense and reason, persuadeth, against that monstrous conceit of Transubstatiation, and of the natural body of Christ to be eaten with the bodily mouth. For further declaration whereof, do but consider some absurdities and inconveniences, wherewith it is accompanied. First, you thereby make the Lords Supper to be no Sacrament: for if it be a Sacrament, it must of necessity have aswel an outward visible sign, of an holy thing, as the holy thing itself. The outward visible sign in this point, is the bread, and the holy thing whereof it is a sign, is the very natural body of Christ, which was crucified for us. Now, you s●y, That after consecration, there is no bread at all remaining, but only the very natural body of jesus Christ, and so making no bread at all to be there, you also make no outward visible sign to be there, and consequently make it no Sacrament. secondly, if there be no bread remaining, but only the Accidents of bread, that is, whiteness, roundness, and such like, without a substance, as ye hold▪ then, beside that it is most absurd by the rules of reason, to hold that any accidents can be without their substance I pray further tell me, what it is that the communicant receiveth and eateth? for we think every man should be ashamed to say, that he eateth bare accidents, and not the substance of bread: But for clear proof, S. Paul affirmeth it expressly to be still bread (after consecration) and that accordingly the communicant eateth bread: 
1. Cor. 11.26, 27, 28.  neither will the bare accidents of bread, without the substance, nourish any man thirdly, how absurd and unseemly a thing is it, for one man to eat up another? as if it became Christians to be Cannibals, or Anthropophagis, that is, such as were eaters of men: and yet if this Popish opinion were true, should Christians be eaters even of the body of a man, and of the best m●n that ever lived, even of their own Saviour and Redeemer, jesus Christ, both God and man, and that in a most gross and carnal manner, which is a most impious, and most inhuman barbarous conceit. fourthly, it is well known, that Christ jesus is true man, and hath all the properties of one, that is a true man, being like unto man in all things (sin only excepted) as the Scripture witnesseth: 
Heb 2 17.  And therefore as he is a true man, and hath a true humane body, like other men (sin only excepted), that his humane body cannot possibly be in two, or many places at once, 
Au●ust. in joh. Tra●t. 3●. & Ep. 57 ad Bar●an.  no not after his resurrection, as S. Augustine expressly witnesseth, no more than the bodies of other men. For which cause the Angel said of Christ, Non est hic; surrexit enim: He is not here; 
Matt 2●. 6.  for he is risen▪ This speech of the Angel, showeth, (contrary to your conceit) that the humanity and body of Christ, even after his resurrection, is not in divers places at once, as his Deity and Godhead is, and that it cannot be in any more places than one at a time: because when his body was in the grave, it was not any where else; and when it was risen ou● of the grave than it was not there, but in another place, as the Angel declareth. Yea whilst you make his humanity to be multi-present, what do ye else but confound his humanity, and fall into as manifest an error, as is the Heresy of the ubiquitares. If any allege, that the humanity of Christ and his Deity be inseparable, 
Christus est ubique per id quod Deus est: In coelo autem per id quod homo est. August Epist. 57 ad Dardan. Caro Christi, quando in terra fuit, non fuit in coelo: & nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra Vigil. cont. Eutich. lib. 1. jere 23 24. 1. King. 8.27.  and that therefore wheresoever his Deity is, there is also his humanity, and consequently because his Deity or Godhead is every where, his humanity also, or manhood, must be likewise every where. This is but a sophistical and deceitful kind of reasoning, wherewith none should be ensnarled: for, although it be true, that the Deity and humanity of Christ, be inseparable in him in respect of his person, in whom they are united, both together making but one Christ▪ yet are they not so inseparable, but that the one may be, and is, namely his Deity or Godhead, where the other is not. For example: the Deity or Godhead of Christ is indeed every where, and filleth heaven and earth, as it is said in the Prophet: yea the heaven of heavens, cannot contain him, as Solomon saith, and consequently that Deity was also, even in the grave of Christ after he was risen from death: and yet was not his humanity or manhood there, as the Angel himself hath before assured us. So that although wheresoever his humanity or manhood is, there is also his Deity or Godhead: yet it followeth not chose, that wheresoever his Deity or Godhead is, there also is his humanity or manhood. Again, doth not Christ jesus himself say thus: 
Matt. 26.11.  The poor ye have always with you but me ye shall not have always? How could these words be true, except we confess that he may be, and is absent from us, in his humanity and manhood; although he be always present with us in respect of his Deity, and by his power and spirit? In which respect he hath also said: that, He will be with his Church to the end of the world. 
Matt. 28. 2●.  You perceive then, how Christ is present, and how absent, namely, that he is always present every where, in his Deity, but not so in his humanity or manhood. And for further proof hereof, doth not Christ jesus say again expressly thus: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, 
Io●. ●●. 7.  the Comforter will not come unto you? Again he saith: I leave the world and go to the Father. And again he saith: 
joh. 16.28.  Now am I no more in the world: but these are in the world, and I come to thee. 
joh. 17.11.  Holy Father keep them in thy Name, even them whom thou hast given me. What meaneth all this, but that Christ jesus after his resurrection, was to ascend into heaven, and so to go away, to depart, to leave the world, and to be (as himself there speaketh) no more in the world? Must not this needs be intended in respect of his manhood and bodily presence? for most certain it is, that in respect of his Deity, power, and spirit, he is with us, to the world's end, and for ever, as before is said. And therefore also doth S. Peter witness, that in respect of that his manhood or humanity, the Heavens must contain him, 
Act. 5.22.  until the time that all things be restored, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets, since the world began. For which cause also, we believe (according to our Creed) that from thence, he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. If then ever since his ascension, he be in respect of his bodily presence and manhood, departed from the world, and in that respect is (as himself affirmeth) no more in the world, but in heaven, until the day of the general judgement, 
joh. 17.11. Act. 3.22.  as S. Peter also, and our Creed do teach us: how gross and absurd, yea what misbelievers, be Papists, that dare affirm him (clean contrary to his own testimony, and the testimony of S. Peter, and the rest of the Scriptures, and contrary also to the very Creed itself) to be still in the world in that his manhood and bodily presence? It is high time therefore for all, to renounce and forsake this monstrous and detestable error, if they will be right Christians, and right believers. As for that Text where it is said: No man ascendeth up to heaven; but he that descended from heaven, 
joh. 3.13.  even the son of man, which is in heaven: It is easily answered and resolved: for most true it is, that the Son of man, Christ jesus, was even then in heaven, in his Deity, at such time, when he was also upon the earth, in his humanity: So that in respect of that his Deity or Godhead, it is, that being upon the earth, he was nevertheless also in heaven, and not in respect of his manhood or humanity: for his manhood or humanity, or▪ bodily presence, was then on the earth, and could not also be in heaven, at one and the self same time, as is before declared. S. john saith: that, Every spirit, which confesseth not, that jesus Christ, is come in the flesh, is not of God, 
1. joh. 4.3.  but this is the spirit of Antichrist. Now, what is it else to deny jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, but to deny him to be true man, and like unto men, in all things, sin only excepted? Whilst men therefore thus deny Christ to be come in the flesh, that is, to have all the properties of a True man, and to be like unto other men in all things, sin only excepted: how can they clear themselves, but that they must be enforced to yield and confess, that they be, herein, led, not by the spirit of Christ, but by the spirit of Antichrist? Yea whilst they thus say: that Christ is in his manhood and natural body, present upon earth, what do they else, but deny or impugn, not only those Articles of the Creed, viz. that Christ is ascended into heaven, and that there he sitteth at the right hand of God his Father, and that from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead? But this Article also, that jesus Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary, and was incarnate and made man, of her substance? For this doubtless, is the right jesus Christ, in whom we are to believe: but (by this their doctrine) they chose believe in another jesus Christ, namely in such a one, as they affirm (by this their Transubstantiation) to be made of another substance, namely, out of the substance of a piece of bread. And how can such a Christ, so made of the substance of a piece of bread, be, the true Christ? Of which, and of all other sorts of false Christ's, the true Christ jesus himself, hath given us sufficient forewarning▪ 
Matt. 24.24.  Fiftly, they herein make their Massing Priest, after their words of consecration uttered, to be the maker of his Maker, namely, of jesus Christ: And that jesus Christ is thus made anew every day, 
Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui: Qui creavit vos, dedit vobis creare se. Stella Cl●●icorū. Serm. 〈…〉.  or so oft▪ as their Mass is celebrated. How many thousand jesus Christ's, by this means, will they have in the world? But can any be so absurdly impious, as to believe or suppose, that Christ jesus can be made, out of the substance of a piece of bread, by a Priest by virtue of any words of consecration uttered, or by any devise whatsoever? Can any creature possibly make his Creator? or the thing made, make his maker? Fie on these, and all other such senseless detestable abominations. Divers other absurdities also of the Papists might here be further alleged, but these before mentioned, will, I hope, suffice, to declare, the most gross and most notorious false exposition of the Popish Church, concerning those words of Christ (This is my Body) in the Lord's Supper, whereby they strangely suppose a Transubstantiation, and a carnal eating of Christ his ver●e natural body; contrary to the Scriptures, and contrary to all sense, reason, right faith, and true Religion. For ye must learn so to expound Scripture, as that ye make all the rest of the Scriptures, to stand and agree with that sense you set upon it, so that there may be no repugnancy. But the sense and exposition which the Popish church setteth upon those words of Christ, (namely, This is my Body), is clearly repugnant to other Scriptures, and even to the very Articles also of the Creed, aswell as to all sense and reason (as is before apparent): and therefore it cannot possibly be the right sense, nor true exposition. What remaineth then, but that the right and true sense and meaning of those words, is, and must needs be, the same, which the Protestants set upon them? because that their exposition is consonant & agreeing to the rest of the Scriptures, and to all the Articles of the Creed, aswell as to all sense and reason: and is also suitable and correspondent to the like usual & ordinary phrase and manner of speech, in other and former Sacraments, amongst the jews, the old people of God, under the old Testament: according to which manner of speech, Christ also spoke, when he instituted this Sacrament of his Supper, under the new Testament; calling (according to the usual Sacramental phrase) the sign by the name of the thing signified: Which thing, I trust, is now so clear and evident, as that none can justly any longer make any doubt or question of it.  
5 But yet for the fuller discussing hereof, it will not be amiss, here to speak a few words touching Consecration: because upon Consecration it is, that they seem to build their before mentioned error of Transubstantiation. Let us therefore consider what Consecration is, and what it importeth, or worketh. To Consecrate then, is to take a thing from the profane, or ordinary and common use, and to destinate, or appoint it to some holy use, and end. And if we would know, how things come to be consecrate, or sanctified, S. Paul saith, that every Creature of God, is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified (saith he) by the word of God, and prayer. Sanctification then, or Consecration of a thing, 
1. Tim. 4 4, 5.  doth here appear to be, by the institution and word of God, and by prayer, or invocation, whereof thanksgiving is a part. And therefore the Lord jesus, before he broke the bread, and gave it, he Blessed, that is, he gave thanks to his Father, that he, out of his love to men, had appointed him to be the Redeemer, for the satisfying of his justice, in the behalf of his elect, and had given him authority to institute this Sacrament, in remembrance of that his death and passion. For whereas in Matth. 26.26. it is said, that, when Christ had taken bread, he blessed▪ S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul (all three of them) as it were expounding what that meaneth, in steed of those words (he blessed) do say, that, He gave thanks. Mar. 14 22. Luk. 22.19▪ 1. Cor. 11.24▪ By the word, blessing, then, mentioned in S. M●thew, is meant, Thanksgiving, as by conferring him with the other three, doth plainly appear. Yea, this doth also appear, even by S. Matthew himself: For whereas S. Matthew saith. That jesus took the Bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave it etc. he saith likewise, that he took the Cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it etc. Mat. 26.26.27. thereby showing, that to bless (in S. Matthew) and to give thanks, is all one. And this also serveth well, to declare and expound those other words of S. Paul, concerning the Cup, in 1. Cor▪ 10.16. where he saith thus: The Cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? He calleth it, the Cup of blessing, which we bless (saith Chrysostome) because when we have it in our hands with admiration, and a certain horror of that unspeakable gift, we praise and bless Him, for that he hath shed his blood, that we should not remain in error, and hath not only shed it, but made us all partakers of it. And so doth also Photius, and OEcumenius expound those words: The Cup of blessing which we bless: that is (say they) which having in our hands, we bless Him, who hath graciously given us his blood, that is, we give him thanks. justin Martyr, toward the end of his 2. Apology, saith thus: We receive with the action of thanksgiving, the consecrated mea●e, blessed by prayer. S. Augustine, in his third Book of the Trinity, Cap. 4. saith: We call that the body and blood of Christ jesus, wh●ch we receive for the health of our souls, it being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer. And Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, in his 7. Book of Epistles, Epist. 63. saith: that, The Apostles did consecrate by prayer. Yea, Pope Innocentius the third also, in his third Book of the Mysteries of the Mass, doth himself hold, that Christ did not consecrate by these words (Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body) but that he had consecrated before those words were uttered. Consecration then in a Sacrament, is of no such nature, operation, or force, as to make any change or alteration in the substance of a thing, but only in the quality▪ use, or end. And this you may very clearly and demonstratively perceive, by the water, consecrated and applied in Baptism: for before it be consecrate to that use, it is but common and ordinary water: But after it is consecrate, it is then become another thing, namely, a sacred sign of the washing and cleansing we have by Christ: and yet nevertheless it is still water, as touching the substance of it▪ as it was before, although in the quality and use, it be altered: So likewise is it of bread and wine, in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper▪ before Consecration, it is but ordinary and common bread, and wine: but after Consecration, they are become holy signs, of the body and blood of Christ, and yet are they still bread and wine, as touching the substance of them, as before; though they be thus altered in the use, and quality. And so saith Ambrose: Sunt quae erant, & in aliud commutantur: 
Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap▪ ●  They are the same things still (for matter and substance) which they were before, and yet be changed into another thing (in respect of the use, and quality.) An example, for better explications sake, and to take away all doubt in this matter, he giveth in a man, before he be consecrate, and sanctified, and after he is sanctified: Tu ipse eras etc. 
Ambros de iis qui M●ster. ca 9  Thou thyself waste (faith he) (before thou waste sanctified) but thou waste an old Creature▪ But after thou waste sanctified, or consecrated, thou begannest to be a new Creature. So that he is the same man still, as touching matter and substance, after his consecration, or sanctification, that he was before, albeit in quality, he be thus altered and changed. And this also witnesseth S. Chrysostome: Panis sanctificatus, dignus est dominici corporis appellatione, 
Chrysost. ad Casarium in Mat. hom. 15.  etsi natura panis in illo remanserit. The bread, after it is sanctified, or, consecrated, hath this dignity▪ to be called, the Lords Body, although (saith he) the nature of bread still remain in it. Theodoret, likewise, most plainly telleth us, that, Signa mystica, 
Theod. dialog. 1.2.  post sanctificationem, non recedunt a natura sua, manet enim in priori substantia, & figura, & forma: The mystical sign●s, after sanctification, or consecration, do not depart from their own nature, for they still remain in their former substance, figure, and form, Yea even Gelatius himself, a Bishop of Rome, saith also: 
G●las. cont. E●●tych.  that after consecration, Non desinit esse substantia panis, & natura vini: There ceaseth not to be the substance of bread, and the nature of wine. These so direct, and express speeches, and most evident testimonies of the ancient times, concurring with the Scriptures, be they not sufficient to satisfy all that be reasonable, and equal christians, that there is no transubstantiation in this Sacrament, or real bodily presence of Christ, to the bodily Mouth of the Receiver? For, that there is a real bodily presence of Christ, to be apprehended by the mouth of the Soul, that is, by the faith of the Receiver, is a thing granted, and so affirmed by S. Augustine, who expressly saith: 
August. in joh. tract. 26. & tract. 50. & tract. 25. Ambros. in Psal. ●▪ ●3.  that Faith is the mouth, whereby we eat and drink Christ, and the hand, which we stretch to heaven, to lay hold upon him sitting there▪ And so saith S Ambrose also: Fidei tactus est, qu● tangitur Christus: It is by faith that we touch Christ. Yea, this is so clear, as that the very Church of Rome itself, in ancient and former times, believed herein, as we do: as is manifest at large, in the second distinction of Consecration, and in the gloss likewise upon the Canon hoc est: where it is said: that the consecrated bread is called the Body of Christ, Non propriè, sed impropriè, nec rei veritate, sect significante mysterio: Not properly, but improperly, and not in the truth of the thing, but in a mystery, signifying it. Thus then, as touching this point, it is more than evident, that Rome is departed from that she was in former times But hence arose (moreover) their adoration of the bread (at their elevation) wherein most gross Idolatry is committed, inasmuch as it still remaineth Bread, after consecration, as you see. And I wonder they tremble not at this their most horrible Idolatry, so often as they think upon it, or use it: For, even the rudest, and most barbarous Heathens, were never such gross Idolaters, as to worship a piece of ●read, for God: Yea, even that Heathen man Cicero, could say: Quem tam amentem esse putas, qui id quo vesc●tur, 
Ci●er. de Nat. Deorum.  Deum creda esse? Whom do you think to be so mad, as to believe that which he eateth to be God? Is it not then high time for all that love their own salvation, utterly to forsake that monstrous and Idolatrous Church of Rome, which is become thus extremely degenerate, and deformed?  
6 But the Popish Church hath yet further mangled, and maime● this sacrament of the Lords supper most audaciously, and Sacrilegiously: in that, contrary to the Institution of Christ, and practise of the Apostolic & primitive Church, it depriveth the Lay people of receiving any consecrated wine. As though the Lay people might not receive aswell the consecrate wine, as the consecrate bread. Did not Christ say, Drink ye all of this? and doth not S. Paul show directly, that the Lay people in his time, 
Mat 26.27. 1. Cor. 11.26.27 28, 29, 30, 31.  did aswell drink of that Cup, as eat of that Bread? Yea, the late Council of Constance, doth confess, that in the Primitive Church, the Lay people did communicate in both kinds, 
Council Const. sess. 13.  and received aswell the wine as the bread, and yet for all that, do they there decree against it. Must not this needs b● the spirit of Antichrist, which dareth thus, in their Counsels, to contradict, and decree against the Institutions of Christ, and the manifest, and confessed practice of the primitive Church? For fear of spilling (some of them say) the Lay people may not receive the consecrated wine: As though the Priest might not also sometimes spill it, upon some accident, aswell as they: or, as though the like inconvenience of letting fall of the consecrated bread, by some accident, might not aswell be feared. But how cometh it to pass, that the Popish Council, and Church, taketh upon them to be, herein, wiser than Christ, and all his Apostles, and then the Primitive churches? For Christ ordained and so the Apostolic, and Primitive churches practised, and observed, that the Lay people should aswell drink of the consecrated wine, as eat of the consecrated bread, without any such fear of inconvenience, or inconveniences as the Popish church hath, sithence that time, found out & devised. But they say, that, per concomitantiam, by a concomitancy, forsooth, the blood is included in the body of Christ▪ so that if the lay people receive the bread, which (say they) after consecration, is the very natural body of Christ, they do therein withal, receive the blood of Christ, because in the body (say they) the blood also is included. And thus hath one error begotten another with them, as is indeed, the fashion of all errors to do: for, Vno absurdo dato, sequuntur infinita But if this their doctrine of concomitancy be true, then by the same reason also, it may suffice, the Priest to receive likewise the consecrated bread only, without the wine. And why then doth the Priest drink of the consecrated wine? for, is not the blood of Christ, per concomitantiam, by their concomitancy, aswell included in the bread (which they say, is the body of Christ) to him, as to the lay people? Can any tolerable, or allowable reason be yielded by your Priests, or Church, for these things? May they not then all be ashamed, thus grossly to abuse, and delude the world? But now, if that which is confessed to be the Primitive, and Apostolic Church, administered the Lords supper, to Lay people, in both kinds, namely, aswell in wine, as in bread: How can any suppose the Popish church, which hath decreed, and observeth the clean contrary, to be herein like unto that Primitive and Apostolic Church? And if that primitive and Apostolic Church, were (as questionless it was) guided by the holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth: must not your Priests, Teachers, and Church, observing, teaching, and decreeing the contrary, needs be supposed ●o be led, not by that, but by another spirit? And what other spirit than can it be, but the spirit of Error & of opposition to Christ, even the spirit of Antichrist? Yea▪ far degenerate, even in this point also, is the Church of Rome, from that it was in the days of Pope Gelasius, in whose time it was decreed, 
Comperimus de consecra. dist. 2.  that, All they should be excommunicated, that would receive but in one kind.  
7 But yet a further wound also hath the Papacy given to this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, by diverting and turning it from a communion of the faithful, into a private Mass, or into such an action, as wherein the Priest eats and drinks alone, without any Communicants with him: the people only looking on. Did Christ thus celebrate his Supper alone? and did the rest that were his Disciples, only look on, and not communicate? We know, that Christ willeth them, both to eat, and to drink, at that Table, and not to be lookers on only. And so in the Primitive, and Apostolic Churches, 
1. Cor. 10.17. 1. Cor. 11.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 etc.  not the Pastor alone, but the people also together with him, did communicate. And, in very deed, what is more absurd, then to bid men to a Supper, to look on only, and neither to eat, nor drink? S. Chrysostome complaineth of this corruption, beginning to creep in, in his time: O custom (saith he) O presumption. In vain is the daily Sacrifice offered, in vain do we stand at the Altar, 
Chrysost. homil. 3. in Eph.  seeing no body communicateth. And a little after, he saith thus: The Lord saith these things to us all, who stand by here, unwisely, and rashly: for every one that partakes not of the Mysteries, is unwise, and rash, in standing by. And he addeth further, saying: Tell me, If a man that is bidden to a feast, wash his hands, a●d be placed at the table, and yet eats not, doth he not wrong him that ●ad him? were it not better that such a one were not present? So thou art present, thou hast sung the Hymn, and in that thou hast not retired thyself with them that are unworthy, thou hast made profession, that thou art of the number of those that are wor●hie: How then dost thou stay, and not partake of the Table? thou art therefore unworthy also to partake of the Prayers. Yea, the rule even of the Church of Rome itself, in ancient time said to be Pope Agapets' (which is Dist. 2. de Consecra Can. peracta) is delivered in these words: When Consecration is finished, all that will not be put out of the Church door, must Communicate: for so the Apostles ordained, and so the Church of Rome observeth. Mark well these words, for thereby you see, how far differing at this day, the deformed and new Church of Rome, is, in this point also, from that it was in former, and ancient time. But again, can any be so besotted, as to think, that only by looking on, he communicateth, or that by the eating and drinking of another (as namely of the Priest) himself can be fed or nourished? Can the eating or drinking of another preserve your life, if yourself neither eat nor drink? Be not such gross impieties, and palpable absurdities, justly worthy, for ever to be abhorred and detested.   
FINIS SECUNDAE PARTIS.   

THE THIRD PART of the BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Authority of the Church is not above the Authority of the Scriptures: That Popish Rome, is the Whore of Babylon; and therein, of some special spiritual Whoredoms, or Idolatries, of the Romish Church.  
But yet when they further say, that the Authority of the Church is above the authority of the holy Scriptures: what is this but to exalt men & their authority, 
Plggh. hierar. lib. 1. cap 2 3 4. Cusan. Epist. 2. ad Bohemos. Confess. Patrocen●ens. cap. 15.  above the authority of God himself, and to magnify the creature above the creator, and to advance the wife in authority above her husband, 
Ephe 5 23, 24.  and his will, and commandment? The Church is the spouse of Christ, and therefore is to be in subjection to him, as to her head and husband, as the wife is to be in subjection to her head and husband; for so S. Paul declareth. If then the Church be, (as is evident) in subjection to Christ, it is clear, she can claim no superiority or authority over him, or his will, or word, in the Scriptures contained: yea, it is the note and mark of an harlot, and dishonest woman, to challenge and usurp authority over her husband. And therefore what doth this position else prove, but that the Romish Church, is, and must needs be, the proud, insolent, false, and dishonest Church, even the whore of Babylon, as she is called in the Revelation of S. john? 
Rev. 17.18.  For what may not that Church do, or dare to do, be it never so wicked, or ungodly, which holdeth her authority, to be above the authority of the Scriptures? Is not this a door, that openeth a way to all licentiousness, and wickedness, and to devise, decree, and do, in matters concerning Religion, whatsoever pleaseth herself? The right and true Church, is of another, and a better disposition, and is ever content and desirous, to live in subjection, and in obedience to Christ, and to his word, will, and pleasure, and accounteth that, as indeed it is, her greatest honour. And so also Christ jesus himself showeth, that this is her chaste and godly disposition: for thus he saith; My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, 
joh. ●●▪ 27, 18.  and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands. Mark that he saith, that his sheep hear His voice, and, follow Him: and therefore they follow not others, nor their own unbridled humours lusts, or pleasures, but desire and endeavour evermore to obey him, and to do as he hath willed and commanded them. Again, the Church of Christ, is expressly charged to observe all those things, which Christ jesus her Lord, head, and husband▪ h●th commanded; and therefore is to keep herself, 
Matt. 28.20.  within those her limits and bounds, and not licentiously to wander, or to go beyond them. Wherefore S. Paul also saith thus: that, the Lord jesus, shall show himself from heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming fire, 
2. Thess. 1.7, 8, 9, 10.  rendering vengeance unto them that know not God, and which obey not the Gospel of our Lord jesus Christ: which shall be punished with everlasting perdition, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his Saints, and to be made marvelous in all them that believe. Do you not here likewise see, how great subjection and obedience unto the Gospel of jesus Christ, and to his word, and will, is required of all men? Yea, what great peril, and punishment, they are to undergo, which will not subject themselves unto it: namely, that such shall be punished with everlasting perdition? Take heed therefore, and with as much good haste as ye can, declare your subjection and obedience to the Gospel, and word of God, in the sacred Scriptures contained, without any further neglect of it, or opposition to it. As for the reason that some make, that because the Church telleth us, that This is the Scripture; therefore the Authority of the Church is above the Scripture: it is but a very weak and an idle reason; and no better than if it should be said, that you had not known that this were the King, but that such a man told you, and showed him to you: Ergo this man is above the King. Were not this a very ridiculous and a most absurd inference? The Church is, by her Ministry, bound, and according to her duty, aught, to tell, testify, and declare the word of God, and what Scriptures be canonical, and what not, & to teach the truth in those Scriptures contained: but this office showeth rather service and subjection in the Church, than any Sovereignty or Superiority, in her, above the Scriptures. Scholars in a School, can tell a stranger, who is the Master of the School: yet is not their authority therefore, above the authority of their Master. Whilst then the Popish Church holdeth, that her authority, is above the authority of the Scriptures, it is manifest, she is not guided (as she vaunteth) by the holy Ghost, but, chose, with a spirit of pride, and licentiousness, and of opposition against God, and his authority, word and will in those his Scriptures declared. And what then can such a spirit be, but the spirit, in very deed, of Antichrist? and consequently, what can such a Church be, but the erring and Antichristian Church?  
2 For further proof whereof, give me leave now, to show unto you, that The Popish City of Rome (from whence, as from their mother Church, all Papists receive their bane) is that very woman, even that Whore of Babylon (as I said before), 
Rev. 17.1.  which is mentioned in the Revelation of S. john: with whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication, 
Verse 2.  and with the wine of whose fornication, the Inhabitants of the earth, have been made drunken. 
Verse 4.  Which Woman, is there further said to be arrayed in purple, and scarlet, and gilded with gold, and precious stones, and to have also, outwardly, a Cup of gold in her hand (full nevertheless, within, of abominations and filthiness, of her fornications), and all this, to entice and allure Lovers and friends unto her. Now, if we would know certainly, and assuredly, who this woman was, which S. john thus saw in vision, the Angel telleth us precisely, saying: 
Rev. 17. v. 18.  The woman which thou sawest, is the great City, that reigneth over the Kings of the earth: But the great City, that then reigned over the Kings of the earth, in the days of S. john, and had the Empire, was not Constantinople, nor any other city, but only the city of Rome, as all men know; and therefore only the city of Rome, and not any other city, is, and must needs be there meant, under the name of the woman, there otherwise called the Whore of Babylon. But, for more explication who this woman was, it is there further said: that, there were seven hills or Mountains, whereon the woman sat: Now it is clear, 
Rev. 17. ver. 9  that there was, then, no city in the world, noted & known, by these seven hills or mountains, but Rome only; and therefore doth Virgil say of it: Pulcherrima Roma, 
Geor●  Septem quae una sibi muro circumdedit arces, That Rome only, hath seven hills within her brickwall. For which cause also, 
〈…〉 lib. 5. the ●●ng lat. calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eleg▪ 10. lib. 3.  it is commonly termed Septicollis, that is, the seven held City. And Propertius also saith of it, that it is: Septem urbs alta jugis, toti quae praesidet orbi; A City high with seven Hills, that ruleth over all the world. The names also of the seven hills, are to this day known, namely, Palatinus, Caelius, Capitolinus (otherwise called, janiculus), Aventinus, Quirinalis, Viminalis, and Esquilinus. 
Bellarmine him●selfe lib. 3. de Pont. Rom. cap. 13. confesseth per Meretricem intelligi Roman, that by the whore of Babylon Rome is understood. & lib. 2. c. 2. & Lessius pag. 73. & 82. & Riber. in Apoc. 14 n. 27.28.29.30. & Viegas in Apoc. 17 comment. 1. sect. 3. Maluenda de Antich. lib. 4. c. 3. etc.  Seeing then there was, in that time of S. john, no city in the world, that was noted and known by the seven Hills, and which also in those days, reigned over the Kings of the earth, and had the Empire, but Rome only: even by these two marks and demonstrations conjoined, it is infallibly manifest, that not any other city in the world, but Rome only, is, and must needs be the Woman and whore of Babylon, there described. And this is so clear and evident, that the Papists themselves confess it to be Rome. But then for an evasion, Bellarmine, & some other Papists, say, that, thereby only Heathenish Rome, and such as it was in the time of Infidelity▪ and before it embraced the Gospel and Religion of Christ, is signified and intended: but how untrue and vain an evasion this is, let all men judge, that have any judgement or indifferency in them. For first, why is that woman, that is, the city of Rome, there called an Whore, but to show, that she was once an honest, chaste, and obedient spouse of Christ, and that she afterward revolted and became an Whore, and so fell from that obedience, saith, and true Religion, which she had formerly professed, and embraced? For is any called an Whore, but she that was once an honest woman? And doth not that word, Whore, import, that she was now at this time, when she thus became an Whore, departed from that her former faith, and fidelity? And indeed, most true it is, that the city of Rome, did once embrace the faith and religion of Christ, and was an honest, dutiful, and true spouse, unto him, as S. Paul himself, 
Rom. 1.7▪  and other Ecclesiastical Histories do witness: But, afterward, in process of time, Ambition, Pride, Covetousness, and Licentiousness, growing in the Church, and Churchmen▪ (and an Apostasy, or departure, from the right faith and religion, 
2. 〈◊〉▪ 3 etc.  being also foretold to come into the world, for the neglect and contempt of the Gospel) it came to pass, that the once faithful and Christian city of Rome, departed from that her former true faith and obedience, and became an Harlot, or Whore: so that now, and long sithence, it may be said of Rome, as God himself sometime spoke of Jerusalem, 
Esa. 1.21.  saying; How is the faithful City, become an Harlot? It being therefore manifest, and a thing confessed, even by the Papists themselves, that by this Woman, the city of Rome is intended: thereupon must needs be further granted, that, inasmuch as the Woman afterward became an Whore, that is, that, Rome, afterward became an Adulteress, against Christ, her head, and husband; not the Heathen and Infidel city of Rome, but Rome, after it had once received the Christian faith and religion, and afterward fell from it, to follow her own false doctrine and religion, is to be understood. For how could the city of Rome whilst it was Heathenish, and before it ever embraced Christianity, be properly or rightly termed, an Harlot, or Whore, that is, a violater or breaker of any faith, formerly plighted by her unto Christ jesus, when as yet (whilst she was Heathen) she had plighted no such faith unto him? The city of Rome therefore, which S. john thus saw, beforehand in vision, to be such a one as should afterwards become an Whore, and a great Whore, even the whore of Babylon, (as she is entitled) must needs be intended of Papal, or, Popish Rome: for with the Heathen Rome (that had never betrothed herself to Christ, and consequently could, for that time, be no Whore or violater of her faith unto him) it hath no fit or apt coherence and agreement. Secondly, as touching the Heathenish estate of Rome, in that respect, and for that purpose, S. john needed not any Revelation at all: for he knew it otherwise, sufficiently, (even by his own banishment into Pathmos, and other daily experiments) that Rome, was then Heathenish, and governed by Heathen Emperors, and was, by that means, a great persecutor of the Saints and Martyrs of jesus: but that the same city, should be afterward governed by Popes, and so fall into the spiritual whoredom of Popery, that he could not foresee, or foreknow, or foretell, without a Revelation, and therefore hath he a Revelation given him of that matter. And hereat the Text also saith; that He wondered, and that, with great marvel. This great wondering of S. john, also, Thirdly, 
Rev. 17. ●.  declareth what manner of Rome, this was: for, even thereby likewise appeareth, that not the Heathen city of Rome, (at whose persecutions, they being so frequent and common in those days, he had no cause at all to wonder) but the once true Christian city of Rome, which afterward revolted from that her true Christianity, to her Antichristian and persecuting courses, (whereat there was, indeed, just cause to wonder) is the thing there meant and intended. Fourthly, Rome governed by the Emperors, is, in that Chapter, distinguished from Rome as it was afterward governed by the Popes: yea, Rome, as it was governed by the seven heads, or principal Rulers of it (from the beginning of it, to the end) is there deciphered. For this whore, or, whorish woman, is not only there said, to sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (with which kind of colour, 
Rev. 17.3▪  the Romish Popes, aswell as the Roman Emperors, were and are delighted, as appeareth in the Decret. dist. 96.) but it is there further said: that this beast, that is, this State, or, Dominion (for so by the Beast, is understood, a State or Dominion, as afterward is showed) which thus bore up and supported this woman, (the city of Rome) had seven Heads, & ten Horns: The seven Heads, 
Rev. 17.3.7.  be, in the Text itself, expounded to be, seven Hills or mountains, which are before named and mentioned: 
Rev. 17 9  And they be also there further said, to be seven Kings, that is, seven sorts of principal or sovereign Rulers, whereby Rome hath been governed; 
These five, doth Livy thus reckon, initio libri sexti And Messala Corvinus lib. de progen. August. Caesar. And C●●nelius Tacitus, Annalium initio, lib. 1. And Onuphrius also praefat 〈…〉 Fast. lib. 〈…〉 Augustinum. R●v. 17.10.  namely, by Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Dictator's, Tribunes Military with consular Authority, Emperors, Popes. Five of these, were fallen (saith the Text) in the days of S. john; namely, Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Dictator's, Tribunes: and one is (saith he) that is, the government by Emperors: For then, in S. john's time, was Rome governed by Emperors: and one is yet to come, (saith the Text) that is, the government by Popes. For as yet, the government of the city of Rome by Popes, was not come to pass in the days of S. john, but came in, afterward. And for the better comfort of God's people, that should be molested, disquieted, and persecuted, by this seventh head, that is, by the government of Rome by Pope's▪ it is said, that he shall continue but a short space: For although the government of Rome by Popes, be and hath continued diverse hundreth years, which may seem to flesh and blood, and to a carnal and worldly understanding, to be very long, yet in God's reckoning and esteem, it is but short, and of little continuance; 
2. Pet. 3.8, 9 Psal. 90.14.  inasmuch as, a thousand years, with God, are but as one day, as S. Peter, and the Psalmist, do both witness: as also they are said to be but short, in respect of Eternity, which Gods children do chiefly respect, and in comparison whereof they set light by, and little esteem all worldly things. As for the ten Horns, they be also expressly expounded in the Text itself to be ten Kings, 
Rev. 17.12.16, 17.  which having formerly given the help and power of their Kingdom unto the Beast, and in defence of the Whore, should afterward dislike, abhor and hate her, make her desolate and naked, and burn her with fire. Who these ten Kings be in particular, the Event will best declare, when this Prophecy, in this point, shall be actually accomplished. In the mean time, observe, that this very Beast with seven heads, and ten horns, which S. john saw in vision, is now, at this time, in this chapter of Rev. 17. considerable as he was the eight head, and one of the seven: for so it is directly manifest by the very words of the Text itself, saying thus to S. john: The Beast that thou hast seen, 
Rev. 17.11.  was, and is not &c. And the Beast that was, and is not, 
Rev. 17.3.7.8.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Is octavus est. s. Rex. he is the eight, that is, the eight King, or the eight head.  is the Eight, and is one of the Seven. You see then, that this Beast, with seven heads, and ten horns, was now at this time, much wasted in the number of his heads, they all being spent gone, and abolished, except only, this One, which is the E●ght, and one of the seven: for the Whole Beast is here reckoned, and expressly affirmed to be at this time only, he which was this Eight Head. Let us then consider, who is the eight Head of the Beast, that is, of the Roman State, or State of the City of Rome. The Text itself telleth us, that it is one of the seven. And indeed it is one of the seven, and the very seaventh. For. Popes, who be the seaventh Head, (whereby that City of Rome, now is, and of long time hath been governed) is also the eight: because the Pope comprehending in himself, a double Princehood, or Sovereignty: For he, 〈◊〉 (as Bellarmine, and other Papists affirm of him) Summus Princeps spiritualis, and, Summus Princeps temporalis▪ 
Bellarm. de Rome pont. lib. 5. ca 1.  a Sovereign Spiritual Prinee, and, a Sovereign Temporal Prince. And the one, namely, his temporal principality or Sovereignty, some of them say, he hath directly from Christ: and othersome of them (as namely Bellarmine, and those that take part with him) do hold, that he hath it not directly, but indirectly, and in ordine ad spiritualia, as they speak: that is, 
Bellarm. de Rom. pont. lib. 5. cap▪ 6.  so far forth, as it is for the good of Souls, and for the advancement of a Catholic cause. But whether directly, or indirectly, it is agreed by them all, that he hath it. And consequently, Popes, in respect of this their double Sovereignty, appear to be both the seaventh and eight head of the Beast. By the power of which two Swords, which he hath gotten, in the highest, and supremest degree, it is that he is the better able, and very sufficiently furnished, to be (as he is also called) the Bea●t, that beareth up, or supporteth that Whore of Babylon. Yea, 
Rev. 17 3·7.  all those six heads of Rome (namely, Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Tribunes, Dictator's, and emperor's) being gone and passed (for the Emperors also have ceased long since, to have any headship, or Sovereign rule there) what remaineth, but that the Popes (who have succeeded the Emperors, at Rome, and be the present Head of it, bearing the Sovereignty there) be, and must needs be, the seaventh, and therewithal the eight and last Head of the Beast? All this while then, I trust ye perceive, that seeing Rome is here described, only as it was under the government of him that is the eight Head, therefore it cannot possibly be intended of Heathen Rome: for Rome, whilst it was heathen, was under the government of the heathen Emperors, and far remote from the times of the government of it, by this eight Head. Yea, seeing Rome is here discovered, and described as it was under the Popes, who be the seventh, and the eight, and so the last head of that City: It must needs be granted, that not Heathen, but Papal Rome, is there clearly, and undoubtedly intended. And it is there further said to be the Beast, 
Rev. 17.8.  that was, and is not, and yet Is: because, whilst the Emperors were Heads of Rome, the Imperial, and supreme Authority, was, in the Emperors: but afterward, the Emperors ceased to be heads of Rome, or to have any Sovereignty or supremacy there, and then it was not in them. But, in conclusion, the Popes became the Head of Rome, exercising there the Sovereignty; & than it was in them, and so continueth, and yet is: So that in respect of the diverse changes, and mutations that it had, it is said to be the Beast that was, and Is not, and yet Is. fively, remember, that it is confessed by the Adversaries themselves, 
Bellarm. de Rom. pont. lib. 2. c. 2. Lesle. pag. 72. Rib. in Apoc. 14.11.27, 28, 29, 30. V●●g. in Apoc. 17 come. 1. sec. 3. M●luend. de Anti●h. lib. 4. c. 3. Rev. 1●. 5. 2. Thes. 2.7. etc.  that by Babylon, mentioned in the Revelation, the City of Rome is understood: Whereupon must further be granted, that it is that Babylon, that is, that Rome, in whose forehead was a name written, A Mystery etc. which mystery, S. Paul calleth, A Mystery of Iniquity: And it is so called, because it should hardly be discerned to be Iniquity, inasmuch, as it should outwardly carry such a goodly face, pretence, and show of piety, sanctity, and christianity with it. But the Heathen City of Rome, had not this mystical, hidden, and covert Iniquity in it, but professed open enmity, and direct hostility against Christ, and christianity: and therefore also, not the Heathen and Infidel Rome, but the Papal or, Popish Rome, is, and must needs be there intended. Sixtly, the Babylon, that is, the Rome, there spoken of, is said, to have Merchants that sold their wares, and amongst the rest of their merchandizes, and wares, there is express mention made, not only of temporal commodities, 
Rev. 18.11, 12, 13. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & of the Bodies of men, but of spiritual also, namely, even of the Souls of men: that they also are there to be bought & sold. For there it a plain & evident distinction, in the text itself, between the Bodies & Souls of men, and therefore they must not be confounded, or supposed all one. Now then, I pray tell me, did ever heathen Rome use this trade, of merchandizing men's Souls? or, in what other Rome, than the Popish, have the souls of men been bought & sold? For, be not their Priests, jesuits, Friars, and such other of that counterfeit holy order, the men that are employed, as Merchants & Factors, in such wicked merchandizes? Yea, doth not every 〈◊〉 among them, take upon him to forgive sins, very boldly? I know, that the Ministers of Christ, have power and authority given them, to remit, and forgive sins: But these Priests of theirs, be not the Ministers of Christ (whatsoever they pretend) but the Ministers of Antichrist: and therefore they have no such authority from Christ, to forgive sins, but do only cousin and abuse men's souls therein. For the Pope, from whom they derive their authority, and ordination to that their Priesthood, is the very grand Antichrist, as doth already, but yet more fully afterward, in good measure, shall appear. And yet, even the authority also which Christ's Ministers themselves have received herein, is to forgive sins, not absolutely, & as pleaseth themselves, but ministerially only, and declaratively, & that to such persons, as by warrant from God's word be allowed to receive it: that is to say, they are to declare & pronounce remission of sins, to all and every such person, or persons, as unfainedlie believe in jesus Christ, as in their whole and only Saviour and Redeemer, renouncing utterly, all confidence in their own merits, and righteousness, and together with a true and lively faith, have an earnest sorrow and repentance for their sins formerly passed, and a purpose and endeavour of amendment for the time to come. And so S. Hierome (upon Matth. 16.) expoundeth it, and saith: that the Ministers of Christ have received power to bind, and to lose, that is, (saith he) to show or declare, who they be that be bound, or loosed, in the sentence of God, and before his Tribunal, and judgement seat▪ And so do the Schoolmen also interpret it: and in all reason it must be so. For if any Minister shall declare or pronounce remission of sins, to an ungodly, and impenitent, or unbelieving person, or to any whosoever, whom God's word doth not warrant remission of sins unto, every man will grant, that such a one hath not remission of sins at God's hand, notwithstanding the Ministers such pronouncing of remission of them. So that, if they will have that to be bound in heaven, which they do bind on earth, and that to be loosed in heaven, which they do loose on earth, they must be careful to pronounce, both remission, and retaining of sins, to such persons only, as they be due unto, by the warrant of God's word, For if they shall bind the godly, penitent, and believing Soul, whom God looseth, and absolveth: or if they shall lose or absolve, the wicked, ungodly, impenitent, and unbelieving person, whom God, by the tenor of his word, bindeth, and forgiveth not: such binding and losing, is not warranted, nor ratified in heaven. Howbeit, most unreasonable, and unsatiable hath been the covetous merchandizing, of men's souls, in the Popish Rome, not only this way, and by buying and selling of Pardons, & Indulgences; but by buying and selling also of Popedomes, Bishoprickes, Cardinalships, abbaties, Benefices, and such like. Yea, from whence else arose the Proverb, so long used in Popery, viz. No penny, no Pater noster, but from the intolerable greedy covetousness of the Popish Priests, and Clergy, who would do nothing without money, and for money seemed to do any thing? So that these Romish Merchants be those, 
2. Pet 2. 1.2·3. Claud. Espenc. in Tit. 1.  that through covetousness, with feigned words, do merchandise men, as S, Peter foretold they should; and as Claudius Espencaelus himself declareth. But moreover, whilst those their filthy Stews, be by public authority allowed or tolerated amongst them, for rent, or money: do they not sell and merchandise, both bodies and souls of men and women? Be not also Masses, Trentals, Dirges, Requiems, Orisons, and Prayers, deliverance from supposed Purgatory pains, the supposed merits of the Saints and Martyrs, the merits of Christ, dispensations against God's word, yea, and the joys of heaven, and all to be bought and sold in the Popish Church? S. Bernard (treating of the Psalm, which beginneth, Whoso dwelleth) speaketh on this manner, of that Church: The dignities and promotions of the Church, are sought after, for filthy lucre's sake, and to keep revell-rout withal: and for these rooms, and their revenues, they labour and contend in very shameless manner. And again, in his Sermon of the Conversion of Paul, treating of the government of the Church, under the Pope of Rome, he uttereth the like matter. And upon the Canticles, Sermon 33. speaking further of the Romish Prelates, and Clergy, he saith thus of them: They bear out themselves (saith he) i● an honourable port, with the goods of the Church: whereunto notwithstanding, themselves bring no credit, or worship at all. Hence cometh that whorish tricking, that Stagelike attire▪ that Princelike pomp, which daily we see in them. Hence proceeds the gold they use, in their Bridles, Saddles, and Spurs, insomuch as their Spurs are more glittering, than their Altars. Hence came their stately Tables, their variety of Dishes, and quaffing Cups. Hence issued their Iunk●tting Banquets, their Drunkenness, and Surfeits. Hence followed their Viols, Harps, and Shawms. Hence flowed their Cellars, and Pantries, so stuffed with wines, and Viands of all sorts. Hence got they their Lee pots, and painting Boxes: And hence had they their Purses, so well lined with coin. Oh, such men they will needs be, and yet they are our great Masters in Israel, as Deans, Archdeacon's, Bishops, and Archbishops: These works of theirs, are little inferior to that filthiness, which they commit in Darkness. And in his 4. Book, De Consideratione, unto Eugenius, Bishop of Rome, after that he hath described and detested the pomp of Romish Bishops, he shutteth up the matter, in these words, saying thus unto him: Herein thou showest thyself to have succeeded, not Peter, but Constantine the Emperor. Peter is he, who never knew, what belonged to such solemn showing of himself abroad in braveries of precious stones, or silks, or gold, or riding upon a white Palfrey, or being guarded with a troop of attendants, etc. Agreeably also whereunto speaketh S. Hillary (contra Auxentium) of the state of Antichrist, saying thus: These fellows, do ambitiously affect the continuance and majestical port of the secular power: and so think to uphold the flourishing estate of the Church, by a show of worldly Pomp. Again, he saith: They make great account of this, to be greatly accounted of in the world. And therefore doth S. Bernard, again, in his Epistle 230, further make this accusation, and exclamation, against those Bishops of Rome, saying thus unto them: At first, indeed, ye began to play the Lords over the Clergy, 
1. Pet. ●. 3.  contrary to the counsel of Peter: And within a while after, 
2. Cor. 1.24.  contrary to the advice of Paul (Peter's fellow-Apostle) ye would have dominion over the faith of all men. But ye stay not there, ye have taken upon you more, namely, to have a peremptory power in religion itself. What more remaineth, wherein ye might further encroach, except ye will go about to bring the very Angels also, under your subjection etc. Now, how should all this pomp, & pride, in the Pope and Popish Clergy▪ & so much licentiousness withal permitted to the people of their Church, be maintained and upheld, without this covetous and greedy kind of merchandizing? Who then doth not see, that this Rome mentioned in the Revelation, to be such a one, as did merchandise the souls of Men, must needs be intended of Popish Rome, and not of Heathen Rome? 
Rev 18.15.  For all men know, that the Heathen Rome, never used this kind of Trade, namely, of merchandizing men's souls. Seventhly, the Rome there mentioned, is showed to be such a one as caused or made the Kings and inhabitants of the earth, 
Rev. 14.8. Rev. 17.2. Rev. 13.16.  to drink of the wine of her fornication, that is, of the pleasant seeming, but indeed filthy and poisoned Religion, and so to take upon them the Mark of the Beast: But the Heathenish Rome, where she conquered, and prevailed, and brought people in subjection under her, urged not nor enforced her religion, upon those nations or people, which she subdued, but gave leave unto them still to retain and hold that religion of their own, which formerly they had; 
De Pet. & Paul. S●r●●. 1.  as even Leo Bishop of Rome, himself declareth, and as is apparent by the country of the jews, and by other countries also, which she brought into subjection. Whereupon followeth, that not the Heathenish Rome, which allowed the religion of other countries beside her own, but the Papal Rome, which alloweth no other religion but her own, is, & must needs be there intended. Eightly, the Babylon, that is, the Rome, there mentioned, is such a Rome that shall be so desolated and destroyed, as that it shall never be builded again, or inhabited any more, as is very fully evident by the 18. chapter of the Revelation: And this is so clear, that Suarez himself confesseth and teacheth it. 
Rev. 18.14.21, 22, 23. Suarez. lib. 5. cap. 7. nu. 11. & cap. 21. nu. 6.  But the Heathenish Rome, governed by Heathen Emperors, was never yet so destroyed: yea, after that the city of Rome was destroyed by the Goths, and Vandals, and others, yet it was rebuilded again and reinhabited, and as yet it continueth, a city builded and inhabited, to this day. The Rome therefore, that is here described and showed to be such a Rome, as shall be so desolated and destroyed, as that it shall never be inhabited any more by men, cannot possibly be imagined to be Heathen Rome, but chose, must needs be supposed that which is now the Papal or Popish Rome: for there is no Heathen Rome remaining so to be destroyed. I hope therefore by this time, ye fully perceive, that it is not the Heathen Rome (as Bellarmine and some other of your Teachers, would blindfold the world) but the Papal, or Popish Rome, which in that place of the Revelation of S. john▪ is intended and described. Yea further, if ye would have Heathen Rome to be there described, then must ye make Antichrist to be, come, in the days and times of the Heathen Emperors: which is contrary to your own positions, and opinions, who say and hold (though most untruly) that he is not yet come. Lastly, remember, that these things which be mentioned concerning the Whore of Babylon, be brought in, and mentioned, 
Rev. 11.15. Rev. 17.1.  after that the seventh Angel had blown his Trumpet: and therefore also, were long after the time of the Heathen Emperors.  

An Appendix to the former Chapter.  
NOw because Popish Rome is so directly affirmed to be an Whore, and a great Whore, and the mother of whoredoms, and abominations of the earth: not to speak any more of her gross bodily whoredoms & filthinesses, wherein she doth excel: give me leave here to speak a few words of some of her spiritual whoredoms and adulteries, that is to say, of some of her Idolatries, that so the truth of this matter may the better appear. First then as touching her most detestable Idolatry, committed in adoring and worshipping of a piece of bread, I mean their consecrated bread, in stead of the true God, that made heaven and earth, I have before spoken, and I do here only put you in remembrance of it again, that ye may for ever hereafter tremble, and fear to commit it. For whereas ye say, that ye take it not for bread any longer after consecration, but for jesus Christ his very natural body, by way of Transubstantiation, consider that, that will not be sufficient to clear you: yea, it is before showed unto you, that in so taking it, ye do utterly and most grossly mistake, contrary not only to all sense and reason, but contrary to all right faith and true religion also▪ And therefore your sin of a most abominable Idolatry, cannot be so execused, but is rather so much the more aggravated by such an untrue and a most ungodly construction and supposition. 
Aug. de doctrine. Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9 & 10. & 16.  Ea demum est miserabilis animae servitus, signa pro rebus accipere: That is (saith S. Augustine) a miserable servitude of the soul, to take the signs, for the things signified by them.  
2 A second Idolatrous point in the Popish Church, is the making of Images or visible forms of God. For what? Is not God a spirit? 
joh. 4.24.  How then can any fashion him by any bodily shape, or visible likeness? Is he not also an eternal and invisible Spirit? 
joh. 1.18.  What man then can make an Image and visible similitude of him that is eternal, and whom he never saw? Again, is not God incomprehensible, and infinite? Do not I fill heaven and earth, 
jere. 23.24.  saith the Lord? And doth not King Solomon say: 
1. Kin 8.27.  That the heaven of heavens, are not able to contain him? And yet will silly men, in the vanity of their foolish thoughts, presume to comprehend so almighty and incomprehensible a Majesty, within the narrow compass of an Image made by themselves? S. Paul showeth it to be the error of the Heathen, to take upon them, to make Images of God, and calleth them fools for their labour: When they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools (saith he): 
Rom. 1.22.23.  for they turned the glory of the incorruptible God, to the similitude of an Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things. If the Heathens were counted and called, Fools, (as ye see they were) for taking upon them to make Images or visible similitudes of the invisible and incorruptible God, and justly did deserve to be so called and reputed for that high indignity, and dishonour, offered to so great and incomparable a Majesty: what ought Papists to think of themselves, in this case? Notwithstanding they say, they do it, for a remembrance, and to put them in mind of God, and notwithstanding whatsoever devotion, or good intent or meaning they pretend. For no doubt, even those Heathens likewise pretended a devotion, and a good intent, and meaning in this matter, aswell as Papists: otherwise they would never have done it. But yet further, even God himself doth expressly dislike, that any should be so bold as to attempt to make any Image or visible shape of him at all; reproving the jews, for so doing, & saying for that end and purpose, thus: Who is like unto me? And again he saith: 
Esay 44.7.  To whom will ye make me like, or make me equal, or compare me that I should be like him? 
Esay 46.5.  All they that make an Image (saith he) are vanity, and their delectable things shall nothing profit. 
Esay 44.9.  And again he saith: All that are of the fellowship thereof, 
Esay 44.11.  shall be confounded: for the workmen themselves are men. In vain therefore, is that distinction, ye have, between an Idol and an Image, saying: That, an Idol, is, of a false or feigned thing, or which revera is not, or hath no being at all: and that, an Image, is of a true thing, or of such a thing as revera is. For, you see by the premises, that even the portraiture or fashioning of a true thing, as namely, even of the true God, by any similitude or likeness whatsoever made by men, is utterly condemned. Yea, S. Stephen also confuteth that distinction: for, even the golden Calf, which the Israelites made, although they made it to worship the true God by, is by him expressly called, 
Act. 7 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  an Idol, Act. 7.41. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè formam sonat: ab eo, per diminutionem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deductum, aeque apud nos, formulam facit. Igitur, 
Tertull. lib. de Idolat. cap. 3.  omnis forma, vel formula, Idolum, se dici exposcit. Idos in Greek (saith Tertullian) signifieth a form, or figure: from whence the diminutive▪ Idolon, is derived: which signifieth, a little form or figure. Every form therefore, or figure, requireth to be called an Idol. Howsoever then, in French, or English speech, the words, Idol and Image, may, by reason of use and custom, sometime differ: yet in the Greek tongue from whence the word, Idol, is originally derived, there appeareth to be no such d●fference. But hereof there needeth not to be any further dispute, because God himself hath directly forbidden, not only Idols, but all Similitudes also, or, Likenesses, whatsoever, made and erected by men, in the way of Religion. Thou shalt make thee, 
Exod. 20.4.  (saith he) no graven Image, nor any similitude of things that are in heaven above, nor that are in the earth beneath, nor that are in the waters underneath the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. In which words, you see two things directly enjoined: the one, that no man presume to make any Images or similitudes, of God: the other, that if he have made any such Image or similitude, that he proceed not further in sinning, by bowing down to them, or serving them. Agreeably whereunto, is likewise that which Moses spoke, as it were expounding that Commandment unto the Israelites, and saying thus unto them: The Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire, 
Deut. 4.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  and ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, save a voice: Then he declared unto you his Covenant, which he commanded you to do, even the Ten Commandments, and written them upon two Tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me that same time, that I should teach you ordinances, which ye should observe in the land whither ye go to possess it: Take therefore good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no Image in the day that the Lord spoke unto you, in Horeb▪ out of the midst of the fire) that ye corrupt not yourselves, and make not a graven Image, or representation of any figure, whether it be the likeness of male, or female the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, or the likeness of any feathered soul that flieth in the air, or the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the earth, or the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth. Mark well this reason of Moses, that because they only heard a voice of God, but saw no Image or Similitude, of him, therefore they should take heed that they be not so presumptuous, as to make any visible Image or similitude of him. Theodoret also saith: 
Theod in Deu●. quaest. 1.  Deus ab iis fieri, qui u●l●us creaturae imagine, effingunt Creatorem: that they make gods, which fashion the Creator, by the image or likeness of any creature. And S. Augustine saith likewise: that, Dei praecepto prohibetur aliqua, in figmentis hominum, Dei similitudo: 
August Ep. 119. ad jannar.  By God's commandment is forbidden, any similitude of God, devised by men. Although therefore ye allege and say, that God in ancient time, appeared in the similitude of a Man; and that the Holy Ghost also appeared upon Christ, in the similitude of a Dove; all this maketh nothing for you: for God might appear in what similitude he pleased; and who shall or can forbid him, by any law, to do whatsoever he pleaseth? But he hath given a law, and a commandment to us (his creatures) whereby we stand bound (though he be free) tha● we shall not make any Image, or, similitude of him: and therefore our duty is, and accordingly our care must be, to do as he hath enjoined and commanded us, and not licentiously, in matters concerning him and his religion, to devise, invent, and do as we list ourselves.  
3 But they not only make Images, or visible shapes, of the every where present, invisible, and incomprehensible God: but they proceed further in this their boldness, and do also worship God in, or, by, those Images, after that they have made them. It was one great wickedness, to be so audacious as to make an Image, or similitude of God, and it is another to worship him after that sort, in or by an Image after it is made. So this is a third point of Idolatry, wherein the Popish Church is intolerably faulty. For, God will be worshipped as himself hath prescribed in his word, and not according to men's fancies and devises. Yea S. Paul expressly condemneth all ethelothreskeian, that is, will-worship, 
Col. 2.23.  or worshipping of God according to men's pleasures and conceits. And therefore, Vetuit Deus, non solum Imaginem aliquam adorari, sed etiam seipsum adorari in Imagine: 
Abulens. in Deut. 4.  God hath forbidden not only an Image to be worshipped, but himself also to be worshipped, in an Image, saith Abulensis. Agreeably whereunto, S, Ambrose also saith: 
Ambr. Epist. 31. ad Valentinian.  Non vult se Deus in lapidibus coli: God will not have himself to be worshipped in stones: For (as Christ himself also teacheth) God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
joh. 4.24.  Yea, their doings in this point, be as gross Idolatry, as was that of the Israelites in the time of Moses, 
Exod. 32.1, 2, 3, 4. etc.  when they together with Aaron the high Priest, made the golden Calf, and worshipped God in that Image, which themselves had made. For ye must not think them to be so senseless, or sottish, as that they did believe, that very Image, itself to be God. I hope ye will suppose, that Aaron the high Priest, being one of them, and the rest being the people of God, that had so lately, even a little before, heard God speaking unto them, were at least as wise as ye are, to know, that the Image which themselves had made, could not be God: and therefore albeit they fell down before that Image, yet they worshipped not the very Image for God, but God in the Image, as ye likewise say ye do. Your cases then being both alike, how can ye choose but confess, that yours is as plain and as flat Idolatry, as was theirs? The Scripture calleth all Idols, or, Images, that are made to worship God in, by the name of Gods: thereby declaring, how odious a thing in God's sight this is: whilst he accounteth it, a forsaking of him the true God, and a betaking of themselves to other gods, to deal with him in that sort; taking it for no worshipping of him at all, whatsoever men pretend, or say they do intend, in that case. And indeed when GOD will have no such worshipping of him, in and by an Image, but rejecteth and refuseth to take it, for any worship of him: the worship that in that case is performed, then remaineth and resteth (as it must needs) wholly, and entirely upon the Image itself: For which cause it is, that they are called Gods, as I said before. And therefore also doth God, bring in the people of Israel, after the making of that their Image, and their intending to worship him in that sort, as if they had said, These be thy gods, O Israel, 
Exod. 2●●●.  which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. For, in God's esteem, they worshipped not him, nor offered unto him, but worshipped their Moulten Calf, and offered thereunto, 
Psal. 106.20.  whatsoever they pretended, or intended. For, that Aaron, the high Priest, and the rest of the people of Israel, did, for their parts, intent to worship, by that means, the true God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt: besides these words, 
Nehem. 9.18.  which declare so much: it is further manifest, by that speech of Aaron, which he uttered, saying: To morrow, shall be the holy day unto jehovah: For thereby is evident (inasmuch, 
Exo●▪ 32.4, 5. Ferus the jesuit confesseth and teacheth, that the Israelites intended to worship the 〈◊〉 God, in the Calf which Aaron made, & showeth his reasons for it, upon Act. 17. Exod. 32.7.30, 31. Exod. 32.10, 11 12. etc. In the two Calves likewise made by jeroboam (in 1. Kin. 12.28.) was the true God also intended to be worshipped: as josephus himself testifieth. Antiquit. jud. li. 8. c. 3. and yet was it Idolatry for all that. Clem. Recog. ad ●ac. lib. 5.  as jehovah, is the name proper to the true God, Exod. 15.3. Esay 42.8.) that the worshipping, and offering of burnt Offerings, and peace Offerings, the next day, before that Idol, or Image, namely, before the molten, and golden Calf, was in their purposes, and intentions, meant, and intended to the true God, JEHOVAH: albeit, God, for his part, did not so account of it, nor take it so; but refused it, as a thing odious, and abominable in his sight: Insomuch, that this their pretended worship of God, by an Image, is called in the Text, A grievous crime, a great sin, a corrupting of their ways, a making of themselves gods of gold, and a thing, so highly offensive unto him, as that he was exceedingly kindled in wrath against them, and sent deserved punishment upon them for the same. Take heed therefore of this grievous sin, and know, that your pretended good meanings, and intentions, be in this case, no more allowable in God's sight, nor can any more serve to excuse or free you from Idolatry, or from incurring Gods just displeasure for the same, than did, or could the same pretences, & intentions in the Israelites. Yea, your Idolatry herein, is not only as gross, and as inexcusable, as that of the Israelites; but as gross also, as was that which was amongst some of the Heathens themselves: for even they (aswell as Papists) could, and did say (as Clemens relateth their words) Nos ad honorem invisibilis Dei, visibiles Imagines adoramus. We, in honour of the invisible God, do worship visible Images. And S. Augustine again, bringeth in the Heathen man, speaking thus: Non simulachrum colo, sed per effigiem corporalem eius rei signum intueor quam colere Debeo: 
August. in Psal 113. contion. 2.  I worship not the Image, but by a bodily shape, I behold the sign of that which I ought to worship. Yea, even Peresius, though a Popish Bishop, yet affirmeth expressly, that, not all the Idols amongst the Heathen, 
Peres. de Tred. part. 3.  did signify a false god: and for proof of it, he allegeth that Text of Act. 17.23, 24. etc. where, at Athens, S. Paul, finding an Altar, with this Inscription: To the unknown God: he took occasion to preach unto them, that God, whom he there saith, they ignorantly worshipped. Some then there were (as appeareth) even amongst the very Heathens themselves, 
Rom. 1. 2●, 21, 22, 23. etc. Act. 17.23. etc.  that in those their Idols or Images, worshipped not the very Image itself, but God, in those their purposes and intentions, as the Papists likewise say they do. Where is then the difference of their Idolatry?  
4 But they have yet, a fourth point of very gross Idolatry in their Church, and that is in their Invocations or prayers to the blessed Virgin Marie, and to other Saints departed this life, and unto Angels also. For doth not S. Paul plainly tell you, that men are to pray, or call upon none, but him in whom they are to believe. How shall they call upon him (saith he) in whom they have not believed? 
Rom. 10.14.  But none may believe in any, but in God, as, beside the Scriptures, the very Creed itself also teacheth you. And therefore, none may pray to any, or call upon any in prayer, but upon God only. Again, when Christ jesus taught his Disciples to pray, Did he teach them to pray to any Saints, or Angels? No: 
Luk. 11.2. Mat. 6.9.  but, saith he, When ye pray, say thus: Our father which art in heaven etc. thereby teaching them, that when they pray, they must pray unto God only, their heavenly Father, and not to any creatures, be they Saints, or Angels, or whosoever. And this again, God himself expressly willeth & commandeth, 
Psal. 50.15.  saying: Call upon me in the d●y of trouble, so will I deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. And again, in another Psalm, it is written thus: Therefore shall every one that is godly, make his prayer unto thee: 
Psal. 32.6.  that is, unto God. The Psalmist saith again: Whom have I in heaven but thee? And again, he saith thus: 
Psal. 73.25. Psal. 62.5, 6, 7, 8  My soul, wait thou only upon God: for my expectation is from him: He only is my Rock, and my Salvation. (Observe well that word, only, for so it is in the new Translation, according to the Hebrew Original). Now then, if (as here appeareth) godly men wait only upon God, and that He only, is their Rock, their Salvation, their strength, their refuge, stay, and help, be not all other hereby directly excluded? Bus yet further, Epiphanius saith expressly thus: Let no man worship the Virgin Marie. Yea, 
Epiphan. haeres. 79.  he showeth it to be the heresy of the Collyridians, to worship her. But consider yet moreover, that it is a chief part of God's worship, and glory, to call upon him in Prayer: for thereby we declare, that he is the only knower of our hearts, & discerner of our thoughts, and affections, and feacher of the reins: as also, that he is only powerful to yeed help, and to give all gifts and graces requisite unto men: Inasmuch then, as it is a part, and a chief part of God's glory, to call upon him in prayer: and that God himself saith thus: I am jehovah, this is my name: and my glory will I not give to any other: 
Esay 42.8.  How can men be excused of robbing GOD of his honour and glory, when they pray not unto him, but unto Saints, or Angels, or such as be but creatures? Yea, why should any pray unto any Saints or Angels, or such as be but mere creatures, when they know not the secret intentions, affections, thoughts and hidden closerts, and corners of their hearts? For it is God only that knoweth the hearts of all the children of Men, 
1. King. 8. ●●.  as Solomon expressly witnesseth. Besides, ye cannot find so much as one precedent, or example, throughout the whole Book of God, either in the old Testament, or in he new, of any godly man, that made his prayer at any time to any deceased Saints, or to Angels, or to any other, but to God only. What strange people then be they, that both contrary to the Scriptures, and without any precedent, or example, in those Scriptures to be found, will dare to invocate and call upon Saints, and Angels in their prayers? Let the blessed Virgin Marie, and other Saints & Angels, have their due regard, and reverence that belongeth to them: But let them not have that glory, honour, and worship, that belongeth only and properly unto God. Honorandi ergò sunt propter imitationem, non Adorandi propter religionem: Saints and Martyrs therefore, 
August. de vera Relig. cap. 55.  are to be honoured for imitation (saith S. Augustine) but they be not to be adored or worshipped for religion. Sanctos Martyres neque Deos esse dicimus, neque adorare consuevimus: laudamus autem eos potius summis honoribus, quòd pro verity strenuè certarunt, & fidei sinceritatem servarunt: We (saith S. Cyril) neither say, 
Cyril. cont. julian. lib. 6.  the holy Martyrs are gods, neither are we want to worship them: we rather commend them very highly, that they have so strongly stood for the truth, and kept the sincerity of faith. Yea, as touching the worshipping of Angels, S. Paul also expressly condemneth it. 
Colos. 2.18.  Whereupon it was decreed (as Theodoret witnesseth) in the Council of Laodicea, 
Theodo. in Colos. 2.18.  that men should not pray unto Angels. And therefore doth Saint Augustine, 
Aug. ad quod vult Deum, haer. 39 Epiphan. haeres. 38. Aug. in Psal. 96. Rev. 19.10.  likewise reckon amongst Heretics, a Sect, called Angelici, which were inclined to the worshipping of Angels. And Epiphanius also, amongst other wicked opinions and doings, noteth the Ca●anes, for invocation of Angels: Yea, we may (as S. Augustine again showeth) learn of the Angels themselves, not to worship them. And so, indeed, doth it appear: For when S. john himself fell down before the Angel (that showed him the Revelation) to worship him: the Angel said unto him: 
Rev. 22.8, 9  See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and fellow-servant of thy brethren, which have the Testimony of jesus: worship God. Where you see plainly, that the Angel refuseth to be worshipped, and biddeth to worship God only, as being himself, a fellow-worshipper of God, with the rest of his servants. If then the Angels of heaven, be not to be worshipped (which thing you see here manifest) I hope you will soon conclude, that then the Saints in heaven also are not to be worshipped. I know that ye have a distinction between Latria, & Doulia, saying, that ye give, Latrian, that is, worship unto God, but Doulian, that is, service unto Saints, and Angels. So that the effect of this your speech and distinction, appeareth to be this, that ye worship God, but serve Saints, and Angels. As though ye were not bound to serve God, aswell as to worship him. S. Paul showeth, 
1. Thes. 1.9. Rom. 1.9.  that ye are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to serve him, aswell as to worship him. Yea, doth not Christ jesus himself say, that it is thus written? Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli servies: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
Act. 20.19. Mat. 4.10.  & him only shalt thou serve. (For so is your own latin Translation). Whereby you see it evident, that ye are aswell to serve God, as to worship him: yea, that ye are to serve him, and to serve him only in the way of religion. And so also doth Samuel the Prophet, further expressly teach. 
1. Sam. 7.3.  And therefore we may not serve any Saints, or Angels, or Images, or any other creatures whatsoever, in way of Religion, as the Popish Church most wickedly teacheth, and practiseth. But again, even in those very prayers which they make to God himself, they also very impiously, have diverse Mediators: &, therein also, they seek refuge by another, as vain a distinction as the former, saying: that they, in their prayers, make the Saints and Angels Mediators of Intercession, but not of Redemption: as though Christ jesus, were not aswell our advocate, medi●atour, and intercessor, between God and us, 
1. joh. 2.1.  as our Redeemer. S. john saith thus: These things I write unto you, that ye sin not: and if any man do sin, 
Rom. 8.34.  we have an advocate with the father, even jesus Christ the righteous. Again S. Paul saith: That Christ is at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us. Again, it is written: that Christ is able, perfectly to save them that come unto God, by him, seeing he ever liveth, 
Heb 7.25.  to make Intercession for them. And diverse other Texts of Scripture do manifestly prove, that Christ is aswell our Mediator, and Intercessor, as our Redeemer: insomuch, that unto him only, is given this title, 
Heb. 9.15.  To be the Mediator of the new Testament. Yea, S. Paul hath further directly told us: that, as, There is but one God, 
1. Tim. 2.5.  so there is but one Mediator between God and men, namely, the man Christ jesus. Why then, or for what cause, or reason, will you have other Mediators or Intercessors? Is not Christ jesus sufficient to prevail with his Father for us? Or, be any Saints or Angels, in greater grace or favour with God, than his own Son, whom he hath also appointed to this very office, to be the Mediator, and Intercessor for us? Why then, without warrant from God, yea, contrary to the express tenor of the Scriptures, and contrary to Gods own appointment, will ye take upon you, to have other Mediators, and Intercessors, beside Christ jesus, as namely, the blessed Virgin Marie, and other Saints, and Angels? this is no small, or slender impiety. But you answer, that we be not worthy to come directly and immediately to God, without a Mediator, neither may we be bold so to do. This is very true which ye thus say, in respect of ourselves, and our own unworthiness. But therefore it is, that he hath given us a Mediator, 
joh. 16.23.  namely, Christ jesus, his own most dearly beloved Son, in whose name & mediation, we are allowed (though most unworthy in respect of ourselves) to have access unto God, and may, with an humble reverence, be bold, to approach unto him, and to ask of him whatsoever is necessary, or expedient for us. By whom (saith S. Paul, speaking of Christ jesus our Mediator) We have boldness, and entrance, with confidence, 
Ephes. 3.12.  through faith in him. Again, it is written thus: Let us therefore go boldly unto the Throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace, to help in time of need. And again it is said: 
Heb. 4.16.  That by the blood of jesus Christ, we may be bold to enter into the holy place. 
Heb. 10.19.  Observe in all these places, that through Christ, his mediation, we have boldness, and may be bold to come unto God. As touching that reason, which ye draw from the manner of earthly Kings & Princes, 
This reason was also alleged in S. Ambrose time, but he likewise answereth it: in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 1.  to whom, you say, men usually have not access, without some friend to be their mediator unto him: Although the cases be very unlike between God, and an earthly man, yet it is before answered, that we have a friend, to be our Mediator unto God, in the Court of heaven, and that a most assured and especial friend, namely, jesus Christ, whose love hath showed itself to be far greater toward us then the love of any Saints▪ 
joh. 15.13, 14, 15.  or Angels, is, or can be, in bearing the wrath of God for us, 
●. Pet. 2.24. 2. Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.10.13.  due to our sins, and being made a curse for us, to deliver us from that Curse of the Law, which we most justly had deserved to bear, and must have borne for ever in our own persons, to our own everlasting woes, and confusion, had not he interposed himself, as our most loving and kind surety, and Saviour. Can any have, or desire to have, a better, or more assured friend, than this? But you further allege, that the Saints deceased, and Angels do pray for us: What of that? For thereupon it followeth not, that therefore we must, or may pray to them. Every good and godly Christian doth pray one for another, whilst they live together in this world: yet for all that, it were monstrous, and intolerable impiety, for any one of them, to fall down before another of them, and to direct his prayer unto him, as he doth unto God. But you say, that it is lawful in this life, for one Christian to desire another to pray unto God for him: and why then should it not be lawful to desire the Saints in heaven to pray for us? I answer, that the cases be nothing like, and that there is that reason for the one, which is not for the other: For first, when I desire a man living with me in this world, to pray for me, I am sure, that he heareth me, when I thus request him, for otherwise, I speak in vain unto him: But you are not sure, that the Saints in heaven, which be departed this life, do hear you, when ye speak unto them, and desire them to pray unto God for you. You may peradventure suppose, conceit, and imagine, that they hear you: but assurance thereof, or undoubted proof, ye can produce none. And S. Augustine telleth you plainly, that they do not hear your prayers: for thus he saith: 
August. de spirit. & anima cap. 26.  Ibi siquidem sunt spiritus defunctorum, ubi nec vident, neque audiunt etc. The souls of the dead (saith he) be there, where they do neither see, nor hear, what is done, or happeneth to men in this life: yet such care they have of the living, (although they be utterly ignorant, what they do here on earth) as our care is for the dead, albeit, what they do, we likewise know not. How vain a thing than is it, when you have no assurance, that the Saints departed hear you, for you, nevertheless, ●o make prayers, and petitions unto them, as if you were sure that they heard you? secondly, there is manifest warrant, yea, and a commandment, in the Scriptures, for one Christian to prey for another, 
Rom. 1. ●. 10. 1. Thes 5.25. jam. 5.26.  whilst they be living in this world: but there is no commandment, warrant, or example to be found in the Scripture, which requireth, or alloweth Christians, to pray unto Saints, departed this life. thirdly, ye, in your prayers to Saints in heaven, do sometimes beg, immediately, even of them, & at their hands, assistance, help, protection, defence, & such other things, as be indeed properly & only in the power & hands of God to give. Fourthly, what do you else, but attribute, an omni-presence, & omni-science, & even a knowledge of the thoughts, & affections also of men's hearts, unto the Saints, when so many thousands of you, in such a number of distant places, and at several times, do pray unto them? which things, namely, omni-presence, that is, to be present every where: and omni-science, that is, to know all things, and even the thoughts and affections of men's hearts, 
2. Chr. 6.30.  be proper and peculiar to God alone. But lastlie, if the Saints in heaven did hear us, yet were that no argument therefore to Invocate or pray unto them, no more than we may pray unto the Angels that stand about us, and be able to hear our prayers: For, although we may pray to none but him that can hear us: yet may we not exhibit Invocation or prayer to every one, or to any whosoever that can or is able to hear us. For God only, is, in the way of religion, to be invocated and prayed unto, and that only through the Mediation and Intercession of jesus Christ, and of no other, as before appear.  
5 But there is yet further, (if we may believe their doctrine) a fifth point of a most gross Idolatry in the Popish Church. For Bellarmine teacheth that even the very Images themselves of Christ, 
Bellar. lib. de Imag. cap. 21.  and of the Saints, are to be worshipped, and that, not by accident only, or improperly, but properly also, and by themselves: so that the worship of them is determined in the Images, as they be considered in themselves, and not only for or in respect of the things which they represent. Yea it is the constant opinion of Popish Divines (saith Az●rius the jesuit) that the Image is to be worshipped and honoured with the same honour and worship, 
Azor. instit. mor. part 1. lib. 9 cap. 6. § tot● haec.  wherewith that is to be worshipped whose Image it is. And Thomas Aquinas likewise teacheth, 
Tho Aquin. Sum. par. 3. quaest. 25. art. 3.  saying: Cum Christus latriae adoratione, sit adorandus: Imago quoque eius, eadem adoratione adoranda est: That, seeing Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, that is, with that worship that is proper unto God: His IMAGE also is to be worshipped with the very same worship. But touching Christ: First, how do they prove it lawful, to make an Image of Him, sith he is not man only, but God also? for can any make an Image or representation of him that is both God an man? That image then which ye say, ye make of Christ, in respect of his humanity only, consider whether it be any more the picture or image of Christ, then of any other man. secondly, how do ye prove it to be the true Image of Christ, in respect of his humanity? thirdly, admit it were the very picture and Image of Christ, (made either in wood, stone, brass, silver, gold, or howsoever) is it fit that this Image made of Metal, or wrought in any sort, by man's hand, should be worshipped, Adoratione latriae, with that worship that is properly belonging to God himself? May not those men that be thus enamoured with Images, and that hold these opinions, be therein supposed, to be as senseless, as the very Images themselves? For what is this else, but to worship stocks and stones, and the work of men's hands, with divine honour? And can there be a greater, or a more gross Idolatry committed? Yea S. Augustine noteth it, as the heresy of the Carpocratians, 
Aug. hares. 7.  that they worshipped the Images of jesus, and of Paul. Whereas some therefore say, that the honour which is given to the sign or Image, doth ever redound and is given to the Prototypon, to that whose sign or Image it is: and consequently that the honour given to the image of God, and of Christ, is honour done to God himself, and to Christ himself, this appeareth not to be true. Yea, even amongst men, if the respect that is yielded to the picture, or Image of a friend, or of any great man, shall be accepted as honour due to the man himself, whose picture and Image it is intended to be; it must be, with these conditions, viz. first, that it be a right and true picture, and image of the man: for if it be nothing like him, but more like some other man, or some other creature, he hath no reason to take it for his picture, or image, much less to think himself thereby honoured. secondly, it must have an allowance, or at lest no disallowance, in respect of him to whose honour he intendeth to make it, if he mean that the other shall accept and take it, as an honour done unto him: for if he to whose honour it is intended, disallow it, or signify his mind, that he will not have his picture drawn, or his image made, to be so honoured, it can be no honour acceptable to him in that case, but it will rather move offence, and be ill taken, if it be done. How much more than will God be offended with these things? For beside, that no man can make a true and perfect picture or Image of him that is both God and Man, God hath further directly disallowed and forbidden these Images, 
Exod 20.4, 5. Matth. 4.10.  and all Images and Similitudes whatsoever, to be worshipped. In Gregory's time, Images were not allowed to be worshipped: yea, Pope Gregory himself, 
Lib. 7. epist. 119. & lib. 9 epist. 9  well liked of Serenus, Bishop of Massilia, in this point, viz. for that, he forbade Images to be worshipped. As for that second Council of Nice therefore, which was after Pope Gregory's time, gathered under Irene the Empress, inasmuch as it was assembled to overthrow the former godly Counsels of Constantinople and Ephesus, (which decreed against Images, and the worshipping of them) it ought to carry no credit, or esteem: and the rather, because that second Council of Nice was also afterward again further condemned in the West, 
Ado●. Chron▪ in Ann. 795. Abbas usperg in Ann 793. Hincmar. Remens'. lib. 20. cont. Episc. landanens. Matth. Westmonaster. hist. in Ann. 793. etc. Epiphan. Epist. ad johan. Hiero.  by another Council held at Frankford. Which thing Carolus Magnus himself, in his book made against Images, doth also testify. The same is likewise testified, by sundry other Authors. Yea Epiphanius, in his days, would not allow so much as an Image of Christ, or of any Saint, to be, at all, in Churches: for, coming to a Church at Anablatha, and there seeing in a Veil, an Image painted, as it were of Christ, or of some Saint, he affirmed it to be contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures, to have any such Image, in a Christian Church, and therefore caused it to be taken down: And the Council of Eliberis also decreed the like, 
Concil. Eliber. can. 36.  against the having of Images in Churches. How much more than would these men have condemned the Worship of the very Images themselves?  
6 A sixth point of Idolatry in the Popish Church, is, that they worship the Cross also, and pray unto it, saying: O Crux, ave Spes unica, hoc passionis tempore, auge pijs iustitiam, reisque dona veniam: Hail O Cross, our only hope in this time of the passion, Increase righteousness to the god●y, and give pardon to the guilty. Yea, Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor (as they call him) saith, the Cross is to be worshipped with latria, and giveth two reasons of this Adoration, saying thus: 
The Aquin. par. 3. Summ. quaest. 25. art. 4.  Crux Christi, in qua Christus crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum propter Membrorum Christi contactum latria, adoranda est: The Cross of Christ, whereon Christ was crucified, both because of the representation, and also for that it touched the members of Christ, is to be worshipped with latria, that is, with that worship that is proper and due unto God. But be these reasons sufficient in this case? 
Gal. 3.1.  The Gospel was so clearly preached to the Galathians, as if there had been a lively Image of Christ crucified, set before their eyes: was therefore the very Ministry or Preaching of the Gospel, whereby Christ crucified was thus depainted out, to be adored or worshipped with that worship that is due and proper to God? The breaking of the Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, doth represent unto us, the breaking & crucifying of Christ his Body upon the Crosse● and the pouring out of the wine, in the same Sacrament, representeth also the shedding or effusion of his Blood, upon the same Cross for us: shall therefore the breaking of the Bread, or the pouring out of the wine, be adored and worshipped with that worship that is due unto God? And yet is the Preaching and Ministry of the Gospel, as likewise the administration of the Sacraments, of Gods own institution: but no institution, commandment, or warrant from him, can be showed, for making a wooden Cross, or any kind of Cross, to be a representation of Christ crucified. And yet, if such an institution could be showed for the Cross, it followeth not that therefore it is to be worshipped, with that worship that is proper and due unto God: no more than Water in Baptism, or Bread and Wine in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, are so to be worshipped, although they be God's institutions: or no more than the Brazen Serpent, 
Num. 21.8.9. 2. King 18.4.  which was also God's institution in times past, amongst the jews, was therefore so to be worshipped. What? Is the wooden Cross, or any Cross whatsoever, become a God, that it should thus be worshipped? As for the other reason, if because the Cross touched Christ, it be therefore to be worshipped: why should not also the Nails, and the Crown of Thorns, and the Spear, or Lance wherewith he was pierced, be likewise so adored or worshipped? or why should not judas Iscariot, who likewise touched Christ, betraying him with a Kiss, and those wicked jews that apprehended and took him, and that Woman also that washed Christ's feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head: yea and the Pinnacle of the Temple whereon Christ was set, and all those many places of ground whereon Christ stood, and all those sundry persons which he touched, and which likewise touched him: I say, why should not all and every of these, be, by the same reason, worshipped and adored with divine honour? You see then, what weak & most poor reasons, Papists have for this their Idolatry, in worshipping a wooden Cross, in stead of the true God that made heaven and earth. 
Ambr. de Obitu Theodosijs.  S. Ambrose directly brandeth it, and calleth it an Heathenish error, to worship the Cross whereon Christ died. And yet neither are ye able to prove that all and every of those several Crosses, which in so many distant places of several Kingdoms and Countries, amongst Papists, be thus worshipped, be that very Cross, whereon Christ our Saviour died, and was crucified. Yea it is a thing impossible, that they all, and every of them, (they being so many and divers) should or can be that very Crosse.  
7 I shall not need, here to show how the Pope of Rome, is made a god, or rather exalted above God himself, in the Papacy: because this is declared partly before, and partly and more fully afterward. But yet consider here, whether they make not also the Church, a God; whilst they not only believe it, but believe in it. For, accordingly the Rhemists teach it to be lawful, 
Rhem. Annot. upon Rom. 10.14.  to believe in Men, and, in the Church. The Creed, chose, teacheth us: Credere sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam: to believe that there is an holy Catholic Church, but it doth not bid us to believe, in the holy Catholic Church. Yea it teacheth every Christian, to believe, only In God: for thus it saith: I believe in God the Father, etc. and in jesus Christ his only Son etc. and I believe in the holy Ghost. And this distinction of creatures, and mysteries, (in the Creed) from the Creator, by the preposition, In, is likewise so observed, and taught by the Ancient Fathers. For Ruffinus saith thus: Non dixit▪ in sanctam Ecclesiam etc. He said not, 
Ruffinus in Symbolum.  I believe In the Catholic Church: nor, In the remission of sins: nor, In the resurrection of the Body: for if he had added the preposition, In, there should have been the same force of meaning, with that which went before: But now in those words, in which, is set forth our faith of the Godhead, it is said, In God the Father; and, In jesus Christ his Son: and, In the Holy Ghost. But, in the rest, where the speech is, not of the Godhead, but of Creatures and Mysteries, the preposition, In, is not added: that it should be said, In the holy Church: but, that we should believe, that there is an holy Church, not as God, but as a Church gathered unto God: And men should believe, that there is a remission of sins, but not, In the remission of sins: and they should believe the resurrection of the Body, but not, In the resurrection of the Body. Therefore by this syllable of Preposition, the Creator is distinguished from the Creatures, and things pertaining to God, from things belonging to men. Agreeably to him, writeth also Eusebius Emissenus, saying: Aliud est credere Deo, 
Euseb. Emiss. de Symb. hom. 2.  aliud In Deum credere etc. It is one thing to believe God, and another thing to believe In God: we ought of right to believe both Peter and Paul; but to believe In Peter and Paul, that were to bestow upon the servants, the honour due to the Lord, which we ought not to do: To believe him, that is, to give credit to him, every one may do it to a man: but this, to believe In him, know, that thou owest only to the Divine Majesty. And this also is to be marked: It is one thing, Credere Deum, to believe that there is a God; and another thing, Credere in Deum, to believe in God: for the Devil is found to believe that there is a God; but to believe In God, none is found to do this, but he which hath devoutely trusted in him: And therefore to believe, that there is a God, is to know naturally: but to believe in God, is faithfully to seek him, and with our whole love, to pass into him. So likewise, touching the Articles, of the Catholic Church, Remission of sins, Resurrection, etc. he saith▪ Let us believe In God: These other things we do rehearse, we do not believe in them: but we believe them: These things, I say, we confess, not as God, but as the benefits of God. Primasius also observeth this distinction, saying: Fides perfecta est, 
Primas. come. Gal. 3.  non solum Christum sed etiam, In Christum credere: It is perfect faith, not only to believe that Christ is, but to believe In Christ. If you would know what it is to believe In God; S. Cyprian will further inform you: 
Cypr. de duplici Martyrio.  Non credit In Deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam: He doth not believe In God, (saith he) which doth not repose in him alone, the confidence of his whole felicity. Credere in Creaturam, est divinitatis offensio: To believe in a Creature, is an offence against the Deity, saith Greg. Baeticus, ad Gallam & Placidiam. Yea, Cursed is the man, that putteth his trust in man, 
jere. 17.5.  saith the Lord God himself. Thus than you see a difference, between Credere Deum, and Credere Deo, and Credere in Deum: namely, that Credere Deum, is to believe that there is a God, and Credere Deo, is to believe all that God speaketh, to be true; and thus far Devils and Reprobates may go: but Credere in Deum, to believe in God, that is, to repose the confidence of a man's whole felicity, not in his own, or in other men's merits, nor in Saints, or Angels, or in the Church, or in any creatures, but in God only, is the faith and belief proper and peculiar to the true Christian. And, herewithal, you may perceive, that Credere Ecclesiam Catholicam, is to believe that there is a Catholic Church: and Credere Ecclesiae Catholicae, is to give credit to the Catholik-Church; that is, to believe that to be true, which the Catholic Church teacheth: and that Credere in Ecclesiam Catholicam, is to repose, a man's trust, affiance, faith, and confidence in the Catholic Church: which, what is it else, but to make a god of it, and so to have more gods than One, and consequently to commit a most gross Idolatry? For what greater dishonour, or wrong, can be done, then to put the Church in the place of God, or to attribute that to men, or Angels, or to any creatures, which properly belongeth to the Creator? But the Rhemists allege three Texts of Scripture, to prove it lawful, to believe in men. The one is, in the Epistle to Philemon, where S. Paul speaketh thus unto him: 
Philem. ver. 5.  Hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast toward the Lord jesus, and toward all the Saints, etc. But reddendo singula singulis, it is easy to be perceived, that Faith is there to be referred to Christ, and, Love, to all the Saints: for S. Paul himself (who is the best expositor of his own words) doth in other places declare, that they are so to be referred and expounded: saying thus in his Epistle to the Ephesians; 
Ephe. 1.15.  Having heard of the Faith which ye have in the Lord jesus, and love toward all the Saints, etc. So again he speaketh in his Epistle to the Colossians: 
Coloss. 1. ●.  Having heard of your faith in Christ jesus, and of your love toward all the Saints. By conferring of which two Texts, with that to Philemon, it is very evident to every one that is not wilfully contentious or perverse, that Faith, is as well in the one place, as in the other, to be attributed to Christ, and Love to all the Saints. The other Text they allege, is Exod. 14.31. where the words are not: They believed in God, and in Moses; but the words be thus: The people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses. And so is your own translation: Crediderunt Domino, & Mosi, servo eius: They believed the Lord and Moses, his servant. The third Text they allege, is 2. Paral. 20.20. where your own translation likewise is thus: Credit in Domino Deo vestro & securi eritis: Credit Prophetis eius, & cuncta evenient prospera: Believe in the Lord your God, and ye shall be sure: Believe his Prophets, and all things shall fall out prosperously. But the Rhemists here seem to appeal to the Hebrew Text, because they see, their own Latin Translation to make against them: and yet the Hebrew Text will also nothing help them: inasmuch as it herein agreeth with the same their own Latin Translation. But yet they further allege, that ancient Fathers did read indifferently, I believe in the Catholic Church, and I believe the Catholic Church. It is granted, that some of them did so: and therefore to believe in the Catholic Church, was with them, and in that speech of theirs, all one with this, to believe that there is a Catholic Church: (as they said likewise: I believe, in one Baptism: I believe in the Resurrection of the dead: &, in the life to come). So that although their speech herein, was somewhat improper, as appeareth by that which is before delivered by the ancient Fathers upon the Creed, yet their meaning in those words, being (as is evident) no more, but to believe, that there is a Catholic Church, and not that we should put our trust, faith, and confidence in the Church: it maketh nothing against that which is here intended and spoken. And therefore still for any to believe in the Church, in this sense, viz. to put his faith, affiance, t●ust and confidence in the Church, is to attribute that to the Church which rightly and properly belongeth unto God, & consequently is to make a god of it, which is abominable Idolatry.  
8 I here forbear to speak of their superstitious reserving and worshipping of Relics, that is, of dead bodies, and insensible bones of Saints and Martyrs (which it were far more meet, honestly and decently to bury, than so to abuse): yea, of some, that are by Papists supposed to be Saints and Martyrs, and yet are not so. For all be not Saints, nor the Martyrs of jesus, that are supposed to be so: neither do all die ●or religion, that are supposed by Papists to die for that cause. As for example there was a Book set forth of late, entitled, Martyrium etc. The Martyrdom of Conoghor O Deveny, (which was a Popish Bishop) and of Gilpatrick Ologran, (which was a Popish Priest): which two nevertheless, were not put to death for the cause of Religion, (as that Book would persuade), but for Treason, as the Enditements against them both, extant of Record in the King's Bench of Ireland, do expressly and openly testify: and as all the multitude of people then present at their arraignment, can also witness. Which is ever sufficient to confute the most slanderous and most notorious untruth of that Book. But Popish Rome being before very evidently proved, 
Rev. 17.6.  to be the whore of Babylon, and consequently the Persecutor of the Saints and Martyrs of jesus: it is thereby an easy matter to collect, who be the Saints, and, Martyrs of jesus, 
Papists, if any of them die in defence of the Pope, or Popish religion, be therein no Martyrs of Christ, but of Antichrist.  and who not: namely, that the Protestants be the Saints and Martyrs of jesus; and that the Papists be the persecutors: So that if any be so wilful, as to die in defence of the Pope, or Popish Religion, they appear to be, therein, no Martyrs of Christ, but of Antichrist. And therefore also as touching this point of martyrdom, let them be no longer mistaken, as heretofore they have been.    

CHAP. II.  
Wherein is further showed, that the Pope of Rome, is the Grand Antichrist, out of 2. Thess. 2.  
BUT concerning this point, that the Pope of Rome is that very grand Antichrist, and consequently, that the Popish Church, ruled and governed by him, is the very undoubted Antichristian Church, and therefore of every one to be utterly forsaken, and detested: Although that clear and evident testimony, before going, of S. john, in his Revelation, 
Rev. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.8. etc.  discovereth the same sufficiently: yet shall you, have it manifested further, by the direct testimony also of S. Paul, for your better, and fuller satisfaction. S. Paul therefore, in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, foretelling of the great Apostasy, or departure from the right faith and religion, which was then to come, writeth thus: Let no man deceive you by any means: 
2. Thes 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  for that day, (namely, of Christ to judgement) shall not come, except there come a departure first, and that, that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition, which is an Adversary, and exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit in the Temple of God, as God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? and now ye know, what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time: for the mystery of iniquity doth already work: Only be wh●ch now withholdeth, shall let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked man be revealed: whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is by the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all deceaveablenesse of unrighteousness, amongst them that perish, because, they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved: And therefore, God shall send them s●rong delusion, to believe lies: that they all might be damned, which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. In these words ye see, first, that S. Paul fortelleth of an Apostasy, or Departure from the right faith and religion, which should come and be in the world (which apostasy, or departure, namely, from the faith, he al●o mentioneth in his Epistle to Timothy. 1. Tim. 4.1.) And this Apostasy, or departure from the faith, lest we should be mistaken in it, he showeth that it should be, 
2. Thes. 2.7.  A mystery of Iniquity: thereby declaring, that it shall not be any open hostility, or professed Enmity, 
Mysticam Iniquitatem▪ id est Pietatis nomine palliatam: ut velint haberi ministri Christi qui sunt pseudapostoli Glossa. ordin. in 2. Thes. 2 Dicitur Mysterium, quia videtur occultum: Quia tales operarii ostendunt se velut Ministros aut samulos Christi, cum revera sint Ministri Antichristi. Anselm. in 2. Thes. 2. 2. Thes. 2.7. 2. Thes. 2.9.  against Christ, and his Gospel (such as is amongst Turks, and jews, and other Infidels of the world) but an hidden, close, and covert Iniquity, not easy to be discerned to be Iniquity, it should carry, and convey itself so subtly, and under such shows and pretences of godliness, and Christianity. And lest we should deceive ourselves in the time, or think that this Mystery of Iniquity▪ was to rise to his height and fullness, on a sudden, or all at once, or not till some few years be●ore the end of the world: behold, S. Paul telleth us, that it was then, in working, even in his days: so that even then, namely, in S. Paul's time, it began to work, in such sort, as it could, going on, and creeping forward, by little and little, and by degrees, until at last, it came to his full stature, and highest, & tallest growth. And further the text showeth, that in this Apostasy, or mystical Iniquity, there should be signs, wonders, and lying Miracles, wrought for the better prevailing, and fortification of it, and for the stronger alluring of people thereunto and confirming them therein. Now they be called lying Miracles, or lying wonders: partly, for that they be false, and counterfeit, and partly, for that they lead men into falsehood and errors, as Chrysostome expoundeth those words. 
Chrysost. in 2. Thes. 2.  And likewise S. Augustine showeth, that they be called lying signs, and wonders, either because he shall deceive the senses of mortal men, 
August. de Civit. Dei▪ lib. 20. cap. 19 & d●●nitat. Eccl. ca 16  by counterfeit shows, and appearances, that he may seem to do that which he doth not: or else, because they shall draw unto lies, such as shall believe, that they could not be done but by the power of God; they not knowing the power of the Devil. For the Devil sometimes interposeth himself, 
Rev 16.14. 2. Thes. 2.9.  to work these miracles. And even in this very place also to the Thessalonians, they are said to be done, by the operation, or, working of Satan. Consider then, whether these things be not found verified in the Papacy. As touching the Miracles, which are said to be done in Popery, there be (as that learned and reverend Bishop D. Downam hath distinguished, & set them down) three degrees, or three sorts of them: 
In his Book concerning Antichrist, in English, and also in his latin book.  the one, such as be merely fabulous, and devised by lying Companions, whereof their Legends, & Festivals, and other their Books, have good store of examples: some of them being so notoriously incredible, as that none, except he were miserable intoxicated and bewitched, could, or would believe them: which loud and lewd lies, and no better than Poetical Fictions▪ were nevertheless in so high esteem in the Popish Church, that they were both publicly, and privately read in the vulgar tongue, when as the sacred and Canonical Scriptures were closed up, and kept from the people in an unknown language. And as this first degree of Miracles, is of such, as never were indeed, not so much as in appearance, but in the opinion only of men besotted, and given over to believe incredible untruths: So the second degree, or second sort of their Miracles, is of such, as be in show or appearance only, or artificial conveyances of deceitful men, or juggling tricks of Legerdemain: of which sort are the nodding, or moving, the smiling, or frowning, the sweeting, or speaking of Images, and such like. The third sort of their Miracles, be such as be done by the power of the Devil, working by natural causes, and natural means, although so closely, covertly, stilie, and speedily, sometimes, as that they draw ignorant people, that perceive not the reason of those things, into a great admiration and conceit, that they are true miracles indeed: when as nevertheless, though they be done, yet they surpass not the strength of nature, as those do that be true and divine Miracles: For those that be true Miracles indeed, be supernatural, and beyond the power of all natural causes whatsoever, and are done only by the omnipotent power of God. Neither is the Pope, nor all his partakers able to produce any one such true Miracle, wrought by a Divine power, and by the finger of God, for confirmation of any point of their New Religion, wherein they differ from us, although they pretend diverse. Yea, some of their own writers, do ingenuously confess, that sometimes, 
Nicho. Lyran. in Dan. 14.  there is very great deceiving of the people, by Miracles, feigned by the Priests, or their adherents for temporal gain sake. And another of them, 
Alexander de Hale●. in 4. sent. q 53. Gabriel. Biel in Can. miss. lect. 49  saith directly thus: That in the Sacrament appeareth flesh, sometime by the conveyance of men, & sometime by the operation of the devil. Another of them saith likewise: that, Miracles be sometimes done to men that flock to Images, by the operation of Devils, to deceive inordinate worshippers, God permitting it, and the infidelity of such men requiring it. Irenaeus, even in his time also, telleth of a certain man called Mark, which in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, mightily deceived the people, 
Iren lib. 1. cap. 9  by changing the colour of the wine, in such sort, as that it seemed to be blood. All which kind of deceivable practices, it is good, that all those, that be so much devoted, and wedded to Popery, and to listening after Miracles, should take special notice of, and thereby learn to take heed of such Impostors, and Deceivers, in time. All the great, wonderful, and supernatural Miracles, which have been done by Christ, 
Mar. 16.20.  and his Apostles, and in those ancient, former, and elder times, be sufficient for confirmation of that old and most ancient faith, and religion, which we hold (namely, which is contained in the sacred and Canonical Scriptures) neither do we desire any more, or think any more requisite, or necessary: For, as S. Augustine saith: Quisquis adhuc prodigia, 
Aug de Civit. dei lib. 22. cap. 8.  ut credat inquirit magnum est ipse prodigium, qui mundo credente, non credit: Whosoever still seeketh after wonders, that he might believe, is himself a great wonder, who, when the world believeth, believeth not. Yea, if the Papists had not these their signs, wonders, and miracles amongst them, they could not be (as here we see) the Antichristian Church: But there be no people of the world, that so much object, and boast of them, as they: As for the jews, they have them not. The Turks, and Mahometists, disclaim them: professing, that their religion is to be propagated, and promoted, not by miracles, but by force, and arms, and by the sword: The true Christians, which be the Protestants, urge them not, nor require them: only, the false Christians, that is, the Antichristians, which be the Papists, do urge and require them, and glory and vaunt of them, and none so much as they, nor any like to them: and therefore this note▪ or mark of Antichristianisme, touching Miracles, is very evident, and most apparent amongst them.  
2 Again, this text of S. Paul showeth, that this great Antichrist, (who is the head of this Apostatical Church, which thus aboundeth with false and lying Miracles, and Wonders) should sit in the Temple of GOD, that is, in the Church, namely, amongst such as profess Christ, 
2. thes 2. ●  and Christianity, and consequently, not amongst jews, Turks▪ and other Infidels of the world. For S. Paul is not wont to call any Infidels, The Temple of God: but, to Christians only, and such as profess Christ, and Christianity, he applieth, and giveth this term, saying unto them expressly: 
1. Cor. 3.16, 17. 2 Cor. 6.16. Ephes 2 21. Rev. 3.12.  Vos estis Templum Dei: Ye are the Temple of GOD: and again, Templum Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos: The Temple of God is holy, which ye are. The Papists therefore are deceived who would have this place understood of a material Temple, which they suppose, Antichrist shall build at jerusalem, to reign in: & this they thus expound to shift it from their Pope of Rome, that he might not be supposed Antichrist: But what saith S. Hierome? Antichrist (saith he) shall sit, in Templo Dei, id est, 
Hieronym ad Algas. quaest. 11.  vel Hierosolimis ut quidam putant: vel, in Ecclesia, ut verius arbitramur: In the Temple of God, that is, either at Jerusalem, as some think, or in the Church, as we more truly hold. So that the truer opinion, and righter exposition of these words, he holdeth to be this, that by the Temple, there is meant, not any Temple at Jerusalem, but the Church of Christians, namely, of such as profess Christ, and Christianity. Yea, that conceit of the Papists, whereby they suppose, that the Temple of jerusalem, (which now lieth waste, and ruinated under the dominion of the Turks) shall be re-edified, and builded up again, S. Hierome reckoneth for a mere jewish fable: And so doth Origen also. And indeed, 
Hieronym. ad Marcell. Orig. tract. 29. in Matth.  after that the Temple was once destroyed by Titus & Vespasian, the rest of the Romans, (according to the Prophecy of Christ, in Mat. 24.) the vulgar translation (which the Papists hold for the only Authentic text) in Daniel, chap. 9.27. doth show, that it is never to be re-edified, but that it is to remain in perpetual desolation, to the end: for the words are: Et erit in Templo abominatio desolationis, & usque ad consummationem & finem perseverabit desolatio: And there shall be in the Temple, the abomination of desolation, and unto the consummation and end, shall the desolation continue. And S. Hierome, interpreting it, speaketh yet more plainly, 
Hieron. in Dan. 9 Chrysost. orat. 2. con●. judaeos. Naz. orat. 2. con. Julian. Theo. lib. 3. c. 20. Socrat. li. 3. c. 20. Sozom. lib. 5. cap. ult. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 37, 38.39.  saying: Vsque ad consummationem & finem mundi, perseverabit desolatio: The desolation shall continue unto the consummation, & end of the world. And so doth S. Chrysostome also declare: & Nazianzen also. Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, and Ruffinus also do likewise declare, that the Temple at Jerusalem, is never to be re-edified: for (say they) when julian the Apostata endeavoured to re-edify the Temple, to the end he might falsify (if he had could) the Prophecy, and preaching of Christ, concerning the said Temple: Our Saviour Christ, by fire, first, from heaven, and after out of the earth, and by a fearful earthquake, hindered this enterprise: thereby proving his Godhead, & the truth of his Prophecy: and showing, that he was not pleased as Sozemen saith, with the renewing of the Temple. Now how could julian the Apostata, by this action of his, and by this his attempt, in going about to re-edify the Temple, think to falsify the words of Christ, and likewise the opinion of Christians in that time, touching this matter, unless Christ had taught, and the Christians in that time, had held and believed, that it was never to be rebuilded, or re-edified? And therefore by the temple of God, wherein Antichrist shall sit, cannot be meant any Temple at jerusalem (which is never to have any rebuilding) but the Church of professed Christians, over whom he was to rule and reign. Which thing is so evident, that besides S. Hieroms exposition of it, in that sort, Chrysostome also doth so expound it. He shall sit (saith he) in the Temple of God not in that Temple at jerusalem, 
Chrysost. in 2. Thes▪ 2.  but in the Churches. And so the Greek Scoliast also (who usually reporteth word for word out of Chrysostome) explaineth it, and saith likewise: That he shall sit in the Temple of God, Ou ton en Hierousalem alla eyes ecclesias tou The●u, 
Oecumen. in 2. Thes. 2.  not in the Temple at jerusalem, but in the Churches of God. And so doth Theophilact also expound those words: That he shall sit, 
Theophi. in 2. Thes. 2. Dei templum appellavit Ecclesias, in quibus primam ●edem a●●piet. Theod. in 2. Thes. 2.  not in the Temple at jerusalem, but simply in the Churches, & in every Temple of God. Yea, that not jerusalem, but the Whore of Babylon, namely, the Papal, or Popish City of Rome, is the special place and seat, for the great Antichrist to reign in, is before declared very evidently, and at large out of the Revelation of S. john, Chap. 17. So that all these Scriptures do well and rightly accord together, and agree in this, that the grand Antichrist, is not to have his seat or place at jerusalem, to reign over, either jews, or Turks, or other Infidels of the world, but at Rome specially, & generally in the Temple of God, that is, in the churches of Christians, that is, amongst such as profess Christ, and Christianity: All which (as is apparent) doth very fitly and fully agree to the Pope of Rome.  
3 Here then you may perceive, what manner of adversary, or opposite, Antichrist is to be supposed: (for S. Paul saith of him, that he is, ho Ant●keimenos, an Adversary, 
2. Thes. 2.4.  or opposite) namely, that he is not to be supposed, any open and professed enemy against Christ and Christianity, but a mystical, secret, hidden, and disguised enemy, and such a one as shall outwardly pretend to be (as S. Hierome showeth) the head, or chief of the Covenant, that is, 

Hier. in Dan. 11. Simulabit se ducem Faederis hoc est, Legis & Testamenti Dei.  
Duo usurpabit Testamenta. Primas. & glos. ordin. in Rev. 13 11. 1. joh. 2.18.22. 2 joh. ver 7. & 1. joh. 4.3.   a chief and principal friend of Christ, and Christianity, and yet revera shall be an oppugner of him, and an abuser of his name, and of the name of the Church, to serve his own wicked plots, and designs. And this is yet further hereby manifest, because this very word Antichrist, is no where, throughout the whole new Testament, expressly found, but only in the Epistles of S. john: where S. john doth not call him an Antichrist, that openly, & professedly, denieth, or oppugneth Christ, but such as in his time were, Cerinthus, Ebion, and the like, who making profession of Christ, outwardly, and in words, do nevertheless hold, teach, or preach, false, erroneous, or heretical doctrines, & opinions. agreeably whereunto, S. Hillary also speaketh, saying, It is the property of Antichrists name, 
Hillar. ad Auxe●tium▪  to be contrary unto Christ: This is practised (saith he) under the opinion of counterfeit piety. This, under a show of preaching the Gospel, is practised, that our Lord jesus Christ may be denied, whilst he is thought to be preached. 
In explicat. super Matth. ad Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 24.  And so also testifieth S. Hierome, saying: Antichristus est, quisquis sub nomine Christi ea docet, quae contraria sunt Christo: He is Antichrist, whosoever teacheth under the name of Christ, those things that be contrary unto Christ. And therefore you must ever remember, to observe a difference between Christian, unchristian, and Antichristian people, (into which three sorts of People, all the people in the world may aptly be divided). The unchristian people, be those that make no profession at all of Christ, or Christianity: of which sort be jews, Turks, and other Infidels of the world. The Christian people revera, and indeed, of which in this distribution, I speak, be those, that profess Christ, and believe in him, and addict themselves only to his religion, and the rules and ways of it, as it is described and set down in the sacred and canonical Scriptures. The Antichristian people, be those that profess Christ in words, & in outward shows, and semblance, but yet nevertheless deny or oppugn him in deeds, or in doctrine, or in both. Whence is concluded, that neither the Turk, nor Mahomet (as I said before) nor any of the rest of the Infidels of the world, can properly and according to the Scripture phrase and sense, be termed Antichrists, or Antichristians, (sith they make no profession of Christ at all) but such are properly to be termed, unchristian, and not Antichristian people: and consequently it remaineth that Antichrist, and Antichristian people, be only to be found within Christendom, and amongst those that profess Christ. And who these be within Christendom, is easily to be discerned: for, that the Pope of Rome and his followers, be this kind of covert, masked, and disguised adversaries, and opposites to Christ, and that under the name and profession of Christ, his church, and religion, I think there is none but doth, or may very readily perceive. But would you know it further, and in some particulars? For you must indeed, come to particulars with them, inasmuch as, otherwise, in general terms, and words, they will make great profession of Christ, and of the rights, honours, & prerogatives, to him & his Church, belonging, and yet in the mean time, in particulars, and indirectly, and by consequent, they will oppugn him. Inasmuch therefore, as he hath the name of Antichrist chiefly by reason of his opposition unto Christ (in this covert and disguised manner:) let us see, how that is verified in the Pope, and Papacy. For which purpose, let us consider our Lord jesus Christ, as he is to be considered: namely, in respect of his person, and in respect of his offices, committed to him from his Father. In respect of his person, he is both God and Man: in respect of his offices, he is a Prophet, a Priest, & a King, unto us: Now, in every of these respects, doth the Pope and Papacy oppugn Christ. For, first, what a God do they make Christ to be, when they prefer the Virgin Mary above him, and acknowledge authority in her to command him? For thus they speak unto her: jube natum, 
Cassand. Consult. ar●▪ 21. Breviar. Rom. & Offic. B. Mar. refor. Missal. Parisiens'▪  & jure Matris Impera redemptori: &, monstra te esse Matrem. That is, Command thy Son, and by thy motherly authority command the Redeemer: and, show thyself to be a mother. Is he God, and the creator and supreme commander of all things, that is thus made subject to the authority and commandment of a creature? But do they not further oppugn his Godhead very manifestly, when they hold, that every Priest of theirs, after breathing of a few words out of his mouth, can create and make jesus Christ, his maker? for so they say (as is before showed) that, Sacerdos est Creator creatoris sui: The Priest, is the Creator or maker of his maker. Now then, is he a God, that can be thus made by men? And what do they else but oppugn his Manhood also, very manifestly, whilst they make his body to be multi-present, that is, present in many places at one time? For, they say, it is both in heaven, and in earth at once, yea in so many places as their Mass is celebrated, or their Host reserved, at one and the self same time: which is contrary to the nature and property of a true body, which we are sure Christ jesus hath. Yea, as they hold his Body to be carnally eaten in the Sacrament, with the bodily mouth, so do they hold it also to be void of dimensions, and quantity, and to be uncircumscribed, and invisible, and no way sensible: which is, likewise, as much, as to make him to have no true body at all. When, again, they hold, that his body is made out of the substance of a piece of bread (for, so much, that their very word, of Transubstantiation, importeth) which was, indeed, not so made, but of the substance of the Virgin Mary, do they not very clearly oppugn his humanity, and the verity of his body? You see then, how they do oppugn the person of Christ, both in respect of his Deity and also of his humanity, very apparently. Let us now likewise briefly consider, how they oppugn Christ, in his three offices, namely, as he is a Prophet a Priest, and a King, unto us. The Prophecy of Christ (whose voice and instruction, as of a Prophet and Teacher all-sufficient, 
Deut. 18.18.19 Act. 3.22.23. Matt. 17.5.  we are commanded to hear and obey) they oppugn: first, by teaching that the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, be imperfect and insufficient, for a Christian man's instruction and salvation, without their Traditions: secondly, by adding, not only their own Traditions, but the Apocryphal Books and Decretal Epistles also, 
Dist 19 cap. Si Romanorum.  to the Canon of the Bible, and stablishing them to be, of equal authority & reverence with the Canonical Scriptures themselves: thirdly, by equaling also the determinations of their Popes, and the Decrees of their Counsels, and Church, (which they say, cannot err) unto the divine and canonical Scriptures; they holding them to be as undoubtedly the voice & oracle of the Holy Ghost, as any thing is, which is contained in those Scriptures: fourth, not only in equaling, but (which is more, and much worse,) in preferring, magnifying, and advancing of their Pope and Church, and their authority, above the authority of the Scriptures: and therefore doth Silvester Prierias, 
Contr●. Lutheri conclus. de potestate Papae.  Master of the Pope's Palace, affirm, that Indulgences be warranted unto us, not by the authority of Scripture, but by the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome, which (saith he) is a greater Authority. Again he saith: Whosoever resteth not on the doctrine of the Roman Church, and Bishop of Rome, as the infallible rule of God, à qua, sacra Scriptura robur trabit & authoritatem, from which, the sacred Scripture draweth her strength and authority, he is an Heretic. 
Eck. de Ecclesia.  And so saith Eckius likewise: that, Scriptura nisi Ecclesiae authoritate, non est authentica: The Scripture is not authentical, but by the authority of the Church▪ and sundry such ways do they oppugn the all-sufficient written word, doctrine, and instruction of Christ, our Prophet. His Priesthood they also oppugn, which consisteth chiefly in these two things: viz. in sacrificing himself once for all his people, upon the Cross, to take away their sins: and, in making intercession for them. Now this his onely-propitiatory, and only-bodily, and all-sufficient Sacrifice, they oppugn by erecting of another Sacrifice in their abominable Mass: wherein they say, their Priests offer up Christ every day, or often, and that in a bodily manner▪ and this sacrifice so offered by them, they also say is propitiatory, and taketh away the sins of men: which is most intolerably blasphemous against that sacrifice of Christ. His all-sufficient mediation and intercession they also oppugn, by making many Mediators and Intercessors beside him: as namely the Virgin Mary, and other Saints and Angels, for whose intercession sake, they desire God to hear them, and to grant their requests. The Kingdom of Christ, the Papacy likewise oppugneth: for they will not suffer his Church to be ruled and governed by his own Word, and by such orders, rules and laws, as he in his Scriptures hath ordained; but according to the canons, rules and pleasure of the Pope, and according to his constitutions and ordinances. Yea, as for the laws and ordinances of God, the Pope partly dispenseth with them, and partly abrogateth them, making them at his pleasure, of no effect by his constitutions, traditions, and devises: yea, he taketh to himself, to be king and head of the whole militant Church, and all the authority to the head and king of the Church belonging, and that without any warrant at all from Christ, like a notable traitor and usurper. For which cause it is, that he also destroyeth, so much as he can, all the good subjects of this kingdom of Christ, even his best Saints and servants, be they Kings, Princes, or whosoever. And thus you see, how he oppugneth Christ, every manner of way, both in respect of his Person, and in respect of his Offices: and that not openly and professedly, but in a cunning, close, and covert manner, that is, in such a sort, as belongeth to Antichrist, and Antichristian people to do.  
4 It is further said in this Text, where Antichrist is described; that, He shall be exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Observe, that he doth not say▪ that he shall be exalted above God, 
2. Thess. 2.4.  but, above every one that is called God. For it is one thing to be God essentially, and another thing to be called God, or to have the name of God or Gods attributed to him. Who then be the men that be in Scripture, called God, or Gods? 
Psal 82.1.6.7. Exod 7.1 Exod. 22.28.  It is evident that they be Kings, Princes, & other such like Rulers and Magistrates. Now it is manifest, that, above all these the Pope is exalted; yea even above the Emperors themselves. for he claimeth a Supremacy above them all: taking upon him, to depose Kings, Princes and Emperors, and to give away their Kingdoms, Empires and Dominions at his pleasure. O damnable and intolerable pride in a Bishop: Did ever S. Peter (whose successor he pretendeth to be) thus detestably magnify and exalt himself? All the Christian world knoweth, 
1. Pet. 2.13, 14.  that S Peter was of another and more humble spirit: not exalting himself above, but subiecting himself evermore unto and under the authority of Kings, Princes and Emperors, and taught all people likewise this duty of subjection and obedience. And so did S. Paul also. Yea all Bishops, 
Rom. 13.1. etc. Tit. 3.1.  and even the Bishops of Rome themselves, aswell as the rest, were, in ancient time, subject to the Emperors; and the Emperors commanded over them. The Emperor's Writ (saith Hierome) caused the Bishops, 
Hieron. in Epita. Paul●. Euseb. lib. 10. cap. ●.  aswell of the East, as of the West, to draw to Rome. This is (saith Eusebius) a copy of the Emperor's Writ, whereby he commandeth a Council to be kept in Rome. Note that he saith, he commanded it. 
Leo, Epist. 12. & 17.  Yea he so commanded a Council, that Pope Leo himself excused his absence before the Emperor. The Emperor Constantine (saith Sozomen) sent out his Letters unto all the Rulers of the Churches, 
Sozom. lib, 1. cap. 17.  that they should all meet at Nice upon a day: Unto the Bishops of the Apostolic Sees, unto Macarius the Bishop of Jerusalem, and unto julius the Bishop of Rome, 
A●then. Consti. T●t. 15.  etc. We command (saith justinian the Emperor) the most holy Archbishops and Patriarches of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, etc. Seeing then, that all Bishops, and even the Bishop of Rome, aswell as the rest, were in ancient time, subject to Kings, Princes, 
Rom. 1●. 1.  and Emperors, as to the higher powers, so ordained of GOD, over them: What monstrous pride is it now, in the Bishop of Rome, so highly to magnify and advance himself, as to claim and arrogate to himself, a Supremacy and authority over them all? 
Cae. Extravag. de maiorit. Et obed. C. 5. & seg. extr de Translat. Epis●.  Insomuch that it is registered of him in his own Records, that he is so many times greater than the Emperor, as the Sun is greater than the Moon. Is it not then, high time and more than time, for all, to renounce and to be ashamed of such an unholy Father, whose pride, by no pretences, can be excused, and is so superlatively ill, as that it is unmatchable?  
5 For, indeed, long before this his usurping and taking to himself a Supremacy over all Kings, Princes, and Emperors, to whom of right and duty he ought to be subject, did his pride appear, and show itself, in taking upon him a Supremacy over all Bishops and patriarchs, who were his equals: so that he would be called Universal Priest, or Universal Bishop, chiefest Bishop, & head of the whole universal Church of Christ upon earth, and by other such like lofty and supereminent titles. And yet when john, the Patriarch of Constantinople, affected that title, of Universal Bishop over all, you may remember, what Gregory himself, the then Bishop of Rome spoke, namely thus: I speak it confidently, 
Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 30.  that whosoever calleth himself the universal Bishop, or desireth to be so called, he is, in that his Elation, the forerunner of Antichrist, because in that his pride, he setteth himself before others. Again, he saith: None of my Predecessors, Bishops of Rome, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 32. & 36.  ●ver consented to use this ungodly name: No Bishop of Rome over took upon him, this name of singularity: we the Bishops of Rome, will not receive this honour, being offered unto us. Again, writing unto Eulogius, he saith thus: Behold even in the preface of your letter, 
Ad Eulog.  you have written the word of a proud appellation, naming me the universal Pope, notwithstanding I have forbidden it: I beseech your holiness to do so no more: For whatsoever is given to any other above reason, the same is taken from yourselves. Yea, it is further recorded even in Gratian himself, that, The Bishop of Rome may not be called universal Bishop. 
Gratian dist. 99 pr●●. sed.  Here than you may perceive, how shamelessly, the Popish Church abuseth some places of Scripture, wresting them, for the maintenance of this their Popes claimed Supremacy and universality over all Bishops, and the whole Church of Christ. As first, they allege that saying of Christ to Peter; where (after that Christ had demanded of his Apostles: Whom do ye say that I am? and that Peter had answered in the name of them all, 
Mat. 16.15, 16, 17, 18, 19  saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God): Christ said unto him: Blessed art thou Simon the son of jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven: And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter: and upon this Rock will I build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not overcome it: And I will give unto thee, the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Howbeit, first, you must be put in mind, that the confession which Peter here made, 
joh. 6.67▪ 68  of Christ to be the Son of the living God, was likewise the confession and acknowledgement of the rest of the Apostles, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. in Luc. 21. &, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 14.  
Petrus, pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus accepit. Orig. Tract. 1. in Mat.   aswel as of Peter: so that He for his part was, therein, but as the Mouth of the rest, or like the Foreman of a jury, pronouncing that verdict and confession for them all. For which cause also, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and losing of sins, be there promised to be given to Peter, not as to him alone, but to him as bearing and representing at that time the person of them all. For, that Peter at that time, represented the person of them all, is manifest, by these reasons. First the question was demanded, not of Peter alone, but of the rest of the Apostles aswell as of him, (for the words be not in the singular, but in the plural number: Vos autem quem me esse dicitis? But Whom do ye say that I am?) and consequently, the answer that was given, must consonantly thereunto, be supposed to be the answer of them all. For it were a very uncivil and unseemly part, beside undutiful, if the rest being demanded and asked the question aswell as Peter; should give no manner of answer to their Lord and Master demanding it of them. Which they must needs be held guilty of, unless their answer be taken to be included, and comprehended in that answer of Peter. Secondly, when this promise made to S. Peter, came to be performed, it was performed to them all alike: as you may see in that place of joh. 20.22, 23. where that promise was performed, and accomplished. Which also showeth, that the promise made to S. Peter, was not made as to him alone, but to him, as representing at that time the person of them all. For the promise, and the performance of that promise, must of necessity have coherence, and be made to agree together, as most aptly and rightly expounding one an other. And according hereunto, do the Ancient Fathers likewise expound it: Origen saith: This saying of Christ to Peter (I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven) is common also to the rest of the Apostles: 
Origen. in Ma●. Tract. 1.  and the words that follow, as spoken to Peter, be also common to them all. Again he saith: Shall we dare to say, that the gates of hell shall not overcome only Peter? and that the same gates shall prevail against all the other Apostles? And again he saith: If we speak● the same thing that Peter spoke, we are become Peter, and unto us it shall be said: Thou art Peter: for he is a Rock, whosoever is the disciple of Christ. And again he saith: If thou think that the whole Church was builded only upon Peter: what wilt thou then say of john, the son of Thunder: and of every of the Apostles? Cyprian speaketh in like sort, upon these words of Christ to Peter. In the person of one man (saith he) the Lord did give the Keys to all the Apostles, to signify the unity of them all: 
Cyprian. de simplicit. Pr●lat.  for verily the rest of the Apostles, were the same that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and power; But he did begin with unity, that is to say, with one, that thereby it might be signified, that there is but one Church of Christ. In like sort doth S. Augustine expound it, saying: When they were all asked, Peter alone maketh the Answer: and it is said unto him: 
August. in joh. tract. 124.  I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven: as though he alone had received authority to bind and to lose: whereas HE had spoken THAT, for them All, and received THIS, as representing, or bearing in himself the person of unity. And again he saith: If there were not a mystery of the Church in Peter, The Lord would not have said, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven: 
August. in joh. tract. 50.  for if this were said only to Peter, than the Church hath them not: And if the Church hath them, than when he received the Keys, he signified the whole Church. So likewise testifieth S. Hierome: Ye will say (saith he) that the Church is builded upon Peter: 
Hiero. cont. jovinian. lib. 1.  howbeit in another place, the same thing is done upon all the Apostles: and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church, is founded equally upon them all. Beda doth likewise so expound it, saying thus: The power of binding and losing, 
Beda upon Mat. 16.  notwithstanding it seem to be given only to Peter, yet, without all doubt, we must understand, that it was given also to the rest of the Apostles. Haymo doth also so affirm: This authority (saith he) the Lord gave not only to Peter, 
Haymo. in his Homily, upon the feast of Peter and Paul.  but also to all the Apostles: because Peter expressed the faith of all the Apostles, when he said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God: So that what the Lord said to Peter, he said unto all his Apostles: as appeareth, joh. 20.23. where he saith thus unto them all alike: Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. Wherefore the Keys, whereby the Kingdom of heaven, is opened and shut to sinners, and the power of binding and losing sins, appear to be, no more specially, or principally given to Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles, but they all received that power & authority, equally, & alike. And here withal you may perceive, that the very person of Peter, is not the Rock, or foundation, whereupon the Church of Christ is builded (for then, upon the death of Peter, the church, for want of a rock or foundation, to uphold it, would have come to ruin) but it is Christ jesus himself (whom Peter there, for himself, & in the name of the rest, confessed) that is the Rock, and foundation, to support and uphold the Church, and whereupon it is builded. For so also doth S. Paul expound and declare it, 
● Cor. 3.11. 1. Cor. 10.4.  saying in precise terms, thus: Other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid already, which is jesus Christ▪ where you see, that he expressly affirmeth, the Church to have no other foundation, but Christ only. And in another place, he also calleth Christ jesus, the Rock, in express terms: for he saith: That Rock was Christ: yea, and Christ himself saith: He that heareth my words, and doth them, is the wise man, that buildeth his house upon the Rock, 
Mat. 7.24.  What better expositors than these would you have, to expound and declare these words? By the Rock then, not Peter, but Christ is to be understood. Yea, howsoever Christ spoke in the Syriac tongue, using the word Cepha, in both places, yet in the Greek text, (which taketh away all ambiguity, & declareth the very true sense of those words) as also in the latin translations, there is a clear & express difference, and distinction made, inter Petrum, & Petram, between Peter, and the Rock: for the words be not, as you suppose: Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church: but thus: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: that is, upon myself, whom thou hast thus confessed to be the Messias, or Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build my Church. So that howsoever the Church is builded upon Christ, and such faith in him, and confession of him, as S. P●●er had, and delivered, yet it is not builded upon the person of S. Peter, as is apparent. And so also doth S. Augustine teach and expound those words: Thou art Peter (saith he) and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, 
Aug. in Mat. Serm 13. de verbi● Domini.  upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, in saying (Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God) I will build my Church: that is upon myself, being the Son of the living God. I will build my Church: I will build thee, upon me, and not me upon thee. For men, willing to build upon men, said, I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, that is, of Peter: but others, that would not build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, I hold of Christ. Be not these things, than very plain and evident? It is true, that in the numbering of the names of the Apostles, 
Matth. 10.2.  Peter is reckoned, first: but as they could not all be reckoned at once, but that of necessity, some must be reckoned before the other, so Theophilact telleth you the reason of it, to be, namely, because he, and Andrew his brother, were the first, that were called by Christ, to the Apostleship: as is, indeed, manifest, in Mat. 4.18, 19 etc. And therefore doth S. Ambrose also acknowledge, that Paul was not interior to Peter, 
Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12.  or to any of the rest of the Apostles (that went before him) in Dignity, but in Time. And in his Book De Incarnate. Domini cap. 4. he affirmeth, the Primacy of Peter, to be Primatum confessionis etc. A. Primacy of confession verily, but not of honour: a primacy of faith, but not of Degree. And likewise doth S. Augustine say of him, that he was ordine primus, the first, in order or reckoning. Although then, Peter be granted to have a Primacy, 
Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, Petrus respondet pro omnibus▪ Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 13. cap. 1. Vt Plat● princeps Philosophorum ita Petrus Apostolorum ●uit. Hironym. advers. Pelag. lib. 1. Luk 22.24, 25, 26. Cyprian. de simplicit. Praelat. Cyprian. ad Quirin, in Act. 2.  yet you see what manner of Primacy it was, & that it was not any Kinglike, or Emperour-like primacy, but a Primacy only of order, or of Excellency in other respects. For Christ jesus himself, when the Apostles contended for a majority, one over another, showeth directly, that they might not expect to reign, or bear Domination, one over another, although they saw Kings and Princes, to do so over the people of those nations that were subject to them: Vos autem non sic: Ye may not do so. Agreeably whereunto, S. Cyprian also hath told us, that Christ gave to all his Apostles the same, or, equal authority: And again he saith, that Peter took nothing proudly upon him, as to say, That he had a Primacy, whereby others that were his aftercommers, should be obedient to him. And so likewise testifieth the Greek Scoliast of him, saying thus: Behold how he doth all things with common consent: And further, he saith of him: that he did nothing Archicos, that is, Imperiously, or with Commanding authority: Much less did he any thing, Monarchicos, that is, like a Monarch, or King over all. So that Peter had no more primacy, in respect of any Legal, Princely, or Monarchical authority over the rest of the Apostles, than the rest had over him: nor was any more the Rock, or foundation of the Church, 
Ephes. 2.20.  than the rest were. Yea, when S. Paul showeth, that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, jesus Christ himself, being the chief Cornerstone: and when it is likewise said in S. john, 
Rev. ●1. 14.  to have twelve foundations, and in them, the names of the Lambs twelve Apostles: It is by both those places very apparent, that Peter, by being a foundation, hath therein, no more preeminence, or prerogative then the rest, inasmuch as the rest be there expressly said to be foundations, as well as he: The Church being founded, aswell upon the rest of the Apostles, 
Hieronym. ad jovinian. lib. 1. cap. 14.  as upon Peter: and the strength of the Church, being equally builded upon them all, as S. Hierome hath also before affirmed. But than secondly, they allege, Luk. 22.31, 32. where Christ saith thus unto Peter: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat: 
Luk. 22.31, 32. Satanas expetivit vos▪ ut cribraret sicut triticum: Ego autem rogavi pro te etc.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, therefore when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. In which words, Christ foreseeing, how Satan would sift and shake them all, but especially Peter (who by thrice denying him, and forswearing of him, was to fall more grievously, and dangerously then the rest) therefore telleth him, that he had prayed for him especially, that his faith fail not, that is, 
Beda. in Luk. 22.  (as Beda expoundeth it) That after he was fallen by denying Christ, he might rise again by repentance: and being so raised up to repentance, by God's special grace, and Christ's prayer, he might be afterward able, even by his own example and experience, to comfort & strengthen others, in the like case. S. Chrysostome likewise so expoundeth it: Oravi pro te ne deficeret, fides tua, hoc est, ne in fine pereas: I have prayed for thee, 
Chrysost. in joh. homil. 72.  that thy faith fall not, that is (saith he) that thou finally perish not. Again, he showeth you the true cause, why Christ did there so specially mention Peter by name: If (saith he) Satan desired to sift the miall, why did not Christ pray for them all? It is evident, as I said before, that to touch him the more deeply, 
Chrysost. in Mat. homil. 83.  and to show his fall to be far more grievous, than any of the rest, Christ turned his speech to him in particular. Again he saith thus: I have prayed for thee particularly, that thy faith fail thee not. This Christ spoke, to touch Peter the more vehemently, signifying, that his fall should be much fouler, then of his fellows, 
Ibidem Paulo aute.  and therefore that he needed the more help. This text than showeth a greater weakness in Peter, and a greater danger towards him, then toward the rest, and from whence it was, that he had his strength and stability, whereby he was kept, that he did not utterly perish, in that his so grievous and dangerous a fall: but it is far from proving or intending, any Monarchical, or Princely rule or authority in him over the rest: It hath no such scope, purpose or meaning in it.  
And here also is answered the third Text they city, of joh. 21.15, 16, 17. where Peter having formerly denied Christ thrice, and yet having his sins forgiven him (and therefore being bound to love Christ, more than the rest, because more was forgiven him) Christ thrice requireth of him, 
Luke 7.41.42.43.47.  to manifest and declare that his greater love, by so much the more diligenter feeding of his Sheeepe: for this is the very drift, true scope, and meaning of Christ, in that place. As S. Cyrill doth also declare in these words: Because Peter (saith he) being ennobled, 
Cyrill. in joh. lib. 12. cap. 46.  from Christ himself, with the name of the Apostleship with others, did thrice deny Christ, in the time of his passion: now by right is required of him, three confessions of his love: that three denials, might be countervayled, and recompensed, with an equal number of confessings, etc. Christ asked of him whether he loved him, more than the rest did? for he that had experience of the greater clemency of the Lord towards him, aught of right to be affected with greater love: for although generally all the Disciples were stricken with great fear, when the Lord was betrayed: yet the fault of Peter was greater than of the rest: who so denied Christ in so short a time. Because therefore he obtained remission of sins by greater clemency of the Saviour: greater love of right is required of him: for he to whom more is forgiven, aught more to love. 
Aug. tract. 123. in joh.  S. Augustine also, upon this Text likewise, inferreth, saying: Let the duty of love be, to feed the Lords flock. And Chrysostome likewise saith: Ter interrogat etc. Christ asketh thrice, 
Chrysost. hom. 87. 〈◊〉 joh.  and he always commandeth the same thing: that he might show how great care he hath of his sheep, and that the feeding of them is the greatest argument of love. To the like effect speak other also of the ancient Fathers: declaring that, the speech of Christ to Peter, touching the feeding of his sheep, belongeth not only to Peter, but to all Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers of the word also. 
Basil. de so. lib. visa cap. 23.  Wherefore S. Basil saith thus: Christ said unto Peter; Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. And in like sort unto all Pastors, and Doctors he gave the same power: a Token whereof is this, that they do All equally bind and lose, aswell as Peter. In like sort speaketh again S. Augustine, saying: The words of Christ, 
Aug. de ag●ne Christi cap 30.  Lovest thou me? and, Feed my sheep: when they are spoken unto Peter; they are spoken unto all. And so witnesseth S. Ambrose also, 
Ambr. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2.  saying: Our Lord said unto Peter, Feed my sheep: which sheep and flock, not only Peter then received, but he receiveth the same together with us: and all we have received the same together with him. So that Peter, neither in respect of feeding the flock of Christ, nor in any other respect, can be showed to have, or to have exercised any imperious or Princely primacy, or Monarchical superiority, over the rest of the Apostles, but was, in respect of rule, power, and authority, equal with the rest, & the rest with him. And this also further appeareth, by the very Commission itself (if you look upon it) which was given to them, 
Matt 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15.16.  when they were sent out into all the world: for therein, is no more principality, power, or authority given or appointed to the one, then to the other. But now here, lastly observe withal, 
Matth. 16.19.  that they be the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, (and not of Earthly kingdoms) which Christ hath committed to his Ministers. So that neither Excommunication, nor any other power of the Keys (be it never so lawfully or justly administered or executed) is of force, to depose any man from an earthly kingdom, though it be of force, being rightly used, to seclude a man from the kingdom of God, if he repent not. And therefore here I must crave leave to tell you; that most wickedly & intolerably, hath the Pope of Rome abused excommunication and the power of the Keys, whilst he hath used them for the pulling down of Kings and Princes from their Thrones, and thereupon hath moved subjects to revolt from their Sovereigns, & to rebel against them. Is not this sweet doctrine, and an holy religion, that upon no warrant at all, yea contrary to the rule & commandment of God, shall presume to persuade subjects, to rebel against their lawful Sovereigns, because forsooth, the Pope hath excommunicated them? For consider well the matter. First, it appeareth that the Pope is no Minister at all of Christ, but the very Grand Antichrist (as this Book clearly manifesteth) and hath therefore no authority from Christ, to excommunicate any Christians at all, much less to excommunicate Christian Kings and Princes. But secondly, if he had that authority, & that Princes were excommunicated by him, yet is excommunication of no force (be it never so rightly done, or, used) to dissolve the duty and allegiance of any subjects, or to depose from earthly kingdoms: inasmuch as excommunication, and the whole power of the Keys (as is here apparent) stretcheth only to the Kingdom of Heaven, and not to earthly Kingdoms. I know they allege, that we are to account an excommunicate person, as a Publican or Heathen. 
Matt. 18.17.  What of this? Admit, if you will, that he were thereby, become actually, and in all respects, a very Heathen: yet I pray tell me; be not Heathen King's Kings, aswell as those that be Christian? Yea, were they not, manifestly, 
Rev. 13.1. 'tis 3.1. 1. Pet. 2.13.  Heathen Kings and Princes, whom nevertheless S. Paul, and S. Peter also, commanded obedience and subjection to be yielded unto? Were not all those, Heathen Emperors likewise, to whom the first Christians that lived under their persecutions, were nevertheless obedient? You see then, that if it were so, that excommunication did (as it doth not) make a christian King to become a very heathen King in all points and respects, yet still nevertheless he remaineth a King, and consequently is still to be honoured and obeyed, as a King, of all his subjects.  
They allege secondly, that the familiars and wont companions of a man excommunicated, are to withdraw their company from him, to the end he may be ashamed of his sin, 
2. Thess 3.14.  and so be brought to repentance: but doth this infer, that therefore subjects may or aught to withdraw their obedience and allegiance from their King? No such matter. For subjects cannot be termed or held, for familiars or companions to those Kings and Princes under whom they be, but the Kings and Princes of other Nations, and such as be foreigners, if any. If the Father be excommunicated, though others withdraw their company from him, to the end he may be ashamed of his sin committed, yet may not his son, that oweth special duty to him as to his father, therefore withdraw his duty and obedience. For though excommunication make him, as an Heathen and a Publican, yet it maketh him not, no father, but he still remaineth a father as he was before: and therefore of all his children, is to be reverenced, honoured, and obeyed, as a father. So likewise if the Husband, be excommunicate, and that others therefore are to withdraw themselves from him, yet nevertheless he still remaineth an husband, and consequently whatsoever others do, his wife, that oweth him special duty and respect, is not to withdraw her duty and obedience, but is still to perform it unto him, as to her husband. If the Master be excommunicate, and that others therefore do withdraw their company from him; yet is not his servant to withdraw his duty and service from him: for notwithstanding excommunication he still is and remaineth a Master to his servant; and consequently notwithstanding excommunication, he is still of all his servants to be obeyed as a Master. In like sort, if a King be excommunicate, and that therefore other Kings and Princes, and such as owe him no subjection, do withdraw themselves from him, yet may not his own subjects, withdraw their subjection, duty, and obedience: inasmuch as notwithstanding excommunication, he still is, and remaineth a King, to his subjects, and consequently is of them, still to be honoured, and obeyed, as their King. But so as the Pope may serve his own turn, and erect and establish to himself, a Throne and Kingdom upon earth, above all Kings, Princes, and Emperors of the world, (which is the chief, or only mark, he shot at) what careth he, what, or whom, or how he doth abuse, be they Kings, or subjects, or whosoever. Yea, it is too well known to the world, that some of his Cardinals, Priests, and Jesuits, have been so monstrous, as to persuade subjects to lay violent hands upon, and to murder their own Sovereigns, accounting it, forsooth, to be a matter meritorious, to commit such abominable and loathsome villainy, in their pretended Catholic, but indeed most devilish and Antichristian cause. If any make doubt hereof, let Parry, Ballard, Babington, and sundry others executed in the late Queen ELIZABETH'S days, be witnesses hereof. And let also that late most execrable plot and intention of theirs, to blow up the Parliament house in England, and all that should be in it, with Gunpowder, likewise bear witness hereof to all posterities. How then can such a Religion, which under colour of being Catholic, and under pretence of a Catholic cause, (when nevertheless it is nothing so, but the clean contrary) alloweth, warranteth, commandeth and commendeth rebellion, treason, and murder of Christian & Protestant Kings and Princes, and their people, as a matter good and meritorious, be, but most detestable and damnable? And what can the Pope, being the approver, allower, and chief, in this business, and for whose sake all this is done, be, but the Grand Antichrist? Where also you may further understand, that the Popish Priests, Jesuits, and the rest of that order, being (as they are) no Ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist, can therefore give to none of you, any absolution or remission of your sins, but do rather augment, enlarge, and increase your sins so much the more, (as they must needs) by such your unlawful resorting to them. So that hereafter ye shall do well, to forbear, and leave off your Eare-Christ, or, Auricular Confession to them: which hath also no commandment, or institution from Christ, but is only an humane devise, whereunto none is necessarily tied. Which thing is so clear that their own Canon Law affirmeth: 
De poenit. d 5. in penitent. gloss. Super. 5. de poenit. & remiss C. omnes utriusque. Rhenan. Annot. ad Tertul. de poenit. Erasmus annot. ad Hiero. de obit. Fabiol. Socrat. li. 5. c. 10. Sozom. li. 7. c. 16. Tripart. Hist. lib. 9 c. 35. Niceph. lib. 12. c. 28. Mat. 3.6. Act. 19.18.  that, It was taken up only by a certain Tradition, and not by any authority of the Old or New Testament. Panormitan likewise saith: That opinion of the Canon Law, greatly pleaseth him, because he findeth no manifest authority, that ever God, or Christ, commanded us to confess our sins to a Priest. And Rhenanus, and, Erasmus, also, affirm, that Christ ordained it not. M●ctarius Bishop of Constantinople, upon an accident that fell out at Confession, put it clean down in his Church: and the Bishops of the East did the like in theirs. Which those godly ancient Bishops would never have done, nor lawfully could have done, if it had been Gods own ordinance and institution. As for the confession of sins which they made, that came to be baptised of S. john Baptist; it was voluntary, and public, and no private, or, auricular confession: and so was also their confession, voluntary and public, and not secret or auricular, which is mentioned in Acts 19 It is true, that S. james saith: 
jam. 5.16.  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. But this no more tieth you to confess your faults, or sins, to a Priest, then to another man: yea, it no more tieth you (if ye well observe the words) to confess your sins to a Priest, then ●t t●eth a Priest to confess his sins to you: for by these words▪ Christian● be charged to confess their sins one to another: as they be likewise there charged, to pray one for another. I grant, that in the ancient Church, such as were public offenders, did, for those their open and public offences, public penance, by public and open confession of them, in the Congregation, with sorrow for the same, and ask forgiveness first of God, then of the Church or congregation which they had so offended: After which public confession, and penance, and satisfaction so made to the Church or Congregation, where the offence was committed, they were again reconciled, and received absolution by a public pronouncing of it upon that their repentance declared. Which kind of public confession, and open penance, and absolution thereupon, is also observed in the reformed & Protestant churches. But this no way serveth to prove your private, secret, and auricular confession; yea it rather maketh against it, because this was public. Yet if any think, that a private confession to a Minister of Christ, is, sometime, and in some cases, convenient and meet to be used: the Protestants in their learned and godly works, against the Papists, have told you, that they do not dislike it, but well allow and commend it, so often as burden of conscience oppresseth any man, for any sin by him committed, to utter those his griefs, and confess his sins which wound him so sore, either to any faithful Minister of Christ, or to any other skilful, godly, and discreet Christian whosoever, thereby to receive help, remedy, and consolation. Caietan himself, though he like well, 
Caietan. upon joh. 20.  with us, of a voluntary confession which is not forced or commanded, yet expressly denieth this Popish manner of Auricular Confession to be of Christ's institution. And indeed the Ministers of Christ may very well pronounce absolution or forgiveness of sins upon a free and voluntary confession, though they bind not men, by a law of necessity, at certain times of the year, to make such a confession unto them, as is used and urged in the Papacy, after a tyrannical manner. This Christian, moderate, and allowable course, do the Protestant Ministers hold, in their receiving of any Confessions: as also they forgive not sins absolutely, and at pleasure, but only (as is before said) ministerially and declaratively, and with a limitation, viz. so as they have a right and lively faith, and a true repentance, to whom they pronounce their absolution. But to proceed, and to show how the other words in the Text, be also verified in the Pope: whilst he taketh upon him to forgive sins, as fully & absolutely as God himself: whilst he taketh upon him to depose Kings, and to dispose of their kingdoms at his pleasure: whilst he taketh upon him, not only to order and dispose of earthly kingdoms, but also to rule and order the whole Church of God upon earth, at his own will: what doth he else, but sit in the Temple of God, as God, and so show himself as if be were God? 
2. Thess. 2.4.  yea, whilst he advanceth himself, above all Bishops, Kings, Princes, and Emperors of the World, and above all general Counsels also, so that he will not be censured or controlled by any of these, or by any of their laws or constitutions, and (which is yet more) whilst he advanceth himself even above the divine Scriptures than selves, dispensing with them at his pleasure: what doth he else, but so carry himself as if he were God, or rather above God? But, again, what doth he else but sit in the Temple of God as God, and so show himself as if he were God, whilst he ruleth and reigneth in men's consciences, like God, yea or rather above God himself? for common experience showeth, that the men and women that be under his subjection, and of his Church and superstition, be more devoted, and more regardful, to know and obey his will, and his ordinances, and constitutions, than they be to know and obey God, & his word, and commandments. It is then very evident that the Pope, is, at the least, as a God unto them, and that upon him they as confidently rely, as upon God himself, affirming and supposing him to have an infallibility of judgement, and such a special direction by the Holy Ghost, as that he cannot possibly err, in any thing he teacheth, decreeth, or determineth. Yea doth he not sit in the Temple of God as God, & so show himself as if he were God, when he not only taketh upon him, 
Distinct. 21. & dist 96 C satu evidenser.  the proper and peculiar powers, honours, preeminences, rights, and authorities, belonging unto God, as is before declared, but even the very title and name also of God? For, with a very bold face, he acknowledgeth himself to be called God, urgeth the title, and challengeth it: and further, 

Christoph Marcell. in Concil. la. ●eran. sess. 4.  
In the gloss of the Extravant. cum inter.  
In archa triumphali. Impress. Lugduni. in Anno 1555.   they say of him, that he is, Dominus deus noster Papa, Our Lord God the Pope. And do not also these Verses, dedicated to him, and accepted of him, sufficiently declare the same?  
Oraclo vocis mundi moderaris habenas,  
Et meritò in terris crederis esse Deus.  
That is, 
By Oracle of thy voice, thou rul'st and governest all,  
And worthily a God on earth, men deem and do thee call.   
6 But S. Paul proceedeth, and saith thus: Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? and now ye know, what withholdeth, 
2. Thes. 2 5▪ 6, 7, 8.  that he might be revealed in his time: for the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only be which now withholdeth, shall let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked (or, lawless) ●an be revealed. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Here he showeth, what it was that did withhold and keep back Antichrist, that he did not appear in his colours, in those times of the Apostles: albeit, the Mystery of that Iniquity was not then altogether idle, but was even then a working, in such close manner as it could. This same, 
Tertul. de resur▪ carnis. Chrysost. in 2. Thess. 2. Aug. de Civit. Dei. li. 20 c 19 Hicronym ad Algas. quaest. 11. Cyrill. Catech. 15. Primasius, Theophilact, Ambr. in 2. Thes. 2.  To chatechon, which withholdeth, and letteth, and hindereth Antichrist, that he could not then appear, was the Roman Empire, as Tertullian, Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, and others do expound it. For so long as the Roman Empire stood in his full and flourishing estate, Antichrist could not rise to that his power and height. And therefore that Antichrist might appear, and show himself in his glory and greatness, it was requisite, that the Emperor of Rome, should give place and depart from that City, where the seat of the Empire than was, that so the Pope might possess it, and make it his seat: according to that prophecy in the Revelation of S. john before mentioned: where it is foretold, that, 
Rev. 17.18.  that great City of Rome, was to become the head and Metropolitan City, for the Antichristian Kingdom. And the issue and event hath showed itself answerable. For the Emperor Constantine, removed and translated the seat of the Empire, from Rome in Italy, unto Byzantium, (otherwise called Constantinople) in Greece: and after that began the Emperors, by little, and little, to lose their right in Italy: so that at the last, Rome, the ancient seat of the Empire, with a great part of Italy, fell into the Bishop of Rome his hands: and now, and for the space of many hundred years, hath the Bishop of Rome, otherwise called the Pope (& not the Emperor) there had his seat. This is so evident, as that it needeth no further declaration. Wherefore to go forward, S. Paul saith: that, The coming of Antichrist, shall be by the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all deceivableness of unrighteousness, 
●. Thes. 2.9.10.  amongst them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth etc. This is before showed, to agree very fitly to the Kingdom of Popery. For who boast so much of Miracles, as they? And yet, even touching the Miracles in their Legends, Claudius Espencaeus himself saith: 
Esp. 2 Tim. 4. digr. 21. Can. loc. lib. 11. cap. 6. Caiet. opusc. de concep. Vir. c. 1.  No Stable is so full of dung, as their Legends are full of fables. Canus also taxeth, even Gregory's Dialogues, and beda's History in this point. And Caietan further taxeth, as uncertain, the Miracles done, even by those that be the Canonised Saints in Popery. Why then will they still be so credulous, as to believe their Miracles, to object them, or to rely upon them? For if you doubt of the real bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, they will tell you, that it hath been confirmed by Miracle. If you doubt of Purgatory, and whether Masses, Trentals, Prayers, or such like, do the Souls of the dead any good, they will also tell you of a Miracle, or of some strange Vision, Revelation, or Apparition of some dead person, to prove the same: And so (to comprehend all in few words) for the confirmation of their whole religion, they will tell you strange tales of Miracles, Apparitions, and wonders, wrought by their Popes, Priests, Jesuits, Monks, and other their supposed holy men, and holy women of their religion. Howbeit, God himself hath herein given us a good rule, 
Deut. 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  and direction, saying thus: If there arise among you, a Prophet, or a Dreamer of Dreams, and give thee a sign or wonder (and the sign, and the wonder, which he hath told thee, come to pass) saying: Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken to the words of that Prophet, or unto that Dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know, whether you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul: ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and shall keep his commandments: and hearken unto his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him: But that Prophet, or, that Dreamer of dreams, he shall be slain, because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, (which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and delivered you out of the house of Bondage) to thrust thee out of the way, wherein the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk. Whereby we are admonished, that if any Miracle be wrought, or wonder done, to lead a man out of the right way from God, and his religion, or for the confirmation of any Idolatrous, erroneous, or false religion, or of any point of Error, or Untruth: we must not regard it, or be moved by it. And therefore we are first to examine, whether that point of faith, and religion, which in these days, is so attempted, or intended to be proved by Miracle, or Wonder, be consonant and agreeable to the word of God, delivered unto us in the holy and Canonical Scriptures: For, if it be not found to be thereby warranted, the Miracle, or wonder, wrought for the confirmation of that untruth, must bear no sway with us, how great soever it seem, but must be rejected, as here you see. And this is one cause, amongst the rest why they be called, Lying Miracles, and wonders, which are done in Popery, the Antichristian Church, 
2 Thes. 2.9.  because they be done to this end, to maintain lies, and lying doctrines, and an untrue and false religion: whereby they deceive men, and bring them, first to Impiety, and misbelief, and afterward to utter ruin and destruction.  
7 For as this Antichristian Popery was to prevail, by the subtlety, and deceivableness thereof, and by the working of Satan, and by the lying miracles and wonders that be therein: so S. Paul further showeth, amongst whom it should prevail, namely, Amongst them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved: and that therefore God did sent them strong delusion, 
2. Thess. 1.10.11.12.  that they should believe lies: that they all might be damned, which believed not the Truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. In which words you see, first, the cause and reason, which God had to punish the world, with this great plague of Antichristian Popish blindness, namely, the neglect and contempt of his Word and Gospel, and their preferring men's traditions, doctrines, lies, and devises, before his truth in his Scriptures contained: For (saith he) because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved; therefore it is, that Satan with his frauds and deceitful practices, should so prevail among them. Again he saith: And therefore shall God send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies, that they all might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Observe here well, that he calleth it (as most apparently it is indeed) a strong delusion, wherewith Papists are possessed, and carried; and that it is also a strong delusion to believe lies, and such, as that they take pleasure in that unrighteousness. Do not all devoted Papists find this to be true? And is not Popish Antichristianisme, also rightly & worthily called, Injustice, or, unrighteousness? when most injuriously it hath robbed God and men, Christ and his Church, and the sacred and canonical Scriptures, and not only Bishops and Clergy men, but Kings, Princes, and Emperors also, and people, of the rights, and dues to them belonging? Yea, it breaketh the strength and sinews of Common weals also, aswell as of the Church, by lying and deceitful equivocations: by dispensing with oaths, and with other things: by their doctrine and Decree, that Faith is not to be kept with Heretics: by their dissolving of the allegiance of subjects: by their doctrine of deposing Kings: by their Gunpowder plots, and most detestable devises of treasons, rebellions, murders, and massacres of Christian and Protestant Princes, and their people: and by sundry other ways, rueful to be told, and most shameful to be either professed or put in execution. Can there be greater points of injustice or unrighteousness then these? But all this while, forget not, I beseech you, amongst what manner of people it is, that this Antichristian Popery prevaileth namely, that it is amongst them that perish, 
2. Thess. 2.10.11, 12.  that all they might be damned which believed not God's truth, (extant in his Scriptures) but take pleasure in that unrighteousness: For, do you not hereby perceive, the most fearful estate, and most woeful condition, that all Papists be in, that notwithstanding, they be often admonished, will not, for all that, forsake Antichrist, and his religion, to embrace the truth, and the most pure religion of Christ, taught in the holy Scriptures? Be they not here expressly affirmed to be such as perish, and are to be damned, if they persist obstinate, and will not be reclaimed or converted? Agreeably hereunto is also, that which is written in the Revelation of S. john, where the Angel uttered it with a loud voice (to the end that all men should take notice of it) saying: If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or on his hand, 
Rev. 14.9.10, 11.  the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, yea of the pure wine that is poured into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, before the holy Angels, and before the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment, shall ascend up evermore, and they shall have no rest, day nor night, which worship the beast, and his image, and whosoever receiveth the print of his name. Consider these things seriously, ye that are wont to say and hold, that None can be saved but he that is a pure Papist: Do ye not see the clean contrary here directly affirmed, and that by warrant from God himself, that whosoever is a pure Papist, and in contempt of all admonitions, will so live and die, is not a saved but a damned soul? We wish your salvation, and if yourselves wish it likewise, (as no doubt ye do), ye will then take the right course for it, and be content not only patiently, but thankfully also, to receive these christian and friendly admonitions, and so be moved in time to relinquish, and utterly to detest and abandon this Antichristian Popery, that thus directly and certainly leadeth to Hell, and damnation.  
8 But consider yet further, the other words of S. Paul, 
2. Thess. 2.8.  where he saith of Antichrist, thus: Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightness of his coming. For hereby appeareth, that Antichrist, and his religion, shall be consumed by the voice and preaching of the word of God, (which he calleth the spirit of his mouth), and that he shall be utterly abolished at the bright and glorious coming of Christ to judgement: so that here you may observe the decay and destruction of that Antichristian monster; namely, that though he shall not be utterly destroyed in all points and respects, until the coming of Christ to judgement, but that some remnants of him will be till then, yet he shall in the mean space, be mightily decayed, wasted, and consumed, by the voice and preaching of the pure, strong, powerful, and prevalent word of God: which is able to cast down strong holds, 
Heb. 4.12▪  and imaginations, and every high thing, that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and to bring into captivity every thought, 
2. Cor. 10.4 5.  to the obedience of Christ. The truth of this wasting and consuming of Antichrist, by the powerful preaching of the Gospel and word of Truth, we see apparent before our eyes: for who knoweth not, how since the preaching of the Gospel, by those many excellent instruments of God, whom he was pleased to raise up, in the later age of the world for that purpose; Pope and Popery hath come down in divers kingdoms and dominions of Europe, and hath been much and mightily wasted and consumed, and must yet consume more and more, until at last he be utterly destroyed and abolished, according to this Prophecy of S. Paul? And agreeably hereunto, S. john also in his Revelation, telleth us, of seven Angels that were to blow their Trumpets, and that under the blowing of the Trumpet by the seventh Angel, there shall be no more time, but the mystery of God shall be finished, 
Rev. 10.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.  and the world have his end. Now after that the sixth Angel had began to blow, and before the blast of the seventh Angel, there is a little Book opened (namely, the book of the holy Scriptures) which had before lain closed and shut up in Popery) which book is there delivered to S. john, 
Rev 10.2. ●, 9, 10, 11.  representing the person of Christ's faithful Ministers, with a commandment given unto them, that they should take it, and eat it up, and that it should make th●ir belly bitter, but should, be in their mouth, as sweet as honey: and that thereout they should preach, and prophesy again, among the people, and nations, and tongues, and to many Kings. And this, in another place, is called the Everlasting Gospel, 
Rev. 14.6.  committed to Christ his Ministers and servants, to preach unto them, that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. This Book (of the Everlasting Gospel, and Scriptures of God) is called little, in respect of the great volumes of the Pope's laws, and decrees, and constitutions of men, and is commanded to be taken and eaten up by the Ministers and servants of Christ, because they were eagerly and earnestly, and with a vehement appetite, to read and study it, and to digest, muse, and meditate upon it: and it is said, to make the belly bitter, though in their mouth it was as sweet as honey: because such was the exceeding great contentment and abundance of solace and joy, which they received thereby to themselves, as that tasting and finding the incomparable sweetness of it, and letting it, as it were down into their stomaches, and filling their bellies with it, they were not able to contain it within themselves, but must needs utter and declare the same unto others, whatsoever bitter troubles, afflictions, persecutions, or calamities, should or did thereupon ensue: which molestations, their enemies would bring upon them, purposely, to hinder the preaching and publishing of God's religion, and truth, contained in that Book, & for the maintenance of the Pope's law, religion, & constitutions, which had so long before prevailed in the world. You see then, how after that this Antichristian Popery, had corrupted & oppressed the most ancient & true religion of Christ, once planted & established by the Apostles, & contained in that Book of the Scriptures: the very same book of the Scriptures, & the truth thereout, being (as was foretold it should be) once again, preached & published, 
Rev. 10.11.  hath begun to spread his beams, & taken in hand, the discovery and conquest of that secret, hidden, & subtle traitor, the Antichristian Popery: having already much wasted and consumed it by the power thereof, in diverse parts of Europe, & still more and more must waste & consume it, until at last it be utterly abolished. So that we may observe here, for the better confirmation of us in our faith and religion, that all things fall out, in their just times and seasons, foretold and before appointed of God; namely, that this wasting and consuming of the Pope and Popery, by the preaching and publishing of God's truth and religion, in that book of the Scriptures contained, came not to pass, nor was to come to pass, till after the time that the sixth Angel had begun to blow his Trumpet, that is, not until toward the latter end of the world: for under the blowing of the Trumpet by the seventh Angel, the world is to end, as is before declared.  
9▪ But now against this position of the Pope to be Antichrist, is objected, that Antichrist shall be only one particular man in certain, which shall reign, just three years & an half, and no longer: And so Bellarmine also teacheth, & for proof of this opinion, 
Bellarm. in his fifth Demonstration touching Antichrist.  he citeth divers Texts of Scripture, out of Daniel, and the Revelation: as namely Dan. 7.25. and Dan. 12.7. where mention is made of a Time, and times, and half a time: and of Rev. 11.3. where mention is made of the two witnesses, that they did prophesy 1260 days: and Rev. 12.6.4. where mention is again made of 1260 days: and of a Time, and Times, and half a Time: and Rev. 11.2. and Rev. 13.5. where mention is also made of 42 Months. All which times, he maketh to be one and the same: and, accounting 30 days to every month, he saith, they contain just three years and an half, and that this is the precise and full time of Antichrist his Reign. Neither is it (saith he) against this, that in Dan. 12.11. Antichrist is said to reign, 1290 days: that is, 30 days more, than S. john mentioned: for S. john (saith he) speaketh of the two witnesses, which shall be slain by Antichrist, one month before Antichrist himself perish. But, how can these things stand together, wherein there is such a palpable and manifest contradiction? For, first, if it be true which he saith, that Antichrist shall reign only 1260 days that is, just three years and an half (as he expoundeth it) how can it be true, which he afterward saith, that Antichrist shall reign 1290 days, which is one month longer, consisting of 30 days? Is there no difference between 1260 days, and 1290 days? Bellarmine himself confesseth, that there is a month's difference (consisting of 30 days), between them. And is the difference of a month, or 30 days, nothing in the account of time? Do not 1290 days, by Bellarmine's own reckoning, contain three years and seven months? and is three years and six months, and three years and seven months, all one? Yea, the very reason which Bellarmine bringeth to reconcile the difference of the times, will not agree with himself. For you see, that he here teacheth, 1290 days, to be the time allotted to Antichrist: & a part of this time, namely, 1260 days, he showeth that the two Witnesses lived together with Antichrist: and the residue of that time (which is 30 days more, that is, one month after the death of those Witnesses) he saith, that Antichrist lived. If then, those two Witnesses did accompany Antichrist, that is, came, when he came, and did prophesy 1260 days, that is, just three years and an half before they died, and that after their death, Antichrist still lived, and that by the space of a month: how can it be shifted, but that Antichrists reign must be granted to continue longer than that time aforesaid, of just three years and an half? If you answer (as one Master Christopherson, in defence of Bellarmine, doth) that this last month is not to be accounted of, because Antichrist during that his last month, reigned not so strongly, and firmly, as he did before, and that his kingdom was then weak and declining: This hindereth not but that his reign and kingdom did, for all that, still continue, even during that month, aswell as during any of those former months, days, or later times, wherein he was in his declination. For a man ceaseth not to be a King, because he at some time ruleth and reigneth more feebly and weakly, then at othersome times. And therefore even this last month, aswell as any of the rest of the later months or days, is to be reckoned & accounted part of Antichrist his reign: for else you may as well exclude the sixth month, or at least some part of it, or the last day of the sixth month, as the seventh month, or the first day of the same seventh month: because in those days also, Antichrist was declining. But what? Shall not the reign of Antichrist, or of any King whosoever, be said and supposed to continue, so long as he liveth, whilst he is neither deposed, nor surrendereth, nor yieldeth up his kingdom to any other, nor hath done, nor suffered to be done, any act to the contrary? yea, Bellarmine himself doth expressly account this last month, aswell as any of the former, as a part of Antichrist his reign, using the very word, and saying: that he is, Regnaturus mille ducentis nonaginta diebus, to Reign 1290 days. Here than you see by this incurable contradiction and repugnant doctrine of Bellarmine and other Papists, that the long retained opinion of Antichrist his reigning just three years and an half, is either utterly uncertain, or utterly untrue. And that you may yet better perceive the uncertainty, 
Dan. 8.14.15.  or rather untruth of that opinion: consider, that the Prophet Daniel also mentioneth 2300 days: which text & time, 
Hieronym▪ in Dan. cap. 8.  divers also of the ancient Fathers (as S. Hierome witnesseth) did apply unto Antichrist. Which opinion of those ancient Writers, if a man should hold, then must Antichrists reign, be yet of much longer continuance, than either 1260 days, or then 1290 days, that is, much longer than either three years and six months, or three years and seven months. Such uncertainty there is, even in ancient Fathers, as well as in other writers, when they go by conjectures or suppositions, without sufficient warrant of the divine Scriptures. 
Bellarm. in his sixth Demonstration touching Antichrist.  But Bellarmine yet further proceedeth, and saith thus: that The Prophet Daniel after he had said cap. 12.11. that Antichrists kingdom should endure 1290 days, addeth vers. 12. Blessed is he which expecteth, and cometh to 1335 days: that is, to 45 days after Antichrists death: for than will our Lord come to judgement, and render the crowns of righteousness to the Conquerors. Observe this well also: for, if this opinion of his, concerning Antichrist, were true; namely, that he shall reign just three years and an half, and yet that he shall continue one month longer (consisting of 30 days), to make up the full number of 1290 days, and that 45 days after, shall be the time of Christ's coming to judgement, and of eternal Blessedness, as he there teacheth: who seeth not, that any man living in that time of the reign of Antichrist, may, before hand, by this reckoning, certainly know, the very Day of the end of the world, and of Christ his coming to judgement? 
Matth 24.36. Mat. 13.32.  But of That day, and hour, knoweth no man, no not the Angels of Heaven, but my Father only▪ saith Christ: and therefore that opinion cannot possibly be true. But moreover, sundry learned men do say, that the Prophecy of Daniel touching the little horn there mentioned, and the times ascribed to him, concerneth not Antichrist at all, directly & properly, but only Antiochus Epiphanes, (that cruel tyrant, and great persecutor, and afflicter of those Saints and ancient people of God, the jews) in whom, and whose history, they affirm, that all those several times, mentioned in Daniel, received their full and due accomplishment.  
But you allege, that even some Protestant Writers do also expound the Time, and Times, and half a Time, mentioned in Daniel, as also the 1260 days mentioned in the Revelation (there otherwise called 42 months, and, a Time, and Times, and half a Time), to belong to Antichrist. Howbeit, you should remember withal, that even those Protestants that so expound it, do teach, that those days and times for all that, are not to be taken literally (as you take them), but mystically and Prophetically, and namely, not for so many common and natural days, but for so many years, that is to say, for 1260 years, accounting every day for a year: for so they say, that, in the Scripture, it is sometimes used: as in Ezechiel, where God saith thus unto him: Thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of judah, forty days: I have appointed thee, 
Ezech. 4.6.  a day for a year. So in the Book of Numbers, God speaketh thus: After the number of the days, 
Numb. 14 34.  in which ye searched out the Land, even forty days, every day for a year, shall ye bear your Iniquity for forty years, and ye shall feel my breach of promise. So again doth the Scripture mention a week of days, and a week of years According whereunto, 
Dan. 10 2.3. Levit. 25.8. Dan 9.24.  the seventy weeks mentioned in Daniel, be also expounded, not of seventy weeks of days, but of seventy weeks of years, that is to say, seventy times seven years, which make 490 years, every day being reckoned for a year: (for according to this computation, and reckoning of a day for a year, is it, that, that Prophecy, had his accomplishment). Whereupon they conclude, that Antichrists persecution, and reign, (being limited to a time, and times, and half a time, expounded by 1260 days, every day being to be reckoned for a year, (as they take it) is to have continuance, for much longer time, than you suppose, namely, for 1260 years: which is far from your exposition and opinion, who hold, that Antichrist should reign but just three years and an half. But if this exposition, of reckoning a day for a year, seemeth (as to some it doth) to search too near into God's secrets, and to know the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power: 
Act. 1.17.  There is another exposition, which the Protestants deliver unto you, touching the 42 months, and 1260 days (otherwise called a Time, and Times, and half a Time,) mentioned in the Revelation, which is this: namely, that times, in God's appointment certain, of the several persecutions and molestations of the Church, be therein limited and prescribed; albeit to us, they be uncertain, until the event do declare them. For, that, a time certain, even in the Revelation of S. john, may be thus put for a time uncertain, the Rhemists themselves do sufficiently declare: who expound the Thousand years, 
Rhem upon Rev. 20.2.  wherein the Devil is said to be bound, (which in itself, is a time certain) to be nevertheless the whole time (how long, or short, soever it be) of the New Testament, until Antichrists time. If then, the certain time of a Thousand years, signify no certain number of years, but are put for an indefinite and an uncertain time, as the Rhemists, and other Papists also, teach: what marvel is it, or what just exception can they take against us, if we likewise expound the 42 months, and 1260 days (otherwise called a Time, and Times, and half a Time) for a time indefinite, and uncertain, to us, until it be accomplished, though God in his foreknowledge hath certainly limited it? Yea, according hereunto Beda saith: By the number of these days (which make three years and an half) the Holy Ghost comprehendeth all the times of Christianity: 
Beda upon Rev. 12.  because Christ (whose body the Church is) preached so long in the flesh. To the same effect he saith (upon the 14 verse): 
Ambrose Ausbertus upon this place.  He designeth the whole time of the Church, comprehended before in the number of Days. Ambrose Ansbertus likewise saith: The number of 1260 days, in which the woman tarrieth, and is fed in the wilderness, doth so signify the course of Preaching, or end of Persecution, (in which the old enemy is permitted to rage, against the holy Church, by that damned man, whom he shall possess) that nevertheless it comprehendeth the beginning, either of the preaching or of the persecution, in which Christ began to preach and suffer: yea, the whole time of this present life, which is between the beginning, and the end. 
Rupertus upon this place.  Rupertus also expoundeth these days, for so long time, as the Church, being a stranger in the world, suffereth persecution. Haymo likewise saith: It may be referred unto all the time, from the ascension of Christ, 
Haymo upon this place.  unto the end of the world. Thus you see, that even these ancient Expositors expound it, not for just three years and an half, as ye do, but as comprehending, in it, a much longer time, and as being a time certain put for an uncertain, as we do.  
But yet, to answer more particularly to those Texts. And first to that Text of Revelat. 11. It is there said: 
Rev. 11.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. etc.  That the Gentiles shall tread under foot, the holy City (that is, the true Church of God) two and forty months: But I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy (saith the Text) 1260 days, clothed in Sackcloth: These are two Olive Trees, and two Candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouths, and devoureth their enemies: For if any man would hurt them, thus must he be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophesying, and have power over waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all manner of plagues as often as they will: And when they have finished their Testimony, the Beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them, etc. You suppose, that by these two witnesses here mentioned, be meant Enoch and Elias; who, as you imagine, shall come again personally, into this world, to encounter and oppose themselves against Antichrist. But first, how do ye prove these two Witnesses, to be Enoch and Elias? for ye find them not so named, in the Text. And indeed it is but an imagination or surmise, which hath no sufficient ground, or certainty in it. Yea S. Hierom rejecteth it, & saith, 
In Mal. 4.  that they be judei & judaizantes haeretici etc. jews and judaizing heretics, that look for a corporal or personal coming of Elias. And in another place he reckoneth such manner of expectation and opinion touching Enoch and Elias, as also the opinion touching the building again of the material Temple at Jerusalem, 
Ad Marcellam.  in the number of jewish Fable. 
Areth. in Apoc. 11.  Arethas indeed saith of these two Witnesses, that it was constantly received, that they should be Enoch and Elias: but Victorinus (who was more ancient, than Arethas) telleth us otherwise: 
Victorin. in Apoc. 11.  Many think (saith he) that one of these two witnesses is Elias, the other either Elizeus or Moses: but they are both dead: Howbeit the death of jeremy, is not found: And all our Ancients have delivered (saith he) that, that other, 
Hillar in Matth. can 20.  is jeremy. And S. Hillary thinketh them to be Elias and Moses. Such uncertainty there is, even in ancient Fathers, as well as in other Writers, when they go by conjectures, ghesses, and imaginations only, without sufficient warrant from the word of God. It is therefore to be observed, that the Revelation, is full of mystical, prophetical, and alluding speeches: As for example, where these two Witnesses, be called two Olive trees, and Candlesticks, he alludeth unto that prophecy in Zachary, chap. 4.1.2.3.4.5.6. etc. Which witnesses of divine Truth, and Preachers and Ministers of the Gospel, be not unfitly called Candlesticks, inasmuch as they bear and hold out, the light of God's word, unto the people: as also they be well resembled to Olive trees, inasmuch as by the means of their Ministry and Preaching of the Gospel, the Oil of God's grace, and of his spirit, is poured into men's hearts, to mollify and to convert them unto God. Again, in that he mentioneth two witnesses, 
Deut. 19.15. joh. 8.17. Matt. 18.16.  he alludeth unto the Law, which requireth the Testimony of two witnesses: the testimony of which number of witnesses, is held sufficient, to ratify and confirm a matter. So that by these two witnesses, he meaneth that he will ever have, even in the greatest fury and rage of Antichrist, a competent and sufficient number to bear witness of his truth, and religion, contained in the two Testaments of the holy Scriptures. Likewise he alludeth partly unto the times of Elias, and partly unto the times of Moses, when he saith: that If any will hurt the two witnesses fire proceedeth out of their mouths to devour their enemies, and that these have power to shut heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophesying: and have power over waters to turn them into blood etc. For so in Moses time, in the land of Egypt, were the waters in the River turned into Blood: 
Exod. 7.20.21. etc.  and sundry other plagues brought upon that land of Egypt, for molesting of God's people, and not suffering them to go out, that they might serve him. As also in the days of Elias it was, that fire came down from heaven, 
2. King. 1.9.10, 11, 12.  to consume and devour certain Captains and their Companies of fifties, that came to apprehend, and disturb him. And so again at the prayer of Elias, heaven was shut: so that it reigned not on the earth, 
jam. 5.17. Luk. 4.25.  for the space of three years and six months. Wherefore here is a manifest allusion, in some of these speeches, unto the times of Moses▪ and in othersome of them, to the times of Elias: signifying thereby, that God will ever be the revenger of such, as shall oppress, molest, or wrong any of these witnesses of his truth, and religion. Now, as the famine, or grievance for want of rain, in those days of the prophesying of Elias, was very great, continuing three years and six months: so the oppression or grievance of the Church, in this place, is answerably thereunto, limited to 42 months, as it is likewise in Rev. 13.5. Which 42 months contain the very same time of three years and six months, mentioned in Elias time: and be likewise all one with the 1260 days, mentioned in this Chapter of Rev. 11.3. and Rev. 12.6. reckoning thirty days, to every month, according to the Grecian manner, as is fittest: this Revelation being written in Greek, 
jos. Scaliger. lib. de emend. temp.  and directed to the Greek Churches. But now, although these 42 months, otherwise called 1260 days, being thus reckoned, do arithmetically contain just three years, and an half: yet being (as they are) here spoken by way of allusion, (whether it be to those three years & six months, in Elias time; or to the three years and six months, employed about the siege and taking of jerusalem, by Vespasian and Titus; or to the three years and an half, of Christ his preaching in the flesh): they are not to be taken literally, to contain, during all the times of the Church her persecutions, just, three years and an half, and neither more, nor less: (for her persecutions, every one knoweth, were of much longer continuance than three years and an half). But, as I said before, they import unto us, by that allusion, that there is a certain set time appointed of God, how long those grievances and persecutions of the Church should continue: albeit we, for our parts, know it not, till the event hath declared it. Although then, by the Gentiles, 
Rev. 11.2.  in this Text of Rev. 11. the false and Antichristian Church, be understood: as, by jews, likewise mentioned in the Revelation, 
Rev. 3.9.  the true Church of Christ, is intended: yet, the 42 months, and, 1260▪ days, being to be expounded not literally, but mystically, allegorically, and by way of allusion, can make no proof at all, for your purpose. Yea Arethas saith, that those Days and Times, so reckoned in the Revelation, 
Areth. in Apoc.  be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Brevitatis Declarativum, to declare brevity, or the shortness of the time of the persecution of the Church, by Antichrist. And indeed so it seemeth to be expounded in the Revelation itself, where speaking of this Antichrist, 
Rev. 17.10.  (being the seventh head of the Beast) it is said, that he shall continue but a short time. So that the one place in this Revelation, serveth well to expound the other. And it is thus reckoned by days, and times, and months, that is, by a short time, for the comfort of God's people, against those persecutions of Antichrist, and that they should not think it long, as I said before, how long soever otherwise it might seem to worldly-minded men. And even Hentenius also, though a Papist, rejecteth this conceit of yours, that Antichrist should reign but just three years and an half, alleging this for a reason, 
He●ten. praefat. ad Comment. Arethaes, in Apoc.  that it is impossible, that in so short a time as three years and an half, Antichrist should obtain so many Kingdoms, and Provinces, as it is said he shall conquer and subdue.  
10 But to make this yet more manifest unto you, & that ye may certainly know, the length and continuance of the time of Antichrist, and not be led by uncertain conjectures, imaginations, or conceits of men: you must resort to the sacred and canonical Scriptures, for your direction and assurance in this point, as likewise in all other. For which purpose you must consider Antichrist, in his beginning, and in his proceeding increase, and growth, until he came at length to his highest step: and then, being at the highest, you must consider him again, in his declination and consumption, until his final destruction and utter abolishing. 
1. joh. 2.18. 2. joh. 7. 1. joh. 4.3. 2. Thess. 2.7.  That Antichrist, even, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had his beginning in the Apostles time, S. john is a manifest witness. And so also witnesseth S. Paul, saying expressly: that, the Mystery of that his Iniquity, already wrought, even then, in his days. And withal he showeth, that more or less, he should continue, 
Verse 8.  and not be utterly abolished until the bright & glorious coming of Christ to judgement: Now then, seeing that Antichrist began in the Apostles times, (albeit neither ●hen, nor long after, he came to his full growth and highest step of pride) and seeing also that after he came (by degrees, and by little, and little) to the superlative degree, he is not utterly to be abolished, until the coming of Christ to judgement (although in the mean space, he be already much consumed, and is yet more and more to be consumed): what one man, shall, or, can be named, that ever lived so long a time▪ as this Antichrist, who beginning in the Apostles days, is to have continuance, notwithstanding his consumption, to the end of the world? Can any reasonable man, imagine, that any of that long continuance, should be but one singular and particular person? Yea, must not every well-advised man, hereupon, needs conceive, that Antichrist must be, not one singular and particular man, but many, and a succession of men, that is thus to have continuance for the space of so many hundreth years, in the world?  
Another argument and proof thereof, is this. That which, in the Prophecies of the Scripture, is described under the name and figure of a Beast, is not one singular person, but an whole State or succession: As for example, the four Beasts, mentioned in Dan. 7. whereof one was as a Lion, 
Dan. 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  the second like a Bear, the third like a Leopard, the fourth was unlike to the former, and had ten horns. None of these four Beasts betoken any singular or particular man, but every one of them betokeneth a State or Dominion, wherein there was a succession of men. For the Beast that was like unto a Lion, signified the Empire or Kingdom of the Assyrians and Babylonians: the Beast like unto the Bear, signifieth the Empire or Kingdom of the Medes and Persians: the Beast likened to a Leopard, signifieth the Empire or Dominion of the greeks and Macedonians: and by the fourth Beast, with ten horns, is the Kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagidae understood (as some suppose) or of the Roman Empire (as some others understand it). So likewise is Antichrist, described under the name & figure of a Beast (as is also confessed even by the adversaries themselves): 
Rev. 13. Rev. 17.  and therefore neither can he be supposed one singular and particular person, but a State and Dominion, wherein a succession of sundry persons, one after another, is admitted. For whereas Bellarmine answereth, that in the Prophecy of Daniel, sometimes, by Beasts, are signified whole States, and Kingdoms: and sometimes, particular persons, as in the eighth chapter, he saith, that by the Ram, is understood one particular King, 
Dan. 8.20.  namely Darius, the last King of the Persians; he is much deceived: and the Text itself directly confuteth him: affirming this Ram, to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Reges, not one particular King, but the Kings of the Medes and Persians. So likewise by the Goat in Daniel, is not meant one singular person, namely Alexander, (as Bellarmine again mistaketh) but the very Kingdom or kingly state of Grecia: 
Dan. 8.21.  and the great horn between his eyes, is, in the Text itself, expounded to be the first King of that Empire or Kingdom of Grecia, which was Alexander: which horn being broken off, four other stand up in the stead of it. So that by every Beast in Daniel, you see, that not any one particular person, but an whole State, Empire, Kingdom, or Dominion is signified and intended: and consequently Antichrist, being in the Revelation of S. john, 
Rev. 13. Rev. 17.  described under the name of a Beast, must needs likewise be supposed, not one singular and particular person, but an whole State, Kingdom, or Dominion, which admitteth many persons, to rule and reign in it, one after another, in succession.  
A third argument to prove this, is the exposition and acknowledgement of the Rhemists themselves: for touching the seven heads of the Beast, (that is, of the Latin or Roman State), 
Rhemists in their Annotat. upon Rev. 17.9.  the sixth head thereof, is (as themselves do show) not one singular and particular person, but a State, Kingdom, or Empire, namely the Roman Empire, wherein were diverse, that ruled and reigned in succession, one after another. Now then, if the sixth head of the Beast, be not one singular and particular man (which themselves declare, and affirm) but a State and succession of men: why should they not grant, Antichrist (whom themselves also affirm to be the seventh head of the Beast) to be likewise, not one singular and particular person, but a State and succession of persons? for they are both called Heads alike, and there is no reason of difference that can be showed, more for the one then for the other.  
A fourth argument is out of Revelation the 20: where the Devil being bound for a thousand years, S. john saw in Vision, 
Rev. 20.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. etc.  the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the Beast, nor his Image, nor had taken his mark upon their foreheads, nor in their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ, those thousand years: But the rest of the dead lived not again, until the Thousand years were finished. This is the first Resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, for, on such, the second Death, hath no power, etc. In which words, you see mention made of a Thousand years, expressly, in which this Antichristian Beast, was in Esse: some all that while lying dead in their sins and Antichristian Errors: and othersome rising from their sins and errors, to newness of life, and to true Christianity, (which is there called the first resurrection): and these are said to live (and not to be dead) and to reign with Christ, subduing and getting victory over themselves, and over this Antichristian Beast, like Kings & Conquerors, during all that time. When therefore there is express mention made of a Thousand years, in which this Antichristian Beast had to do: who doth not perceive, that Antichrist cannot be one singular and particular man, that shall reign only three years and an half, but that he is, and must needs be, a State and succession of persons, that is thus directly discovered to have had a continuance in the world, for at least, a Thousand years.  
A fifth argument is this, that S. john saith thus: 
1. joh. 2.18.  It is the last time: and as ye have heard that▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist cometh: even now there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many Antichrists: whereby we Know, that it is the last time. Where you may easily observe, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist, is not one particular person, but many: and that many Antichrists, be this Antichrist: for so the Text itself declareth. In like sort, he speaketh in his second Epistle: Many Deceivers be entered into this world, 
2. joh. 7.  which confess not that jesus Christ is come in the flesh: This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the deceiver, and the Antichrist. Where again you see, that not only One, but many Deceivers, be this Deceiver, and, the Antichrist. Whereunto add also the opinion of divers of the ancient Fathers, as of Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ruffinus, Primasius, Augustine, expounding that place of Matt. 24. which speaketh of many false Christ's and false Prophets, 
Matt. 24.24.  that should arise and show great signs and wonders (so that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very Elect) as spoken of Antichrist: for thereby also they give us to understand, that Antichrist is to be conceived to be many, and not one singular person.  
A sixth argument, is taken from the Apostasy itself, which S. Paul speaketh of: which Apostasy, whether you expound it of the revolt and departure of so many multitudes of people, 
2. Thess. 2.3.7.  from the right faith and religion of Christ, or of a revolt from the Roman Empire by the Kings and Princes of the earth, or from both: it cannot be otherwise intended, than the work of many ages. Bellarmine saith, that thereby, we may, rectissimè, most rightly, understand, Antichrist himself: and he citeth divers ancient Fathers, for the proof of that opinion. Now then, if by the Apostasy, Antichrist himself be, most rightly, understood (as Bellarmine teacheth), and that this Apostasy cannot in reason be otherwise supposed, than the Work of Many ages, 
2. Thess. 2.7.  (as he also showeth): especially considering, that the Mystery of that Iniquity, or Apostasy, began to work even in S. Paul's days: how can Antichrist be rightly conceived, to be one singular man, that shall reign only three years and an half, and no longer? Yea it is manifest, that even in the false teachers, and heretics, which were in the Apostles days, 
1. joh. 2.18. 1. joh. 4.3.  and which were helpers, and workers in this Apostasy and Mystery of Iniquity, Antichrist was: for so hath S. john before assured us. Neither, 
2. joh. 7.  indeed, could he afterward have been revealed, disclosed, detected, or discovered, unless he had been in Esse before, 
2. Thess. 2.8.  in some secret, hidden, close, & covert sort. For which cause Theodoret also saith: that, Defectionem appellat A, ntichristi praesentiam: 
Theod. in 2. Thess. 2.  S. Paul calleth The Apostasy, or, defection, the presence of Antichrist. In that Apostasy then, or Mystery of Iniquity, which began to work, even in S. Paul's, and S. john's time, it is apparent, that Antichrist was, and consequently even then, had his beginning. And therefore, whilst you suppose, that Antichrist is not yet come, and that all this while, namely for the space of above 1600 years, there hath been but a preparation made for him, and who when he cometh shall also continue, but just three years and an half: do ye not perceive the unlikelihood and utter incredibility of these conceits? Yea, the premises considered, do you not perceive the manifest falsehood and evident untruth of them? Why then should any be any longer deluded with them?   

CHAP. III.  
Where the Pope is further showed to be Antichrist, out of the thirteenth chapter of the Revelation.  
THere be two Beasts mentioned in this thirteenth chapter of the Revelation: and what those two Beasts be, must be enquired. Wherein, the knowledge of the one, will give a great light, for the understanding of the other. First, therefore, by a Beast, in this place, according to the like phrase and manner of speech in Daniel, is not any singular or particular man, but a State, Kingdom, or Dominion, to be understood as I said before: for so are the four Beasts, mentioned in Daniel, expounded, in the Text itself, to be four Kings: and those Kings, 
Dan. 7.3.17.23.  be again expressly expounded, to be Kingdoms, in the 23 verse of the same chapter. The next thing then, to be enquired of, is, what Kingdom, State, or, Dominion, that is, which is here meant, 
Rev. 13.1.  by the Beast with seven heads, and ten horns: The most certain, and undoubted exposition whereof, we must fetch (as I showed before) from the seventeenth chapter of the Revelation, 
Rev. 17. verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. etc.  where this Beast with seven Heads, and ten Horns, is expounded & declared: for there, the seven heads be expounded to be seven Hills, or Mountains, whereupon Rome is seated. They be further also there affirmed, to be seven Kings: not ruling all at once, but successively, one after another; as appeareth by the Text which saith: that, five of these were fallen, 
Rev. 17.9, 10.  one is, and another is not yet come. These seven Kings, be those seven sorts of supreme or Princely government, wherewith Rome hath been governed: namely, Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Tribunes, Dictator's, Emperors, and Popes: whereof five were fallen, in the days of S. john, namely Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Tribunes, Dictator's: One is, that is, the government of Rome by Emperors, which was then in Esse, in the days of S. john: And another is not yet come, that is, the government of Rome by Popes: for the government of Rome by Popes, was not then come to pass, in the days of S. john, but came in afterward. Which government by Popes, is there said to be of a short continuance; both, 
Rev. 17.10.  for the comfort and encouragement of all God's children, against their frauds and persecutions: as also, in respect of God's account, with whom a thousand years, are but as one day (as S. Peter saith): 
2. Pet. 3.8.  and, in respect also of eternity, and everlasting happiness, which Gods children do chiefly regard, and in comparison whereof, they make little or no reckoning of the continuance of any time in this world, how long soever otherwise it seem. 
Rev. 17.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.  The ten Horns be likewise, there, expounded, to be ten Kings: which, at that time (namely, in the days of S. john) had not received a Kingdom, but should afterward receive absolute power, as Kings. Which ten Kings, howsoever they had formerly given their help, strength, and power to the advancing, maintenance, and defence of the Whore of Babylon, that is, of Popish Rome, yet should they afterward be alienated from her, & abhor her, and make her desolate, and naked, and consume her with fire. And it is said to be the Beast, that was, and is not, and yet is: in respect of the divers changes and mutations, 
Rev. 17.8.  whereto that City of Rome hath been subject, being in several times ruled by several heads, and sundry sorts of governors. The description then of this Beast with the seven heads, showeth it to be the State of Rome, or the Roman State, which is there portrayed and deciphered. But, because the Text itself saith, that, five of those, were gone and passed, in the days of S. john, 
Rev. 17.10.  so that there needed to be, no further meddling with them, and that only one was in Esse and being, in that time, (namely the government of Rome by Emperors), and that another was to come, (which was the government of that City of Rome, by Popes), it must therefore here be, more specially, and more strictly, conceived and taken: namely, in respect of that one Head, then present: and, of that other, which was afterward to come. The then present government of the City of Rome all men know, was by Emperors: and the government of it, after the Emperors, was by Popes. So that the Beast there more specially intended, is the Roman State, considered in the two last Heads thereof, viz. the Emperors, and the Popes. And therefore the Text saith: that, One of these Heads (that is, the sixth Head of it, 
Rev. 13.3.4.  viz. the government of Rome, by Emperors) was as it were wounded to death, but his deadly wound was healed, and so healed, as that all the Earth wondered, or was in admiration, after the Beast. That the Roman State governed by Emperors, received a wound, is apparent, not only by that which the Goths, Huns, Vandals, and others did unto it, but especially by that which was done unto it afterward, in the time of the Lombard's: So that at last, the Roman Empire was as it were wounded to death: but yet afterward, that deadly wound was healed again, namely in the Popes; viz. when the Popes had gotten the Headship, Imperial Majesty, and Monarchical and Sovereign rule of that City, and therein were set and established above all Emperors, Kings, Princes, and people. For than was the time, when all the Earth had this Beast in so high admiration; and then did they say: Who is like unto the Beast? 
Rev. 13.3.4.  who is able to war with him? Yea of this Beast, it was then further said: That to him was given power over every kindred, and tongue, and nation: and that all that dwelled upon the earth, did worship him, whose names were not written in the book of life of the Lamb, etc. Which speeches, voices, and admirations, so great and so general, and in that manner and sort produced, do not so well and fitly, agree to Charlemaigne, or to any other whosoever, as to the Pope of Rome; as may appear, by further examination of it, in the particulars. For although the Beast here, as it is taken, specialius, more specially, comprehendeth the Roman State, as it was governed both by Emperors and Popes, successively, one after another: yet, being taken (as sometime it is) specialissimè, that is, most specially, and most restrictively, it betokeneth the Roman State only, as it was at last translated, and settled in the Popes. First then, by this Beast cannot be intended, the Roman Heathen Empire, (although that was also, a very great persecutor of the Saints and peole of God): because the Roman Heathen Empire, was in Esse and being, (as every one knoweth), in S. john's time, and at the time of this Revelation given: and so was not this Beast, there most specially taken, and intended: For it is said of this Beast, that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascensura est, 
Rev. 17.8.  it should afterward arise. Secondly, this Beast, there, most specially spoken of, and intended, (to take away all manner of doubt in the case) is expressly notified, and affirmed, in the very Text itself, to be the Eight head of the Beast: 
Rev. 17.11. In the vulgar Latin translation, it is: Ipsa octava est: as though Eight Beasts had been there mentioned: which is a most manifest-false Translation. Rev. 17.8. & 11.7.  (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Is octavus est. s. Rex) and therefore is he far remote, from the time of those old Heathen persecuting Emperors. Thirdly, consider, that this Beast is said to come ex abysso, out of the bottomless pit: and therefore it is the same Beast, that is likewise mentioned to come out of the same bottomless pit, in Rev. 11.7. which persecuted the two witnesses there spoken of, and put them to death, after the blowing of the Trumpet by the sixth Angel. This circumstance of time, wherein this Beast was, and persecuted the two witnesses, being after the blowing of the Trumpet by the sixth Angel, even so near toward the end of the world, (for under the blowing of the seventh Angel, the world is to end, Rev. 10. and 7. Rev. 11.15. etc.) doth also declare, that it cannot be intended the Roman Heathen Empire, which was before the blowing of the sixth Angel, and is so long since ended, and expired. For the Emperors ceased to be Heathens, and became Christians, about 300 years after Christ, in the days of Constantine, the first Christian Emperor. Fourthly, consider, that the second Beast, under which Antichrist (in respect of his false doctrine, counterfeit holiness, 
Rev. 13.11, 12, 13, 14. etc. Rev. 16.13. Rev. 19.19, 20. Rev. 20.10. Rev. 19 20.  miracles, and other his spiritual actions) is more specially described, is all one with him, which is often, otherwise called, in the same Revelation, the false-Prophet: and remember withal, that both the first Beast, and this second Beast (otherwise called the false-Prophet), lived together, and were both destroyed together. So that the first Beast appeareth to be such a one, as is to have a continuance in the world, until the destruction of the second Beast, which is the false-Prophet, (Antichrist): and therefore he cannot possibly be intended the old Roman Heathen Empire, no, nor yet the heretical Arian Empire: for neither of these were of that long continuance, yea they both be long since ended and determined, and yet is not Antichrist, that false-Prophet, destroyed. Fiftly, here observe, that this chapter of Rev. 13. and the things therein contained, concerning the Beast, be brought in, and mentioned, after that the seventh Angel had blown his Trumpet: 
Rev. 10.7. Rev. 11.15. etc.  during the continuance of whose blowing, the Church of Christ is mightily to prevail, and to be reform, and the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ to flourish, and get the upper hand, against all adversaries, (to the conversion, at length, both of jews and Gentiles, unto Christ and his religion). Wherewithal, you may perceive, 
The chief drift & scope of the Revelation, touching things future in the Church. Rev. 8.6, 7, 8. etc.  what is the chief drift, and scope of the whole Book of the Revelation, as touching things future, in the Church: namely, that it is, to discover these two things: first, the estate of the Church, as it grew by degrees deformed, and corrupted, (comprised in the blowings of the Trumpets by the first five Angels, and until the sixth Angel also had begun to blow his Trumpet): and secondly, the estate of the Church, as it grew again by degrees reform, and restored, 
Rev. 9.1.2.3.4, 5. etc.  to her first and most ancient purity: Which happy reformation, and cleansing of the Church (after so long a deformity, and corruptions grown in it) did not begin, nor was to begin, (as this Prophecy showeth) until after the time that the sixth Angel had begun to blow his Trumpet: 
Rev. 9.13. etc.  for then, and not until then, was the book of the holy scriptures, 
Rev. 10.2.10.11.  & everlasting Gospel, opened, & the truth of God's religion, (therein contained) preached Once again, in the world, to discover & detect the before-hidden frauds, false doctrines, and impieties of Antichrist. Whereupon followed, 
Rev. 11.1.2.3.4▪ 5. etc.  a measuring of God's Temple, and of the right worshippers therein, and some Witnesses also, of God's truth, and religion, which did openly show themselves, and were put to death, for profession and defence of the same truth. After which, and after the blowing of the Trumpet by the seventh Angel, the reformation and restoring of the Church, 
Rev. 11.15. etc.  formerly begun, is prosecuted, and further augmented, 
Rev. 12.1.2.3.4. etc.  and much more and mightily enlarged, and to be enlarged: Insomuch that the Church of Christ, is, after this blowing of the Trumpet by the seventh Angel, very splendently described, and that she brought forth masculine and strong children, 
Gal. 4.19.  unto God, (of whom she travailed in birth, until Christ were form in them) such, as neither fraud, nor fury, of the great red Dragon (the Devil) could daunt, dismay, or discourage: of which sort, were the Albigenses, in whose times, were very famous, and splendent Churches, of valiant and courageous Christians, that took part with Michael, and fought against the Dragon, and his Angels, in the wars of those times. Yea, notwithstanding all, that those great malignant adversaries of the Church, (namely, the Dragon, the Beast, and the false-Prophet), did, or could devise to do; yet for all that, did the Church of Christ, continue still, and increase, 
Rev. 14.1.2.3. etc.  and with the Lamb Christ jesus, were there seen standing upon mount Zion, 144000, which took part with him, and would not remove their station, nor be withdrawn from him. And after this again, is there record and mention made, of these increasing and courageous Christians, that still got the victory over the Beast, 
Rev. 15.1.2.3. etc.  and his Image, and his mark, and the number of his name: and that sung the song of Moses, with much praise, and thanksgiving, unto God therefore. And in the rest of the Chapters following, namely in the 16, 17, 18, 19, of the Revelation, not only the true Church is showed to prosper and prevail, but to the enemies and adversaries thereof, be threatened, and do befall, the Viols of God's wrath, calamities, miseries, and destruction, in their appointed times. But thus it appeareth (which was my purpose to show) that the Beast here mentioned (as it is, most specially, and, most restrictively taken) cannot be meant of the old Roman Heathen Empire, nor yet of the heretical Arrian Empire, because both these kind of Empires ceased, and were ended, long before this time of the blowing of the Trumpet by the seventh Angel. Now let us see, whether the German Empire, can be here intended: and it is very manifest also, that it cannot: for, although the Emperor of Germany be called King of the Romans, and hath the title of Emperor, yet hath he not Rome (the seat of the old Roman Empire) neither hath he any Principality, Headship, or Sovereignty, there. How then can he be the Head of Rome, that is not the principal and sovereign Ruler of it? Yea, no manner of likelihood is there, that the Emperor of Germany should be this Beast, seeing he hath not only no Headship or Sovereign authority over Rome, but sendeth also to Rome, to tender his submission, and obedience to him, that bears the sway and principality there, namely, to the Pope: to whom, for that purpose, he giveth an Oath of Homage, Allegiance, or, fealty; thereby declaring himself to be, in respect of the Pope, but as an inferior to a superior, or as a subject to a sovereign Lord. The old famous Roman Empire then, and the ample Majesty of it, here appeareth to be now long sithence abolished. Which thing even Machiavelli himself also witnesseth, in the first book of his Florentine History, dedicated to Pope Clement the seventh, saying: Imperio è tutto in terrâ, the Empire is fallen flat upon the ground. And so doth Lipsius also likewise testify, (who spent a great part of his study to attain to an exact knowledge of the Roman State). So also doth Augustinus Stenchus, the Pope's Library-keeper, in his first book of Constantine's Donation, pag. 3. For, howsoever Charlemaigne, and his successors, were styled Kings of Rome and for a while had led the Popes, as their subjects, yet this lasted not long: but the Pope, at last, found a means for to free himself from being under their dominion, that he made the Emperors, in the conclusion, to be his vassals, and at his command, and to yield him the Sovereignty. And all this have the Popes done under pretence of being Christ's Vicars, and of the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and of S. Peter's Chair: Which things, have been also noted by Guicciardine, in the fourth book of his History: where, after a long discourse of the rising and advancement of the Popes, he shutteth up all with these words: The Popes (saith he) upon these foundations, and by these means being exalted to an earthly dominion, having by little and little neglected the salvation of souls, and cast aside the remembrance of Divine instructions, bending their minds how to attain to worldly greatness; and using spiritual authority no further, but as it was an Instrument to help forward the temporal, did begin to show more like secular Princes, than Bishops. These words, as not pleasing them, have the Romish Expurgators, razed clean out of the last Editions of Guicciardine: as likewise they have done many more out of sundry other Authors, where they make against them. But thus it appeareth, that not the Heathen Roman Empire, nor the Arrian, nor the German, but the Roman State, as it is settled in the Popes of Rome (the now Head and sovereign Ruler of that City,) is the Beast there, as it is most specially meant and intended. And this is the Beast, 
Rev 17.3.7.8.11.  whereupon the whore of Babylon, that is, Popish Rome, sitteth, and whereby she is supported: for, as his Spiritual authority, and pretence of the power of the Keys, helped to raise him to his Imperial greatness, and Temporal Monarchy: so this Temporal Monarchy joined to his Spiritual, do, both together, make him a complete Beast, for the bearing up and supporting of that Strumpet.  
2 Let us therefore now come to the other Beast, mentioned in this thirteenth chapter of the Revelation, & see what it is, 
Rev. 13.11.  and wherein it differeth from the former. For a difference there must be between them, in some respect, because it is called another Beast. In this very chapter, ye find, that one of the heads of the Beast, (namely, that which was, as it were wounded to death, 
Rev. 13.3.  and afterward had his Deadly wound cured again), is expressly called a Beast, by itself. For, upon the curing of this head, that was before so deadly wounded, it is said: that, All the earth wondered after the Beast. Again, 
Verse 12.  it is said: that the Inhabitants of the earth did worship the first Beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And again, 
Verse 14.  that they were willed to make an Image to the Beast, which had the wound of a sword and did live. By all which, we see, that this Head of the Beast, which was so wounded and healed again, is called a Beast, by itself, and by name and expressly the very first Beast. Now the Head that was so wounded, is before showed to be the sixth head of the Beast, namely, the government of the Roman State, by Emperors: for you hear before, that the Imperial State received a deadly wound, in the time of the Lombard's: and that, that deadly wound, was afterward healed, and cured again in the Popes, in whom the Majesty and splendour of the Roman Empire, was again revived. So that, the first Beast is considerable in a double respect: first, as it was wounded in the sixth head (which were the Emperors), and secondly, as it was afterward healed again in the seventh head (which were the Popes): (for, the Head, wounded, and cured, maketh the first Beast). Now in the second Beast, is showed, How, and by whose means, that recovery and cure was wrought and performed. In the first Beast then, Antichrist, that is, the Pope of Rome, is described, as having both the Episcopal and Imperial Principality, conjoined together, in his person: which made him so great and mighty, and so much to be admired at, in the world, and for which cause, he is also said, to be, 
Rev. 17.8.11.  both the Seventh and the Eighth Head of the Beast: but in the second Beast, Antichrist is described in his Episcopal consideration only, and as he is the false-Prophet. For, he which in this place is called the second Beast, is (as I said before) in other places of the Revelation, called the false-Prophet: thereby declaring them (namely, the second Beast, and, 
Rev. 19.20. Rev. 16.13.14. Rev. 20.10.  the false-Prophet) to be all one. Yea, even the Rhemists also themselves, do expound this second Beast to be a false-Prophet, but they will have him to be a false-Prophet, inferior to Antichrist. But, first, he is not only a false Prophet, but, by way of excellency and eminency above all others, he is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The false-Prophet, Rev. 19.20. Rev. 20.10. Rev. 16.13. And secondly it appeareth that he is not Inferior to Antichrist, but Equal with him: for in the first Beast, is Antichrist comprehended, as even the Rhemists, and other Papists also, do themselves affirm: now it is evident by the Text itself, that this second Beast, that is, this false-Prophet, did all that the first Beast could do, or (which is all one) exercised all the power of the first Beast (Rev. 13.12.): and therefore, as touching authority and power, he appeareth to be, not inferior to him, but equal with him. If you say, that the first Beast, and the second Beast, otherwise called the false-Prophet, 
Rev. 16. 1●. Rev. 19.20.  be mentioned sometimes as if they were two: it is true. But the reason of it is, because this grand Antichrist is considered in a double respect: namely, in respect of his Temporal or Imperial Monarchy, & in respect of his Episcopal or Spiritual. And for this cause also, the one, is said to arise out of the Sea, and the other, out of the Earth, Rev. 13.1.11. for, in respect of his Episcopal supremacy, and Pseudoprophetical demeanour, he arose from the Earth, it receiving his original from below, and from the Earth, and not from Heaven: and in respect of his Imperial dominion, he arose out of the Sea; because the Ruins of the Empire, by means whereof he arose to that his Imperial Greatness, were not otherwise wrought, but by the wavering and disquiet turbulencies that were in the World in those days. So that, howsoever it is called the first Beast, and the second Beast, in distinct considerations, yet upon the matter they both make but one Antichrist. And therefore in Rev. 17. is there mention made but of One Beast only, 
Rev. 17.1, 2, 3, 4 etc.  which supported the Whore of Babylon. Yea, Fatentur omnes pertinere omnino ad Antichristum verba illa johannis, 
Bellar. lib. 3. de pont. Rom. c. 10.  etc. All men confess (saith Bellarmine himself) that those words of john (in Rev. 13.11. etc.) do undoubtedly belong to Antichrist. Now then let us examine and see, if they be not all verified in the Pope and Papacy.  
First, it is said, that this second Beast, had two horns like a Lamb but he spoke like the Dragon: 
Rev. 13.11.  Duo Cornua similia Agni, scilicet Christi: cuius duo Cornua, sunt duo Testamenta: He shall have two Horns, like to those of the Lamb, that is, like to those of Christ: whose two Horns, be the two Testaments, as Lyranus, Primasius, and Augustine also, expound them. Whereby appeareth, 
Lyra in Apo. 13. Primas. ibidem. August in Apoc. Hom. 11.  that Antichrist shall outwardly pretend great sanctity, sincerity, humility, and simplicity, and as if he did all things by good authority and strength of the holy Scriptures, the two Testaments, the Old and the New: and yet, in very deed, his voice and speech, that is, his doctrines, decrees, laws, canons, and constitutions, should bewray and discover him, to be but a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, and no less cruel, and malignant against the true Church of God, than the very Dragon. Doth not every man perceive, that these things do rightly fit the Pope? For who maketh a greater outward show of sanctity, piety, and Christianity, than he? and what doth he else, but pretend the strength and authority of the two Testaments, namely, of the holy Scriptures, for warrant and maintenance of the false doctrines, errors, & heresies, he teacheth and holdeth? Can any man outwardly pretend greater humility, than he, when he entitleth himself, Servus servorum Dei, a servant of God's servants? and yet for all that, he taketh upon him, by his claims and actions, to be, Rex Regum, & Dominus Dominantium, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. So that, howsoever he pretendeth humility, yet we see he is far from it. And howsoever he pretendeth the authority of the holy Scriptures, viz the two Testaments, (for the strengthening and confirmation of his religion, doctrine, and doings) alleging them to be shadowed out, and figured, in the two Horns of his Mitre: yet, partly, by reason of the unsound and false translations of those Scriptures, which he defendeth and authorizeth against the truth of the Originals: and partly, whilst he perverteth and misinterpreteth the true Scriptures themselves, and equalleth also his Traditions unto them, and moreover dispenseth with them, at his pleasure, and preferreth his own authority, and the authority of his Church, above them, and so maketh them to speak in another sense, and otherwise then ever they meant: it is apparent, that being thus used, and abused, they be, at the most, but like the two Horns of the Lamb, (as this Text speaketh) and be not the very two horns themselves: that is, they be not the pure, incorrupt, and undoubtedly true Scriptures themselves, but corrupted & differing from them. Pope and Popery then, appeareth to consist all in shows, semblances, and likenesses of verity, sanctity, and piety, and have it not in very deed and substance. And therefore, not without good cause, did divers Bishops make their complaint, long sithence, in their Epistle to Pope Nicholas, recorded in Aventine, saying in this sort, unto him: Thou bearest the person of a Bishop, 
Annal. Bo●or. lib. 4.  but thou playest the Tyrant: under the habit and attire of a Pastor, we feel a Wolf: It is, a lying Title, that calleth thee Father: thou in thy deeds showest thyself to be another jupiter: being the servant of servants, thou strivest to be the Lord of Lords etc. But moreover, doth not the Pope speak like the Dragon, that is, like the Devil, (for by the Dragon, in the Revelation, 
Rev. 12 9 and Rev. 20.2.  is the Devil understood) when he saith, that the Kingdoms of the world be his, and that he hath power to dispose and give them to whomsoever he will? For, did not the Devil speak the very same to Christ in the Gospel? Yea, 
Luk. 4.5.6. Epist. ded. Antic. ad Gregor. 13. praef●●. Capistr. De Maior. C. unam Sanctam. Extra de Statut. Regular. pericul. in Glossa. Concil. Lateran. sub Leone 10. Sess. 10.  the Pope is (as they write) Totius orbis Dominus. The Lord of the whole world, and hath Coelestis & terrestris potestatis Monarchiam: The Monarchy or sovereignty both of the heavenly and earthly power: and to him, forsooth, they apply that Prophecy, Dominabitur à mari ad mare, & à flumine, usque ad terminos orbis, He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river, to the ends of the world. Yea, they attribute that unto him, which jesus Christ spoke of himself, saying: that, All power is given unto him, both in heaven and earth, Matth. 28.18. Be not these, most abominable, blasphemous and devilish speeches, being attributed to the Pope? But yet further, what doth he else, but speak like the Dragon, that is, like the Devil, whilst he teacheth that doctrine of Devils, 
1. Tim 4 1.2, 3, 4, 5.  mentioned in the Epistle to Timothy, as shall afterward appear? and whilst he maintaineth a wrong worship of God, a false faith, and an Apostatical and Antichristian religion, against the right, most pure, and only true religion of Christ, extant in the book of God, the holy and canonical Scriptures.  
3 Again it is said: that this second Beast, did exercise all the power of the first Beast, 
Rev. 13.19.  and that, before him. And who is so ignorant, but he knoweth, that the Pope exerciseth all the power of the first Beast, that is, of the Latin, or, Roman State, and that before him, or before his face, that is to say, even at Rome, and in the presence of the Roman State? For hath not the Pope gotten that which was the seat of the Emperor, namely Rome, and made it his seat? And is not the Emperor, put down, from having any Headship, or Sovereign Authority there? Yea, doth not the Pope there take upon him, to exercise all the Imperial power & authority, tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris, yet without the name of the Emperor of Rome, as Bellar. himself also saith, 
Bellar. cap. 15. de miraculis Antichristi.  that Antichrist must do? For this Imperial Authority, aswell as his Ecclesiastical, that is to say, both his supremacies (as before is showed) he claimeth and holdeth, under the name and title of being Pope and Bishop of Rome, and not under any name or title of being the Emperor. For they hold (as Antoninus writeth) that, Potestas Papae maior est omni alia potestate creata: 
A●●onin. Sum. part. 3. cap. 5.  The power of the Pope, is greater than all other created powers. But, to conclude, what doth he else, but exercise this Imperial Authority before his face, whilst he domineereth over him that is now called Emperor of Rome, and Germany, and maketh him his vassal, and at his command? Yea, not only hath the Pope for his part, thus disloyally and unjustly depressed and subjugated the Emperor, exercising, and that very impudently, all his authority before his face, but he did so work and persuade, with the inhabitants of the earth, that they also were content at last to worship the first Beast, 
Rev. 13.12.  whose deadly wound was healed: that is, to honour and submit themselves to that Imperial State, whereof himself, after the overthrow of the Emperors, became the Monarch. For it was an Imperial Monarchy, (to be joined to his Episcopal) which he so much desired, and thirsted after.  
4 Wherefore, to compass and effect this, which he so much affected, it is said, that He did great wonders, so that he made fire to come down from heaven on the earth, 
Rev. 13. verses 13, 14, 15.  in the sight of men, and deceived them that dwell on the earth, by the signs which were permitted him to do, in the sight of the Beast: saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an Image to the Beast which had the wound of a sword and did live: And it was permitted to him, to give a spirit unto the Image of the Beast, so that the Image of the Beast, should speak, and also should cause that whosoever would not worship the Image of the Beast, should be killed. If you remember who this Beast is, that had the deadly wound by the sword, namely, that it was the Roman State, wounded in the sixth head, viz. in the Emperors, you will the better perceive, that the Image of that Beast, is, and must needs be, some State, or, form of government, erected, like unto that of the Imperial: for, what is an Image, but a likeness, or resemblance of that whereof it is an Image? Now then, what is, or can be, this Image of that Beast, but the Popedom, erected in lieu of that Empire, at Rome? This doth Augustinus Steuchus himself, though a great Papist, sufficiently declare, in these words: In Pontificatu, etsi non illa veteris Imperij magnitudo, species certè non longè dissimilis, 
Aug. Stenchus, de Donatione Constantini.  renata est: Qua Gentes omnes, ab ortu & occasu, band ●ecus Romanum Pontificem venerantur, quam omnes Nationes Olim, Imperatoribus obtemperabant. In the Popedom (saith he) there arose, if not the greatness of the ancient Empire, yet verily a form, not much unlike to it: Whereby all Nations, from East and West, do in like manner, Worship the Pope of Rome, as they did, in times past, obey the Emperor. And therefore a little after, the same Steuchus calleth the Popedom, an Empire, and, a Majestical Royalty, in express terms. Blondus likewise, comparing Rome restored under the Pope, with Rome flourishing under the Emperors, 
Blond. Rom. instaur. lib. 3. num. 16. etc.  saith: that, Habet Roma in Regna & Gentes Imperium.— Dictatorem nunc perpetuum, non Caesaris sed Piscatoris Petri successorem, & Imperatoris praedicti (id est, Christi) Vicarium, Pontificem summum, Principes Orbis adorant & colun●, etc. Quid? quòd maiora, vel c●rtè paria priscorum temporum Vectigalibus, Europa pene omni● tribu● a Romam mittit: Rome hath an Empire over Kingdoms and Nations. The Princes of the World do now adore and worship the Pope of Rome, being the perpetual Dictator and successor (not of Caesar, but) of Peter the Fisherman, and the Vicar of Christ, etc. Yea, in a manner, all Europe, sendeth greater tribute to Rome, or at least, Equal, to that of the old times. And with this agreeth that also of Bellarmine, 
Bellar. cap. 15. de Miraculis Antichristi.  where he saith: Antichristum fore ultimum, qui tenebit Romanum Imperium; tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris: that, Antichrist shall be the last head of Rome, who shall hold the Roman Empire, but yet without the name of the Roman Emperor. For the name and title, of being Pope of Rome, and of Christ's Vicar, and Peter's successor, (under which, he exerciseth all his authority, both Imperial and Episcopal, Spiritual & Temporal) is better pleasing and more beneficial to him, than the name and title of Emperor. Yea, it is this spiritual power, that animates, and gives life and spirit (as the Text speaketh) unto the temporal, 
Rev. 13. 1●.  and which maketh it to be of so great, so glorious, and so high esteem: for, this opens the people's hearts and purses unto him, and brings in, and heaps up, abundance of wealth and treasure: this causeth Kings to stoop and bow unto him, and his censures and thunderbolts of Excommunication, to be so dreadful: causeth men to repair from all quarters to Rome, to partake of the spiritual liberalities of his Holiness: and yet he is ever a gainer by that means, notwithstanding all that his bounty and liberality.  
Neither did this second Beast, the false-Prophet, Antichrist, cause only the Image of the Beast, that is, the Papal Empire, to be thus made and erected, nor did only put a life or spirit into it, whereby it did speak, that is, give forth Edicts, Laws, Sentences, and Decrees, but did further so speak (as this Text showeth) that whosoever would not Worship the Image of the Beast (that is, this Papal-Empire) should be killed, 
Rev. 13.15.  and put to death, namely as an Heretic or schismatic, or as a seditious person. These things be so plain and evident, as that they need no further explication, or proof. For to what other end, tend all their cruel persecutions, their bloody Inquisitions, their detestable Massacres, their abominable Leagues, Conspiracies, and Wars, against Protestant, Kings, Princes, & people, but that none might live or breath (if they might have their wills) which would not worship and become obedient to it? Yea, not only would they have them to be deprived of their lives, but of houses also, lands, goods, liberty, & whatsoever other solace of humane society. For thus did Pope Alexander the third, decree, in the Council of Turon, against such as would not subject themselves to the Sea of Rome: Ne, ubi cogniti fuerint, receptaculum quisquam eye in terra sua praebere, 
Guil. Neubrig. rerum Angl. lib. 2. cap. 15. inter decreta Turonensis Concilij.  aut praesidium impertiri praesumat: sed nec in venditione & emption, aliqua cum iis communio habeatur: ut solatio humanitatis amisso, ab errore viae suae resipiscere compellantur. Quisquis autem contra haec venire tentaverit, tanquam particeps iniquitatis eorum, anathemate feriatur: Illi vero si deprehensi fuerint, per Catholicos principes, custodiae mancipati, omnium ●onorum amissione mulctentur. That, after they be known, no man presume to give them any receipt upon his land, or harbour them: neither in buying and selling, let any communion be had with them: that, losing the solace of humanity, they may be compelled to return from the error of their way. And whosoever shall do the contrary, let him, as being a partaker of their iniquity, be sentenced to be Anathema: and they, if they be taken, by Catholic Princes, let them be committed to prison, and lose all their goods In the Council of Lateran likewise, assembled against the Albigenses, (whom they call Cathari and Pat●rini) it was said thus: Eos & defensores eorum, & r●ceptores, Anathemati decernimus subiacere: 
Neubrig. lib. 3. cap. 3. & Decret. Greg. lib. 5. tit. 7. de haeret. cap. 8.  Et sub Anathemate prohibemus, ne quis eos in domibus, vel in terra sua, tenere, vel fovere, vel negotiationem cum iis exercere praesumat: We decree, Them, and their defenders and receivers, to be under the sentence of Anathema: And under the same curse, We forbid, that no man presume to keep or harbour them in their houses, or upon their land, or to negotiate with them. In like sort did Pope Martin the fifth, in his Bull of condemnation against john Husse and Hierome of Prage (annexed to the Acts of the Council of Constance) straightly charge and command, that such as they were, which would not be obedient to the Sea of Rome, nor hold communion with that Church, 
Epist. mart. 5.  should not be permitted, Domicilia tenere, larem fovere, contractus inire, negotiationes & mercantias quaslibet exercere, aut humanitatis solatia cum Christi fidelibus habere: to have any house or home▪ to make any contracts, or to use any trade or traffic, or to enjoy any solace or comforts of humanity with the faithful of Christ. And, as if all this were too little, Pope Boniface the eight, did further say and decree, that it was, de necessitate salutis, subesse Romano pontifici, 
Ext. de maior. & obe●. C. unam ●.  of the necessity of salvation, for every man, to be subject to the Pope of Rome. Thus you see, that this Image of the Beast (that is, the Emperor-like State, and government of Rome by the Popes) was able to speak: for her own exaltation and advancement, amongst the Inhabitants of the earth, and what manner of speeches they were, and how terrible, damageable, and in conclusion, deadly, to all that would not worship it, and become obedient thereunto. But no only by words, speeches, sayings, persuasions, doctrines, and decrees, but by miracles, signs, or wonders also, was this Image of the beast to be erected: For the Text saith, that this second Beast (the false-prophet, Antichrist) did great Wonders, 
Rev. 13.13, 14.  so that he made fire come down from heaven on the earth, in the sight of men, and deceived them that dwell on the earth, by the signs which were permitted him to do, in the sight of the Beast: saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make the Image of the Beast etc. So that the drift of all these Miracles, was but to make the Image of the Beast. And this agreeth with that of S. Paul, where he saith: that, the coming of Antichrist, shall be, by the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, 
2. Thess. 2.9.  and lying wonders: and with that also of the False-prophet (mentioned in this Revelation of S. john) that he did Miracles. 
Rev. 19.20. Rev. 16.13, 14.  Which False-prophet, cannot be understood of Mahomet the False-prophet, amongst the Turks, and Saracens, for he did no miracles, but prevailed with his religion an other way, and especially by force of Arms, and dint of Sword. Yea, Mahomet openly protested, saying: Non sum miraculis, aut indicijs, ad vos missis: I am not sent unto you with miracles, or signs. 
Matth. Paris Hist. in Angl. in Hen. 3. Dionys. Carth. in Apoc. 13.  And so also doth Dionysius Carthusianus testify, that, Mahomates asserebat, Deum sibi dixisse, quod non permisit eum Miracula facere: Mahomet affirmed, that God said unto him, that he permitted him not to do miracles. But again, the Miracles which this false Prophet mentioned in the Revelation, did, he did them, before the Beast, and in his ●ight and presence, (Rev. 13.14. Rev. 19.20.) that is, at Rome, and in the view of the Roman State, and not amongst Turks or Saracens. The false Prophet then, here mentioned in this Revelation, which did these Miracles, appeareth to be such a false Prophet, as is among Christians, to delude and deceive them, and not any such as is amongst the Turks, or other Infidels of the World. Now, amongst the rest of the miracles, which this second Beast (that is, this false Prophet amongst Christians, viz. Antichrist) was to do, 
Rev. 13.13.  this is specially mentioned, that he made fire come down from heaven on the earth, in the sight of men. Bellarmine, and some other Papists, would have this to be understood, literally, of material fire. And yet, if they will needs have it so to be taken, it will advantage them nothing. For in the Papacy, they have made fire come down from heaven on the earth, as even their own writings do declare: As for example, in their Legend for the feast of Corpus Christi, to confirm their error of Transubstantiation, and the adoration of their consecrated Bread in the Sacrament, 
In Festivals quodam Anglico.  they report, that a Priest, carrying the Host to a Sick man, lost it by the way, and being perplexed for so great a loss, there appeared a Pillar of fire, shining like the Sun, from heaven to the earth, pointing to the very place where the Body of Christ lay: attended with a company of devout Beasts●, which falling down upon their knees, adored it. 
De Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. c. 8. Portifor sive Breviar. ad usum Ecclesiae Sarisburg in festo Thom● Cautuar.  Yea, Bellarmine allegeth no less than seven miracles for confirmation of this error. Likewise, to confirm another error of theirs, concerning the worship of Saints, they allege sundry miracles, and amongst the rest, they fetch fire from heaven for that purpose: For of Thomas, they say, that a burning light descended four times, and kindled the Tapers in honour of that Saint. In the Legend of jacinth and Eugenne, they also fetch fire from heaven, to consume Melance, the false accuser of Eugenne. Again, in the Legend of Edward the Martyr, there is a Pillar of fire brought from heaven to the earth, to show the place of his burial. In the Legend of S. George, they also fetch fire from heaven, to burn Dacianus, who had be headed him. In the Legend likewise of S. Barbara, they fetch fire from heaven, wherewith her Father that persecuted her, was consumed. In the Legend of S. Martin, they, to make him like to the Apostles, do say, that the holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of Fire, as it did upon the Apostles. But to leave all other errors of Popery, which want no Miracles amongst them, to confirm them, and to come to this very point in hand, touching this Image of the Beast, that is, touching the Papal Empire, or, Emperor-like State, erected in the Popes at Rome, upon the subversion of the Emperors: Was not Pope Hildebrand, otherwise called, Pope Gregory the seventh, the first, that is most famous (or rather most infamous) for resisting and weakening the Emperor of his time, by rebelling, and making War against him? Doth not Aventinus write directly thus of him? Hildebrandus, qui & Gregorius septimus, primus Imperium, pontificium condidit: 
Aventin. Annal. Boiorum. li. ●  quod successores per qurdringentos quinquaginta continenter annos invito mundo, invitis Imperatoribus, adeo duxere, ut inferos superos, in servitutem redigerint atque sub iugum miserint: Pope Hildebrand, who was also called Gregory the seventh, is the first that founded the Papal Empire: which his successors, for four hundreth and fifty years together, have so managed, in despite of th' World, and in despite of the Emperors, that they have brought inferiors, and superiors into subjection, and under the yoke. The like speaketh Eberard: 
Apud Aventin. An. Boio. l. 1▪  Hildebrandus ante annos centum atque septuaginta, primus, specie regligionis, ANTICHRISTI Imperii fundamenta iecit. Hec Bellum nefandum, primus auspicatus est, quod per successores hucusque continuatur: Pope Hildebrand, saith he, an hundred and seventy years passed, was the first, who under pretence of religion, laid the foundation of the Empires of Antichrist. He first began this wicked war, which by his successors, is hitherto continued. And even Onuphrius also, a great favourer and maintainer of the Papal authority, saith: Huic uni etc. To this man only (viz. to Pope Hildebrand) all the Latin Churches, 
Onuphr. in vita Greg 7. col. 271.272.  but especially the Church of Rome ought to attribute it, that she is free, and pulled out of the hand of the Emperors, that she is enriched with so much riches and wealth, and temporal Dominion: that she is ruler over Kings, Emperors, and all Christian Princes: from whom, lastlie, it is (that I may comprehend all in one word) that this most great & excellent state floweth, that Rome is the Lady, or, Mistress, of all the Christian world: whereas before, as a base handmaid, she was kept under, not only by the Emperors, but by any Prince aided by the Roman Emperor. From him it is, that the right of that greatest, and, in a manner, infinite, and in all ages terrible, and venerable power of the pope of Rome, hath issued. For, although formerly, the Popes of Rome were respected as heads of the Christian religion, and Vicars of Christ, and the Successors of Peter: yet did not their Authority stretch any further, but to defend or maintain opinions of faith. Yea, they were subject to Emperors: all things were done at their beck: by them were the Popes made, neither durst the Pope of Rome judge or determine any thing of them. Of all the Popes of Rome, it is Gregory the seaventh, that is the FIRST, who having the assistance of the Normans, strengthened by the help of the Countess Matildes (a Woman very potent in Italy) and inflamed through the discord and civil war of the German Princes, was bold (beyond the manner of his predecessors, and contemning the Authority and power of the Emperor) after that he had obtained the Popedom, I do not say, only to excommunicate, but also to deprive the Emperor himself of his Kingdom and Empire. A thing, before those times unheard of. For those Fables which are reported, and carried about, concerning Arcadius, Anastasius, and Leo Iconomachus, I regard not. Whereupon Oth● Frisingensis, a Writer of those times, saith also thus: I read, and I read again, 
Oth● Frising. Chronic. lib. 6. cap. 35.  the gests of the Roman Kings and Popes, and no where do I find any of them, before this Emperor Henry, to be excommunicate by a Pope of Rome, or by him deprived of his Kingdom. 
Gotfrid. Viterb. Chron part 17. Trithem. Chron. Hirsa●g. An. 1106.  So far Onuphrius. Gotfridus Viterbiensis, likewise testifieth, that, this Emperor, Henry the fourth, was the first that was deprived of his Empire by the Pope. Trithemius also witnesseth the same, saying: Ipse primus est, inter omnes Imperatores, per Papam depositus: He is the first amongst all the Emperors, that was deposed by a Pope. By these Writers, and Historiographers, it than appeareth, that although, before the times of Hildebrand, the Popes of Rome, had an Episcopal, or Ecclesiastical supremacy, or Headship over all other Bishops (which also began not, till about the year 606. in the time of Boniface the third) yet a temporal supremacy, or, Imperial Monarchy over Emperors, Kings, & Princes, they never fully compassed & effected, until the days of this Pope Hildebrand which was above a 1000 years after Christ. And thus you see the original of both the Supremacies of the Pope. But what? were there any Miracles, signs, or wonders done at this time when the Imperial Monarchy (wherein, the Image of the Beast, chiefly consisteth) was thus sought to be brought in, and settled in the Pope? especially, was there any Miracle, or Wonder, by fire, then to be seen? It is manifest there were. For thus Aventinus writeth: Falsi tum Prophetae, 
Avent. Ann. Boior. lib. 5. edit. Ingol●●ed. Ann. 1554. pag. 591.  falsi Apostoli, falsi Sacerdotes emersere, qui simulata religione populum deceperunt, magna signa atque prodigia ediderunt, etc. False Prophets, false Apostles, false Priests, did Then arise, who under pretence of Religion deceived the people, and did great signs and Wonders, etc. And amongst other Miracles, they allege this for one, 
Avent. lib. 5.470.  that a certain Bishop, whilst he was preaching against Pope Hildebrand, fulmine tactum esse, was smitten with lightning. What is this, but fire from heaven? Yea, Pope Hildebrand himself being a Magician and Necromancer, would no doubt, not fail to do such miracles and wonders, as by devilish device and help he could, for the bringing of his designs and purposes to pass. And amongst the rest of his Wonders, Cardinal Benno saith: that, When he listed, he would shake his sleeves: 
Benno, in vita Hildebrandi.  and fire, like sparkles, did fly out: & iis Miraculis, oculos simplicium, volunt signo sanctitatis, ludificabat: and with those Miracles (saith he) as it were with a sign of sanctity, did he delude the eyes of the simple. Paulus Bernriedensis also, rehearseth diverse Miracles or Wonders of Pope Hildebrand, done by fire, 
Paul. Bernried. in vita Greg. 7. pag. 20.22.  and therefore often resembleth him to Elias, in whose time, fire came down from heaven. So that if these words in the Revelation, of fire coming down from heaven on the earth, were to be taken literally, 
Rev. 13.13.  you see, how they may be verified in the Papacy, inasmuch as, in the Papacy, they have made fire come down from heaven on the Earth, in the sight of men, that is, as they made men to believe and think: for so also doth Arethas, expound those words. But indeed those words in the Revelation, 
Areth. in Apoc. 13. Hieron. epist. ad Paulin.  be rather mystically and allegorically to be taken: for S. Hierome saith, Apocalypsim, tot habere sacramenta quot verba, that the Revelation hath as many mysteries in it, as words: and again he saith, totum esse spiritualiter intelligendum, 
Epist. the 5. quast▪ Marcell.  that the whole book is spiritually to be understood. They seem therefore to be words alluding to the times of Elias, and signifying, that as in his days, God miraculously sent fire from heaven, 
1. Kin. 18.21.22.23.24.25. etc.  thereby to certify the people of the true God, and of the truth of his religion: so would Antichrist, by the miracles done in his Church, work so powerfully and effectually in the minds of his followers, as that they should believe his Supremacy and Religion to be as undoubtedly true and right, as if the same had been approved and ratified by fire, sent down from God out of heaven, for that purpose. And they may allude to the times of Elias in another sense also, signifying, that as in his days, 
2. Kin. 1.9.10.11.12.  fire came down from heaven, to consume certain Captains with their fifties, which came to molest and disquiet him: so if any molest, interrupt, or disturb the Pope, in any point touching his Supremacy, and the Religion thereunto belonging, that he can likewise cause a Divine revenge, like fire from heaven, to fall upon them, which he would persuade them, they shall not escape.  
Thus by words and deeds, persuasions and threats, fraud and force, by doctrines, decrees, and constitutions by rewards and punishments by false miracles, and by all the ways he could devise, hath the Pope endeavoured to erect unto himself a Throne upon earth, and to have a Monarchy, not only Episcopal & Ecclesiastical (for that would not content him, though it were too much) but Civil and Imperial also, that so, in Him, as being the Head and supreme governor of Rome in lieu of the Emperors, the Image of the Beast might appear. Yea, to make himself yet more like to the Emperor, he hath also taken the Emperor's habit which was of Scarlet, together with shoes of Scarlet, which were proper to the Emperors. And as the Emperor had a Senate clad in Scarlet: so hath the Pope also a Senate of Cardinals, clad in cloth of the very same colour. Inasmuch then as the Pope, and his Cardinals, (which make the State, whereby Rome is ruled and governed) be thus all of them, clad in Scarlet: you therein, not only see the Image of the Beast, but therewithal the very scarlet coloured Beast, which was so long agone prophesied of and foretold, 
Rev. 17.3.  that the Whore of Babylon should sit upon: for, a Prophecy, is of things to come, and not of things present: and so is it, accordingly, expressly said, of that prophecy in the Revelation of S. john, that it was to show him things future▪ and which afterward should be done (Rev. 4.1.) and not things present, and in esse, at that time.  
5 In the three last verses of the chapter; it is further said: that this second Beast, caused all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, 
Rev. 13.16.17.18.  or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, but he that had the mark or the name of the Beast, or the number of his Name. Here is wisdom: let him that hath understanding, count the number of the Beast: for it is the number of a man▪ and his number is 666. In which words, you see, that this second Beast, was to cause men to receive a mark, in their right hand, or in their forehead: and there he showeth, what mark this is, namely, that it is the mark of the Beast, whose deadly wound was healed, viz. in the Pope, in whom, the ancient Imperial dignity was restored, and revived at Rome. So that the mark of the Beast, here, that is, of the Latin or Roman State, as it was and is in the hands of the Popes, and managed and ruled by them, (in respect of Religion) is, and must needs be Popery, or (which cometh all to one reckoning), subjection and obedience to the Pope, and to his decrees, and determinations. And, this mark, he causeth all to receive in their right hands, 
In front, per professionem: in manu, per operationem, Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 20. cap. 9 Lyran. in Apoc. 13. Richard de S. Vict. in Apoc. lib 4. cap. 7. Apoc. 13.17.  or in their foreheads, that is, either by the manner of their actions, life, and conversation, to show it, or, by their open and outward profession, to declare it. For so doth S. Augustine, Primasius, Lyranus, Haymo, Richardus de S. Victore, and the ordinary Gloss likewise expounds those words. Yea, none (saith the Text) might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name: that is, none was to trade, or to be a Merchant of the Pope's Pardons, Indulgences, or such like Romish Merchandizes, unless he either professed subjection to the Pope and Popish Religion, or unless he had the name of a Romanist; or were at least, reckoned, or numbered amongst them, as if he were a very true Romanist, indeed. Yea, even concerning temporal Merchandizes also, did Pope Martin the fifth (in his Bull annexed to the Council of Constance) and diverse other Popes also (as before appeareth) give strait charge and commandment, that none which will not acknowledge subjection to the Pope and his Religion, should buy or sell, or make my contracts, or exercise any traffic or merchandise, or have any comforts of humane society, with faithful Christians. Although therefore Bellarmine objecteth, that there be many within the dominion of the Pope, which not professing the Pope's Religion, do nevertheless, buy and sell, as namely the jews: thereunto is answered, first, that Antichrist (the Pope) is properly the King and Head, not of unchristian, but of Antichristian people, and therefore is to exercise that his Papal and Antichristian Authority only amongst that kind of people, and not over jews, and such like Infidels, which make no profession at all of Christ, or Christianity. Now as touching such as profess the name of Christ, it is before showed that he suffereth none of them, where he hath to do, by his good will, to buy or sell, or to exercise any trade of merchandizing: yea, or to enjoy the comforts of humane society, unless he live in subjection to him, and hold communion with his Church. But secondly, jews, that live within the dominion of the Pope, be not within the compass of such Merchants, as be here specially intended, viz. to buy and sell the Pope's Pardons, Indulgences, and such like Antichristian wares, wherein the chief merchandizing of Papal Rome consisteth, and whereat this Text principally aimeth. For not jews, but pretended Christians, and those of the forwarder sort of their Religion, be the men used to be employed in this kind of traffic. What have jews to do, with this kind of Romish ware, or to deal with such merchandise in the Church of Rome, concerning the souls of men, whereunto they be altogether strangers, and which Church, together with the orders, and religion thereof, they utterly disclaim and disavow? And yet, thirdly, even the jews themselves, that traffic and trade, temporal commodities and merchandizes, do it, by Letters Patents, Rescripts, Warrant, or, Licence from the Pope of Rome, or his laws, (for otherwise they could not do it): and so (upon the matter) have they also the name of the Beast to allow and authorise them therein. And therefore even the very jews themselves, which do not otherwise trade, traffic and merchandise worldly commodities, but by the Popes, authority, permission, or allowance, within his Dominions, do no way confute, but rather confirm this point.  
6 Here is wisdom, (saith the Text): 
Rev. 13.18.  let him that hath understanding, count the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, (that is, such, as a man by his understanding, may possibly attain unto) and his number is 666. That which is here called the number of the Beast, 
Rev. 13.17. Rev. 15.2.  is in the very next verse going before, and elsewhere also, called the number of the Name of the Beast. Now although it might be an hard and difficult matter before the accomplishment of this Prophecy, to find out, this number of the name of the Beast: yet after the accomplishment of it, it is not so hard a matter. First therefore, they be much deceived who take this to be the proper name of some one particular man, or singular person: for the Text itself showeth it, to be the name, not of any particular man, but of a Beast, that is, of a State, Kingdom, or Dominion: and declareth it also to be the name of the Beast, that had seven heads; that is, of the Latin or Roman State. The Beast then being now found out, and known to be the Latin or Roman State, it is so much the more easy to search, and find out, whether, the number of this Beasts name, that is, of the Latin or Roman State, do in the numeral letters thereof, contain just 666. For if it contain just that number, then for that cause also, will this matter, be so much the more apparent. In what language then are we to reckon it? Most likely, either in the Hebrew, because the Revelation (as some think) was given in Hebrew, to S. john, being an Hebrew born: or else in Greek, because the Revelation was written in Greek, and that also to the Greek Churches: and all the letters in both these languages, be also numeral: whereas the letters in the Latin tongue be not all numeral, 
Malcuth, which signifieth a Kingdom, in Hebrew, is of the feminine gender: wherewith therefore Romijth, doth fitly agree, being of the same gender.  though some be. If then you ask in Hebrew, what Malcuth, that is, what Kingdom, this is, which is here spoken of? A fit, and congruous answer, is made in the same Hebrew language, that it is, Romijth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth Roman, denoting it thereby to be the Roman State, or Roman Kingdom: which word, in Hebrew, doth in the numeral letters thereof, contain the just number of 666. If again you ask, in Greek, what Basileia, that is, what Kingdom it is: it is likewise fitly and fully answered in Greek, that it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latin Kingdom, or, the Latin State: which name of the Beast so produced in Greek, doth also in the numeral letters thereof, contain the just number of 666. Or, if you will think it fit to reckon it in the Latin tongue, which is the proper tongue of the Beast (as possibly it is so to be reckoned, for in the Latin tongue, some letters be also numeral, though all be not) what name or title hath the Pope, who hath gotten to himself this headship, and sovereign rule of Rome? Is he not usually called, Vicarius Generalis Dei in terris? God's Vicar general upon Earth? And do not these words thus produced in Latin, contain, in them, in the numeral letters or characters, the just number of 666? It is clear and apparent, that they do. So that, whether you consider the Latin or Roman State, simply by itself, or as it is long sithence translated, or brought to the Pope of Rome, the last head thereof: you find, in all the three languages, both of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, (which be counted the three learned languages of the world) the number of the Beast, fitly to agree: yea these very words (Latinus status, ad Papas allatus,) directly signifying, the Latin State, as it is (now long since) translated and brought unto the Popes, containeth in the numeral letters thereof, the just number of 666; which is therefore a thing, not unworthy the noting and observing. 
Irenaeus lib. 5.335. De nomine Bestiae, omnes docent, tale futurum esse, ut ex literis constet, quae ad rationem numerorum, iuxta Graecae linguae morem redactae, numerum 666 contineant. Suarez lib. 5. cap. 19 n. 11. & 29.  Irenaeus (whose Master was Polycarpus, Disciple to S john, that received this Revelation) saith: that the number of the name of the Beast, should contain 666, according to the computation of the greeks, by the Letters that be in it. He therefore reckoning other names (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in neither of which, there is any likelihood, that any of them should be this name, seeing none of these, is the name of a Beast, that is of a Kingdom, or State) setteth down the name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof he writeth thus: Sed &, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nomen sexcentorum sexaginta sex, numerum: & valde verisimile est: quoniam verissimum Regnum, hoc habet vocabulum: Latini enim sunt, qui nunc regnant: But the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (lateinos) containeth also the number of 666: and this is very likely (saith he) to be the name: because the most true Kingdom, hath this name: for they be Latins, which now reign. Where you see, even by Irenaeus his testimony, first, that the Beast here mentioned, signifieth a Kingdom, or State: secondly, that his name, containing the number of 666, must be in Greek, and reckoned by the numeral letters of the name, in that language. And thirdly he saith, that it is very likely, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All which very fitly agreeth (as is apparent) to the Latin State, not only as it was ruled by Emperors, but as it is sithence also ruled by Popes. For in the Papacy also, Latin, is in chiefest request, and preferred before all other languages. All their Service is in Latin: the people be taught to pray in Latin: the Scriptures be not allowed of, but according to their Latin translations: and it is commonly and vulgarly called, the Latin Religion etc. What therefore Irenaeus in those ancient times affirmed to be very probable, and likely, We, living so many hundred years after him, and seeing the accomplishment of this Prophecy, do and must conclude it, by the event, to be not only probable and likely, but necessarily true and undoubted, That it is the Latin Kingdom, or Roman State which is there intended and described. As for that Bellarmine, and some other Papists say, that the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may not be written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but with a simple jota, it is too vain a cavil: for Irenaeus, being a Grecian borne, knew how to write Greek, I hope, aswel as Bellarmine, or any other that taketh the exception. Secondly, even mean Scholars in that tongue, do know, that it may be written both ways, and that it is no new or strange thing, with them, to write, I, long, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as Atrides, and Aristides, be written in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Nilus, Epirus, and Mithras, be written in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: especially, when N followeth I long, it is the observation of joseph Scaliger himself, (in his Notes upon Eusebius Chronicle, pag. 106) that the Grecians do turn the I of the Latins, into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This therefore appeareth to be, a very frivolous and idle exception.  
And as touching that they further object, that there be many names, which make that number of 666. and thereupon would infer, that any of those, may be the name there spoken of, aswell as Latin, or Roman; they talk likewise very idly, and to no purpose: for although there be many names, that contain that number of 666, yet none of them, containing that number, can be the name there spoken of, unless it be the name, first, of a Beast, that is, of a State, or Kingdom: secondly, unless it be the name of that very Beast with seven heads, there mentioned: nor thirdly, unless it be such a name, as agreeth with that Beast, in every other respect and circumstance: of which sort, none is, or can be showed to be, but only that which is the Latin, or Roman State. Inasmuch then, as the Pope of Rome counterfeiteth the Lamb, but acteth the Dragon, in very deed: and exerciseth all the power and authority of the first Beast, that is, of the Roman State, and that before his face: and seeing that the deadly wound, given to the Empire, was cured and healed in him: and that he with his Clergy, and holy men, and holy women, hath by their Miracles, done in the sight and view of the Roman. State, together with his doctrine, and other his devises, so bewitched, and enchanted the Inhabitants of the Earth, that they have as verily believed the Pope's Supremacy, and his religion to be of God, as if they had been ratified, and approved from God himself, by some miraculous sending of fire from heaven, for the confirmation of them: and hath also caused an Image of the Beast, to be made, namely, the Papal State, in lieu of the Imperial, whereof himself is now the Head and Monarch: & hath moreover, put such a spirit into this Image of the Beast, so that it did speak, and give forth such terrible Edicts & judgements, that whosoever did not obey it, & the decrees thereof, should be put to death; and hath also caused, and commanded all professors of Christianity, under his rule and dominion, to receive the Mark of the Beast, which, in respect of Religion, is manifestly, Popery: and hath willed also, and ordained, that none within his Dominions, professing the name of Christ, should buy, or sell, or use the trade of Merchandizing, unless he have the mark of the Beast, that is, unless he profess the religion of Popery: or have his name, which is to be a Romanist, or Latin man, that is, a man of the Roman, or Latin Religion, professing subjection to him: or have the number of his name, that is, unless he so carry and demean himself, as that he be numbered, and reckoned amongst them, as if he were a very true Latin, or true Roman indeed: and seeing that the number of the name of the Beast, containing 666. doth also fitly and fully agree to the Latin, or Roman State: yea, seeing the Pope hath all the Marks whatsoever, mentioned in the holy Scriptures, to belong to Antichrist (for no instance can be given to the contrary) I conclude that he is, and must needs be held to be, the very undoubted Grand Antichrist, and that there is no other to be expected.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Showing also the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Popish Church, to be the Antichristian, out of the 1. Tim. 4. Vers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  
THE words of this Text be these: But the spirit speaketh evidently, that in the latter times, 
1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils, which speak lies in hypocrisy, having their consciences seared, with an hot Iron: forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving, of them which believe and know the truth: for every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Beside the former notes and marks of the Antichristian and Apostatical Church, the Apostle here hath, for our fuller, and better satisfaction in that point, notified also, and set down unto us, two other marks, and those not the worst, but the most sensible, nor the most wicked (though wicked enough) but the most easy to be known, that none might any longer err, or go astray therein. The two marks, whereby to discern and know this Antichristian Church, which hath made an Apostasy, or departure from the right faith (and whose teachers, be false teachers) he specifieth to be these: namely, 1. Forbidding people to Marry, which by God's law be not prohibited. 2. A commanding to abstain from meats, for religion sake, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. Which two notes, or marks, be apparently found in the Papacy▪ For there, namely in the Papacy, are diverse persons forbidden to marry, which by God's law be not forbidden, as namely their Bishops, Deacons, Priests, Monks, Friars, Nuns etc. And there also is a commanding to abstain from some kind of meats, for religion sake, as is sufficiently known, and as shall afterward appear: and therefore in the Papacy it is, that the Church is Apostatical and Antichristian. But touching the point of Marriage, the Rhemists, and other Papists answer, that S. Paul here speaketh only of the Manichees, Encratites, Marcionites, of the heretics, called Apostoloci, Ebionitae, and the like, whose heresy about Marriage was (say they) that, to marry, or to use the Act of Matrimony, is of Satan, and that the distinction of Male and Female, came of an ill God. And thus would they have the old Heretics only to be branded, and themselves no way to be touched herein. But indeed (if you well observe the words) not so much those old heretics, as the later heretics, namely, the Papists, be there noted and branded: yea, these chiefly, and especially, if not altogether. For those old heretics that attributed the institution of Matrimony, to Satan, and the distinction of male and female, and procreation of Children to the Devil, did not speak lies or falsehood in hypocrisy (as these are here said to do) but in palpable, and open blasphemy, which might therefore easily be discerned of Christians, and avoided. But the Papists, that (under pretence of holiness, religion, purity, and chastity) forbid Marriage, be those that utter this their doctrine in hypocrisy: and therefore be such, of whom the Apostle here speaketh, and had the more need to give the Church a forewarning, that they might beware of them, and be the better armed against them. But because they confess, the old Heretics, to be here condemned, let them tell me, how much differeth in this point, the Church of Rome from those old Heretics, the Manichees? For even the Manichees permitted marriage to the Lay people, which they called their hearers: but in no wise to their Clergy, which they called their Elects, or chosen men, 
Aug. de haeres. ad quod vult Deum haeres. 46.  as S. Augustine declareth. Seeing then they are in the same heresy with them, in this very point, how can they avoid from themselves herein, the note and brand of those old Heretics? But they say, that their Clergy men, Monks, Nuns, and the rest of their religious orders, be Votaries, and have vowed continency, and therefore it is not lawful for them to marry, because of their Vows. But I demand, What if they be not able to keep this vow, but that notwithstanding their Vows, Prayers, Fast, and other means, by them used, they still burn in lust? For, in these cases, concerning marriage, or single life, 
2. ●or. 7.7.  Every one hath his proper gift of God● one after this manner, and another after that: as S. Paul himself directly teacheth and affirmeth. So that Continency from Marriage, is a gift, not common to all, but proper to some, as here appeareth, and therefore, every one that Fasteth, or that Prayeth, or laboureth after it, doth not always attain unto it: yea, Christ jesus himself, expressly telleth us, that, All do not receive it, but they only to whom it is given. 
Mat. 19.11, 12.  It must therefore, first of all be confessed, that it was a very presumptuous, rash, and unadvised Vow, which such men and women make, as at the time of their Vow-making, neither were, nor could be assured of that special gift, nor yet afterward, have it given them from God: For which they are therefore to repent. And secondly, their vow thus appeaing to be rash, and unadvised, and such as they find themselves not able to keep, it were much better for them to marry, then continually to burn in Lust, and so to fall possibly, into fornication, or adultery, or other more lewd and abominable sins. For it is the express rule of S. Paul, that, It is better to marry, then to burn. Yea, 
1. Cor. 7.9.  Marriage was instituted of God, for this very end, to prevent and● void fornication, and adultery, and all other uncleanness: For so S. Paul again saith and requireth: that to Avoid fornication, every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 
1. Cor. 7.2.  And again he saith: that, Marriage is honourable amongst all men, and the Bed undefiled, but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge. 
Heb. 13.4.  And therefore if such persons as have made vows, in this case, find themselves not able to keep them, and thereupon do afterward Marry, S. Augustine himself condemneth not their Marriage: Non quia ipsae Nuptiae vel talium etc. Not that the Marriage itself, even of such persons (saith he) is judged to be condemned Yea, 
August. de bono vidu●at. cap. 9  he further speaketh thus: They which say, that the marriage of such persons, is no Marriage, but rather Adulteries, seem to me (saith he) not to consider throughly, and diligently, what they say. 
Cap 10.  Yea, it was indeed the direct heresy of those old Heretics, called Apostolici, not to permit such to marry as had made the vow of chastity, 
Epiphan. har. 61  and were not able to keep it. And 〈◊〉 is further declared to be, contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which (as Epiphanius also there testifieth) judged, it was better for such to marry openly, then to burn privily. Whilst therefore they suffer not such to marry, as have made a vow of Continency, and be not able to keep it, what do they else, but, contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church, join with those old heretics, called Apostolici, and consequently cannot herein avoid the same Antichristian note and brand imposed upon them? But now (if a man should further expostulate the matter with them) what good or sufficient reason can they show, why Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers of the Church, may not aswell be allowed to be married persons, as the Priests in the old Testament? For it cannot be denied, but the Priests in the old Testament did Marry. If you say, that Bishops and Ministers should be holy men: beside that marriage hindereth not holiness in them, that have not the gift of Continency (yea, it rather helpeth holiness, making them to live honest; and holy lives, who otherwise burning in lust, were likely to live very impurely and unholily), might not likewise the same objection be made, touching those Priests of the old Testament, in whom, holiness was aswell required, as in the Ministers of the new Testament? Yea, if marriage were against holiness, or did hurt or hinder it, God would never have allowed it to any kind of people: For even of Lay people, aswell as of Ecclesiastical Ministers, doth God require sanctity, or holiness, saying thus unto them: As he which called you is holy: even so be ye also holy, 
1. Pet. 1.14.15.  in all manner of conversation: because it is written, be ye holy, for I am holy. It is therefore a very profane speech of Papists, or of any whosoever, that say, that Marriage is a profanation of holy orders, or that in his own nature, it profaneth any Christian, of what sort soever, it being a sacred and holy Institution, and appointed of God, as a remedy against sin, and to preserve men in honesty, goodness, and sanctity. Yea, some of the Apostles themselves were married men, as S. Peter (otherwise called Cephas) and some of the rest: and even those Apostles also that were unmarried, had the freedom and liberty, nevertheless, to have been married, notwithstanding the sacred function of the Apostleship. For so S. Paul witnesseth of himself and Barnabas, that it was lawful and free for them, if they had been so disposed, to have taken wives, and to have led them about with them, as they traveled in the execution of the office of their Apostleship. Have we not power (saith he) to lead about a Sister, A Wife, aswell as other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 
1. Cor. ●. 5.  The Rhemists hereunto answer, that the words in the Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should not be translated, a Sister, a Wife, but a Woman a Sister: and say, that the Apostle meaneth plainly, the devout women, that after the manner of jewry, did serve the Preacher of necessaries, of which sort, many followed Christ, and sustained him, and his, of their substance. But first they transpose, and misplace the words in that text, For the words be not (as they in their Translation suppose) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Woman, a Sister, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Sister, a Wife: For no man of understanding, would translate it, a Sister, a Woman, because the word Sister, implieth a woman, of itself. And therefore this latter word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must of necessity signify, a Wife: For to translate it otherwise, namely, a Sister, a Woman, were to make the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be superfluously added, and to no purpose. Besides, the word used in the text of leading about, declareth, that they were Wives, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and not other Women: For it is a word, importing authority in it, as of the husband over his wife, or of the master over his servant, or such like: Neither had the Apostles any such command, or authority over other women. We read indeed, of certain women, that followed our Saviour Christ, but we read not that he did lead them about. But lastly, the very scope of the Text, is also directly against this their conceit, and exposition, which expound it of such rich women, as did minister of their substance to the Apostles necessity: For by such rich women, the Church could not be charged, but was rather helped and relieved by them: whereas with the Apostles wives, that were poor as their husbands, the Churches might lawfully have been charged: For this is the very scope & purpose of the Apostle, in that place, to show to the Corinthians, that in this point, He and Barnabas, used not that power and liberty, which freely and lawfully they might have done, in leading about a Sister, a Wife with them (aswell as Cephas, that is Peter, and some other of the Apostles did). And even S. Hierome against Helvidius, to the same effect, citeth this text also, thus: Numquid non habemus potestatem uxores circumducendi, sicut & caeteri Apostolici. Have we not power to lead about wives, aswell as the rest of the Apostles? And Tertullian likewise, according to this Text, 
Tertul. exhort. ad Cast  saith: Licebat & Apostolis nubere, & uxores circumducere: It was lawful for the Apostles to marry, and to lead about their wives. Clemens Alexandrinus also, by this Text, doth prove, that the Apostles had Wives, and did lead them about: Do they also (saith he) reject the Apostles? For Peter and Philip did beget Children: Philip also, did give his Daughter in marriage. 
Clemen stromat lib. 3.  And therefore Paul saith in a certain Epistle: Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wif●, aswell as the rest of the Apostles etc. 
1 Cor. 9.5.   
2 Yea, that Bishops, and Deacons, may be married men, and have wives, 
1. Tim. 3.2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. etc.  S. Paul himself, further clearly witnesseth: showing, both what manner of men, Bishops and Deacons should be, and likewise what manner of women, their wives should be. A Bishop (saith he) must be blameless, the husband of one wife, watching, sober, comely, a lover of hospitality, apt to teach, 
Tit. 1.5.6.7.8. etc.  not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but gentle, abhorring fight, abhorring covetousness, one that ruleth well his own house, having children in subjection, with all honesty: For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he care for the Church of God? Where first you may observe, that a Bishop is expressly allowed to be the husband of one wife. Some Papists, hereunto answer, that by being the husband of one wife, is meant, that a Bishop must have but one wife before his admission to that his Episcopal office: but after his admission to that office, he must have none at all. It is a very strange answer, and untrue. For first they hereby expound these words, (a Bishop must be, etc.) by these; A Bishop must be such a one, as hath been, etc. And so by this exposition of theirs, which will have it expounded of the time past only, but not of the time present, they make the Apostle to speak, as if he had said thus: Let such a one be ordained a Bishop, as hath heretofore been blameless, but now at the time of his ordination, and after, is not so: such a one must be made a Bishop, as before he was a Bishop, was watchful, sober, apt to teach, etc. But now after that he is a Bishop, he may have none of these virtues or good qualities, in him. Is not such an exposition senseless, impious, and absurd? And yet if they will expound the one clause of the sentence, touching a Bishop to be the husband of one wife, (as they do) of the time past only, and in no sort of the time present, they must likewise expound all the rest of the members and clauses of the same entire sentence, in the same manner, and so run into those senseless, and impious absurdities, before mentioned. But the Apostle himself, to put the matter further out of all controversy, speaking of Deacons, saith in the present tense: Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri; Let the Deacons, be the husbands of one wife. Now, 
1. Tim. 3.12.  as touching the meaning of these words, that a Bishop, or, Deacon, must be the husband of one wife, it is not to tie him necessarily to have a wife, but to this, that if he have any, care must be taken, that he have no more than one at a time. So that this Text maketh against Digamy, or Bigamy, (as we call it) or Polygamy, that is▪ against the having of two, or more wives at once, and not (as some take it) against the having of several wives, one succeeding after the death of the other. And so doth S. Chrysostome expound this Text, speaking thus: He saith not this, as making a law, 
Chrysost. upon this place.  that none without a wife may be made a Bishop, but appointing a measure of that matter: for it was lawful for the jews to be joined in the second marriage, and to have two wives at once. Theodoret likewise upon these words, The husband of one wife, saith thus: 
Theod. upon his Text.  The preaching then began, and neither the Gentiles did exercise virginity, nor the jews admit it: for they esteemed the procreation of children, to be a blessing: therefore, forasmuch as at that time, they were not easily to be found, which exercised continency, he commandeth of such as had married wives, to ordain them which honoured temperance. And concerning that saying, The husband of one wife, I think (saith he) certain men have well said: for of old time both greeks, and jews, were want to be married▪ and that with two, three, or more wives, at once. And even now also, when the Imperial laws, forbid men to marry two wives at once, they have to do with Concubines and Harlots. They have said therefore, that the holy Apostle saith, That he which dwelleth honestly with one wife only, is worthy to be ordained a Bishop: for (say they) he doth not reject the second marriage, who hath often commanded that it should be used. Theophilact doth also so expound these words, 
Theophilact upon this Text.  the husband of one wife. He spoke this (saith he) because of the jews, for to them was permitted Polygamy, that is, to join marriage with many at one time. Yea even S. Hierome, though no great favourer of marriage, and being himself inclined to that opinion, that he which hath been twice married, should not be ordained: yet in his Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus, 
Hier. Comment. upon Titus.  confesseth and declareth, that sundry did interpret the Text otherwise, namely, as we do: Some Interpreters of this place (saith he) do give this sense. It was of the jewish custom (say they) that men had two wives, or more at once, as we read in the old Law, of Abraham, and jacob: and this they will have to be the Apostles commandment in this place, that he which is to be chosen a Bishop, have not two wives together at one time. The sense and meaning then of those words, is evident and plain enough, viz. that he which is blameless or unreprovable, that is the husband of one wife, and of no more at once, that is watchful, sober, apt to teach, & hath all those other virtues and good qualities mentioned in that Text, is the man, that is meet to be made a Bishop. S. Ambrose (in 2. Cor. 11.) saith: That all the Apostles, except john and S. Paul, had wives. Chaeremon Bishop of Nilus, fled with his wife in persecution, Euseb. lib 6. cap. 42. Demetrianus an excellent Bishop of Antiochia, had a son, called Doranus, that was made Bishop, in stead of Paulus Samosatenus the Heretic, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. Spiridion was a famous Bishop in the Council of Nice, that was married▪ and had a daughter, called Irene, Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 5. Gregory Bishop of Nazianzen, was a notable Bishop, and father of the other Gregory that succeeded him, as appear by the Oration he made, in praise of his father. Gregory Bishop of Nissa, was an excellent Bishop, and was also married, Niceph. lib. 11. cap. 19 S. Germanus, was a notable Bishop, in Africa, and was likewise married, having a daughter called Leontia, that was afterward martyred by the Arrians, Victor. vticen's▪ hist. lib. 3. Yea Fabianus, and, Hormisda, Bishops of Rome, were married: and many other Bishops of Rome were Priests sons, as Pope Damasus himself in his Pontifical, doth testify. And although it be true, that many holy men, were unmarried also: yet you see it to be untrue which the Rhemists say, that no holy men ever used their wives after they were in holy Orders: For Socrates further mentioneth diverse holy Bishops of the East Church, in his time, that begat lawful children of their lawful wives, after that they were Bishops, Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. And so doth Athanasius (ad Dracontium) affirm, that he knew many Bishop's unmarried, and again, Monks, to be fathers of children: as on the other side, you may see (saith he) Bishops to be fathers of children, and Monkey that have not sought liberty of generation. And good it had been, if this freedom and liberty to marry as it was left by God, had so continued to all sorts of men and women, without any restraint or prohibition: for be not the Clergy men in Popery, that be thus restrained, and prohibited to marry, and likewise the Monks, Friars, Nuns, and the rest, thereby, occasioned, or may they not thereby, be occasioned, to be like those old heretics, called Origeniani turpes, Filthy Originists? Who, as Epiphanius testifieth of them, Rejected marriage, 
Epiphan haeres. 63.  yet lust ceased not amongst them, but they defiled their body and mind with wantonness: for some of them be in the habit of Monks that live solitarily; and some of the women, are in the habit of women that live solitarily: but they are, for all that, (saith he) corrupt, performing their lust in their bodies. And again he saith of them: that, They study not for chastity, but for feigned chastity, and that which hath the name only of Chastity. Clemangis a Doctor of Paris, that lived above two hundred years agone, concerning Monks, and Abbeys, speaketh thus: 
Clemang. de stat. Eccles. pag. 47. & inde.  What can I say of them that is commendable? they being so slippery, indisciplinated, dissolute, unquiet, running up and down, into common and dishonest places. And touching Friars, he saith: They be worse than the Pharisees, 
Pag. 53.  ravening Wolves in Sheep's ●●othing, who in words pretend the forsaking of the world, and in deeds with all possible frauds, deceit, and lying, hunt after it: making semblance in outward show, of austerity, chastity, humility, holy simplicity, but, secretly, in exquisite delicates and variety of pleasures, going beyond the luxuriousness of all worldly men: and, though not with their wives, yet with their Bats, filling themselves greedily with wine, and good cheer, and polluting every thing with lust, whose heat burneth them. And concerning Nuns, he saith: 
Pag 56.  Shame forbiddeth me to speak of them, lest I should mention, not a company of Virgins dedicated to God, but stewed, deceitful, impudent whores, with their fornications, and incestuous works. For what, I pray you, are Nunneries nowadays, but the execrable Brothelhouses of Venus? the harbours of wanton men, where they satisfy their lusts? that now, the veiling of a Nun, is all one, as if you prostituted her openly to be a Whore. So far He.  
3 The sixth general Council therefore, assembled at Trulla, to make Canons, hath an express ordinance concerning this point, of the marriage of Ministers, (in the 13 Canon) in these words▪ Forasmuch as we have understood, that it hath been ordained for a rule in the Church of Rome that▪ whosoever will be a Deacon or Priest, must first protest that he will never 〈◊〉 more after that, have to do with his wife▪ 〈◊〉 following the Apostolical order and discipline, will, that the lawful marriage of Clergy men, be for ever available: by no means separating them from their wives, nor forbidding them to come together at convenient times. Wherhfore, if any one shall be thought worthy to be chosen a Subdeacon, Deacon, or, a Priest: let him not be hindered from mounting to this degree, because he dwells together with his lawful wife: and let it not be exacted of him in the day of his election, to renounce the company of his lawful wife: lest, by this means, we be constrained to disgrace marriage, which was first in instituted by God, and blessed by his presence: seeing that the Gospel cries out, that no man should separate that which God hath joined together. The prohibition of marriage then, in the Popish Church, to such as by God's law be not prohibited, yea, which are directly allowed▪ yea which are required and commanded (in case they have not the gift of continency) to marry, rather than to burn, appeareth very clearly to be wicked, and abominable; and consequently, the Popish Church, as touching this point, must be concluded, to be the undoubted Antichristian Church. And so much the rather; for that, they have made this prohibition, in mere hypocrisy: they pretending that they do it for religion sake, and that Clergymen should be the more holy and chaste: when the cause thereof, indeed, is another matter, namely the preservation of Church goods, and lest a Bishop or Priest, if he were married, should pair away something from them, and employ it to the use of his wife and children: for this, a Pope of Rome himself, hath discovered and manifested in the 28. Distinction and Canon de Syracusanis; where he saith: that the reason, why he did refuse to admit of a certain Bishop, was, because he had a wife and children, by whom the Church goods use to be endangered: And yet notwithstanding at the urgent request of the people of Syracuse, he did receive him, upon condition, that his wife and children, should not have to do with the goods or profits of the Church. Let them not therefore blind the eyes of the world any longer, as though care of chastity, sanctity, and holiness, in Clergymen, were the cause of this prohibition, when the true cause in very deed, appeareth to be merely politic, worldly, and earthly, namely a respect and care for the preservation of the Church goods, wholly, and entirely to themselves. But again, is it not gross hypocrisy, and dissimulation, for them to pretend Chastity, in this matter, wherein there appeareth to be none at all, but the clean contrary? For, how can the forbidding of Marriage to such as have not the gift of Continency, tend to chastity? Yea, how can it otherwise tend, but to unchastity, filthiness, dishonesty, and uncleanness? Yea, what a great affecter of chastity the Popish Church is, may appear by the Canon, Is qui, in the 34 Distinction: the inscription whereof is this: He that hath no wife, let him, in stead of a wife, have a Concubine. The Canon following, is this: It is not lawful for a Christian to have, I do not say, many wives, but not so much as two wives, but only one wife, or in defect thereof, a Concubine. Likewise, the Canon, Dilectissimis, in the 12 cause, and the first question, doth approve of Plato's opinion, the wisest among the greeks, which saith: All things should be common amongst friends: Now, under this name of all things (saith this Canon) men's wives also be comprehended. But I shall need to say no more herein, because the premises, as touching this point of forbidding marriage, under pretence of chastity, and religion (when there is neither chastity, nor religion in it, but the clean contrary) do sufficiently declare, the Popish Church, to be, very clearly and undoubtedly Antichristian.  
4 The second mark of the Apostatical, and Antichristian Church, out of this Text, is, a commanding to abstain from Meats, for Religion sake. And this note, or mark, is also found very evidently to be in the popish Church: 
1. Tim. 4.3.  For in the Papacy, the people are enjoined, and that not for politic, or civil respects, but for piety and religion sake, to abstain from flesh-meates, and other meats, on certain days, and times, by them appointed: although nevertheless, on the same days, and times, they permit fish of all sorts, to be eaten, and wine also to be taken. Yea, they not only account it a sin against God, to eat flesh on those days, but do also repose matter of merit, and satisfaction to God's justice for their sins, in that their abstinence, and in such their obedience, performed to their Mother, the Church of Rome. Howbeit, S. Paul (chose) saith: that, The kingdom of God, is not meat nor drink, but righteousness, 
Rome 14.17.  and peace in the holy Ghost. And again he saith: If any of them which believe not, bid you to a feast, and if you will go, 
1. Cor. 10. 2●.  whatsoever is set before you, eat, ask no question for conscience sake. Yea, Christ jesus himself showeth, that they be not meats and drinks, moderately taken, but other things that defile a man, for, saith he: Perceive ye not, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 
Mat. 15.17, 18, 19, 20.  But those things which proceed out of the mouth, come from the heart, and they defile a man: for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornica●ions, thefts, false testimonies, slanders; these be the things that defile a man. And again he saith expressly: That which goeth into the mouth, defileth not a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, that defileth a man. 
Mat. 15.11.  Do not these testimonies manifestly prove, that good and true Christian Religion, and the kingdom of God, consisteth not in these outward things, of meat and drink, but in things inward, seated in the heart of a man, as namely, 
Rom. 14.17.  in righteousness, in peace, and in joy of the holy Ghost, and such like? Yea, when God thus permitteth, aswell flesh as fish to be eaten, and saith expressly, that, the Eating of it defileth not a man: can any Popish Prohibition make it to defile a man, or to be sin in his sight, which himself affirmeth to be none? For they say, that though God hath not forbidden it, yet their Mother, the Church of Rome, hath forbidden it upon pain of deadly sin, and damnation. Howbeit this excuseth not: yea, herein it is, that their church doth disclose and declare herself, to be in very deed, Antichristian, in thus exalting herself against God, and daring to forbid that in the way of Religion, which he hath not forbidden, but (chose) hath allowed in his religion. The true Church hath but one Lawgiver (as S. james speaketh) and that is God, to make and give Laws, 
jam. 4.12.  to bind the soul and consciences, and to certificus, what is sin, and what is not sin, in his sight. How then can any Prohibition of the Pope, 
1. joh. ●. 4.  or Popish Church, make that to be sin against God and his religion, which God himself affirmeth not to be so, yea, the contrary whereof, he teacheth and affirmeth? But consider yet further, what Mother it is that they be so careful to obey, 
Rev. 17.5. etc.  and whether she be not the Mother of Whoredoms and abominations of the earth, and even the Whore of Babylon, as she is before declared to be, out of the Revelation of S. john. For it will be small honour, joy, or comfort, for any, to show or perform obedience to such a Mother. Yea, all God's people be expressly commanded by a voice from heaven, to forsake that Mother, and to go out of her: lest being partakers of her sins, they also receive of her plagues. 
Rev. 18.4.  And therefore, whilst they do it in obedience to such a Mother, their sin is not thereby lessened, but is so much the greater. Yea, whilst your Church is thus bold to give this Prohibition, S. Paul, even in this place to Timothy, telleth you, that God is so far from prohibiting, or forbidding any Meats, in his religion, that chose, he hath created them to that very end, 
1. Tim. 4 4, 5.  to be received, and that with thanksgiving: and he there further teacheth, that, they are so far from having any sin, pollution, or uncleanness in them, to a faithful and well persuaded Christian, as that they are to him (clean chose) sanctified by the word of God, and prayer. Can any thing be more forcibly spoken, to confute that Prohibition? But amongst the rest, this is most intolerable, that they place remission of sins, or matter of merit, or satisfaction to God's justice for their sins, in this their abstinence from flesh, and betaking themselves to fish, and other meats, which they also call fasting: For, first, did ever any true christian Religion teach a Fast, acceptable to God, and allowed of him, to consist in difference of meats, or, (which is all one) in abstaining from some kind of meat, and eating of othersome, as namely, in abstaining from flesh, and eating of fish, or such like? A true christian Fast, whether it be public, or private, is, to eat neither flesh, nor fish, nor any thing at all, for that day, or time, that is so dedicated for humiliation, in God's sight: and beside, it hath always, humble, earnest, fervent, and repentant prayers, joined with it, and a serious and deep meditation and contemplation, of divine & heavenly things. Yea, this kind of fasting, without prayer, and without other divine exercises, joined therewith, is nothing else, but a mere bodily diet, and altogether a corporal, and no spiritual exercise. But were fasting never so truly and rightly performed, yet why should you account it meritorious, or of merit sufficient to take away sins, or to satisfy God's justice for your sins? Did it not cost more to redeeeme souls, and to satisfy God's justice for them, than so? have we not been often told, that it is the Son of God, and our all-sufficient Saviour, and Redeemer, that hath with his most bitter sufferings, and most perfect obedience, satisfied God's justice for our sins, which we, for our parts, were never able to satisfy? But again ye know, that true, right, and christian fastings, prayers, humiliation, mortification, and all other duties of obedience, we owe unto God, as a debt: And how then can the payment, or performance of these debts, be a satisfaction to God's justice, for other debts, which we did likewise owe, and have not performed? Yea, moreover, all the duties of obedience, which we owe unto God, we perform with much weakness, and imperfection, joined and mixed therewithal, and therefore even all our best works and actions be so far from meriting, or deserving any grace or ●avour at God's hands, that chose, in that respect, we had need to crave mercy and forgiveness of him, even for those defects, frailty, weakness, and imperfections, that is intermingled in them.  
5 As for Christ his fasting forty days and forty nights, 
Mat▪ 4 2. Luk. 4 2.  he eating nothing all that while, as S. Luke testifieth, it was Miraculous, and therefore not to be made an example for Christians to imitate. For what christians can fast in that sort and live? The Rhemists from hence would deduce the Lent Fast, or Fast before Easter, calling it, an Apostolical tradition: But this opinion is confuted, first, by Eusebius, who in the fifth book of his history, reciteth an Epistle of Irenaeus, 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 26.  to Victor, Bishop of Rome, mentioning how diversely of diverse persons it was observed in that ancient time. There be some (saith he) which think they must not fast but one day▪ others there be, that fast two days some more, and some forty hours, day and night. And this diversity of fasting (saith he) commendeth the unity of faith and religion. 
Dionys. Alex. Ep. ad Ba.  Dionysius Alexandrinus also showeth, that some fasted six days, before Easter some two days, some three, some four, some none. S. Basil, in his two Sermons of fasting, speaking of the fast before Easter, telleth us often, that this fast lasted not above five days. S. Ambrose, in his 34 Sermon, saith: That in his time, there were some, which made their Lent to last twenty days, other thirty, by interchangeable weeks. But the Church disputing against the Montanists (in the tenth chapter of Tertullians' Book of fasts) saith: That those days in the Gospel, are marked out for fasting days, in which the Bridegroom was taken away: that is to say, the days, in which jesus Christ suffered, and was in his grave: and that all other days be in a man's own liberty. 
Soc. lib. 5. c. 22.  Again, Socrates saith: that, At Rome they did not ●ast, but three weeks before Easter, excepting Saturday, and Sunday: That in Sclavonia, Greece, and Alexandria, they fasted six: That in other places, they fasted three times five days, at three several times, and that yet nevertheless, they did call this, Lent; every one alleging a diverse reason. That there was also a difference in their fasting, touching their meat: some abstaining from all living creatures: others feeding upon fish only: others eating fowl, together with fish: and some abstaining from the fruits of trees, and from Eggs: and some which tied themselves to eat nothing but bread: and some that eat no bread at all. Whence he collecteth, and inferreth, that this fasting is a matter voluntary, and left free to be used, at such times, and in such order, as every man shall think best and fittest. His words for this purpose, be these: Since no man can show any express commandment, 
Soc. lib. 5. ca 22.  as concerning this: It is evident, that the Apostles did leave it to every man's own will, and pleasure, to the end, every man might do good, but not through fear, or by constraint. And so S. Augustine likewise teacheth, and testifieth, saying thus: I see well, 
August. epist. 86  that fasting is commanded, in the Evangelical, and Apostolical writings: and throughout all the new Testament: But upon what days we should fast, or not fast, I see no commandment for this, neither of Christ nor of his Apostles. And so also did the Catholics tell the Montanists, in ancient time, saying: The Law and the Prophets lasted but till john, 
Tertull. advers. Psychico● cap. 2▪  after which time, men fasted as they thought best: not for that they were so commanded by the Imposition of a new discipline, but according as every man saw his occasion, and that the Apostles used to do thus, imposing no burden of solemn and set fasts. Yea, Montanus the heretic, 
Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 18.  (as Eusebius also noteth out of Apollonius) was the first that prescribed Laws of Fasting. You see then that this Lent-fast, or fast before Easter, is neither a divine ordinance, nor an Apostolical tradition. Yea Damasus Bishop of Rome, in his Pontifical, affirmeth, that Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, did institute it: and Telesphorus also himself, in his Decretal Epistle, testifieth the same.  
6 But touching this matter, the story of Spiridion related by Sozomen, is also not unmeet to be remembered: 
Sozom. lib. 1. ca ●. 11.  to whose house, a stranger coming suddenly upon him, he commanded his daughter to cover the Table, and to set something upon it for the stranger to eat: and she at that time setting certain flesh-meat upon the Table for him to eat, he answered, that he would not as then eat of it, because he was a Christian: Then Spiridion replied, saying, that for this reason he should the rather eat of it: for God saith, Unto the clean, all things be clean: and he did eat thereof himself, to give the other, an example to follow. He did not say eat of it, for I have nothing else in the house, and so necessity may excuse you: but he alleged a Text of Scripture, to assure him of the lawfulness to eat of it, as being no offence against the Christian Religion: and he himself in eating thereof, did likewise declare so much.  
The Text which this godly man, Spiridion, cited, is S. Paul's, in his Epistle to Titus, who saith accordingly: that, 
Tit. 1.13.  Unto the clean, all things be clean. But the Rhemists take upon them to answer this Text, and say, that S. Paul speaketh not of their Churches abstaining from meats, which is not for any uncleanness in the creatures, but for chastening their bodies: and that he speaketh against the jewish superstition, who now being Christians, would not, for all that, cease to put difference of clean and unclean, according to the old Law But first, whereas they say, that this abstinence from flesh-meat, in their Church, is and serveth for chastisement of their bodies, and for repressing of lust, what is this else, but speaking an untruth, or a lie, (as S. Paul calleth it) in Hypocrisy, and so a clear fulfilling of this Prophecy? For, abstinence from flesh, can have no such virtue in it, when as all other kinds of meats, and drinks, are permitted them, which procure lust, as much, if not more, than flesh meat which they are prohibited. Secondly, the jewish abstinence from some kind of meats, was not for any uncleanness by them supposed to be in the creatures by God's creation, but only in respect of God's prohibition by his law: Now, if notwithstanding God's prohibition in his law, the jewish superstition in abstaining from some kind of meats be condemned, (as the Rhemists themselves affirm), much more is the Popish superstition in their abstinence from some kind of meats, to be condemned, who knowing that Christ hath made all things clean to the clean, yet cease not to put difference of meats clean and unclean, holy and unholy, not according to God's law, as the jews did, (which therefore might seem the more tolerable) but according to man's law, even the law of the Pope, which is God's adversary (and therefore the more intolerable). Thirdly, they make the creatures of God, unclean, although not in respect of their creation, yet in respect of their Antichristian prohibition, it being given under pretence and colour (forsooth) of a great deal of sanctity, piety, and religion, by them supposed and taught, to be therein. For if you read the Disputations of the Schooledoctors, as of Durandus, and Alensis, and others, you shall find, that the reasons, which they give, why flesh is forbidden, and not fish, do presuppose some uncleanness in flesh, more than in fish. For some of them say (as namely Durandus▪ lib. 6. cap. de aliis jeiunijs) that the reason is, because the creatures of flesh, were accursed and drowned in the general deluge, in the days of Noah: others of them, allege the reason to be, because, Christ did never eat any thing but fish, after his resurrection. Again, What needeth that custom of carrying their flesh-meat, after Lent, to the Priest, for him to say his Exorcisms over it, if they did not think, that some wicked Spirits lay lurking in it, all the Lent? or that it had some pollution in it, whereof it had need to be purged? or why else are they accounted the most holy, and the most religious men, amongst them, which most abstain from flesh, as the Benedictines and Charterhouse-Monkes, which abstain from flesh all their life long, and eschew the touching or tasting of it, as an unholy & profane thing? Or why else doth the Church of Rome, inflict a greater punishment upon him that doth eat flesh in Lent, then on him that hath committed fornication? For doth it not hereby appear, that they take the eating of flesh in Lent to be a more uncleanness, and a greater sin, than fornication? But yet further S. Paul hath an excellent Text, touching this matter, in his Epistle to the Colossians, where he writeth thus: 
Coloss. 2.20.21.22.23.  Wherhfore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with Traditions? as Touch not▪ Taste not, handle not: which all perish with the using, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men: which things, have, indeed, a show of wisdom, in voluntary religion, and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body: which are things of no value, seth they belong to the filling of the flesh. Observe here first, that he reproveth such superstitious people, as put piety, religion, and God's worship, in abstinence from some kind of meats, by reason of a prohibition of men: for these words (Touch not, Taste not, Handle not) be plain and direct words of prohibition. And observe withal, that these people used this abstinence (even as the Papists also say they do) for humiliation of themselves, and for afflicting and chastening of the flesh, or (which is all one) for not sparing the Body, as the Text here speaketh. But howsoever these things have a show of wisdom (as he calleth it) they have not, for all that, the substance of true wisdom in them: because religion, and the right worship and service of God, and his kingdom, consisteth not in meats and drinks, and such external things as perish with the using, and belong only to the nourishment of our flesh and bodies; but in those things that be spiritual and concern the soul, and life everlasting. Yea observe further, that he calleth them, things of no value: and that by these prohibitions, there is a Burden imposed upon Christians, even a burden of men's Traditions and inventions: and therefore he utterly disalloweth them, as being no commandments of God, or any of his doctrines, but as being the commandments and doctrines of men. So that they cannot shift this Text, by saying that he speaketh here only of the jews, or, of jewish superstition: for it before appeareth, that the jews, did not abstain from certain kinds of meat, to subdue their bodies, but to obey the law of God, given them by Moses, in that case. Yea you see plainly, that S. Paul reproveth these observations, as being the commandments of men: but the jews kept theirs, as being the commandments of God. And therefore in that place he speaketh against any sort of superstitious people whosoever, who being Christians would nevertheless suffer themselves to be thus yoked and burdened with men's Traditions and commandments, in the way of Religion. Although then the Rhemists, and other Papists, answer, aswell to this Text (of 1. Tim 4.1.2, 3▪ 4▪ 5.) as also to that other Text (of Tit. 1.15.) that S. Paul in both those places, speaketh only against such Heretics, as abstained, in respect of an impurity of an uncleanness supposed to be in the meats, by nature and creation: it appeareth by that which is before spoken, that even they also that hold no impurity in the meats by creation, but abstain from them, in this respect, 
Col. 1.20 21.22.23.  of not sparing their Bodies, or, for chastening and subduing the flesh (by reason of men's commandments, given for religion sake, in that case) be taxed, and reproved. For, In vain do they worship me (saith Christ) teaching for doctrines, 
Matth. 15.9.  the commandments of men. Ye have heard before, that the Montanists were condemned by the ancient Church, because they forbade flesh to be eaten: whether they did this, out of an opinion that flesh was defiled and polluted, or for discipline and exercise sake, to repress the body, and subdue lust, who can better resolve us then Tertullian, who himself was stained with this error? 
Tertull. advers. Psychicos cap. 2. & cap. 15.  Now, he reciting the objections and arguments of the Catholics, against these Montanists, they appear to be such and the same, that we also use against the Church of Rome, herein. But, lastly, whilst the Popish Church forbiddeth flesh, permitting nevertheless fish, and wines of all sorts, and all manner of confections, and banqueting stuff, to be taken: who seeth not, that such a kind of fast or abstinence, pretended to be for religion sake, to keep down the body, and to suppress lust, is merely hypocritical, and a very mockery? serving for nothing so well, as to declare itself, to be an apparent, direct, and demonstrative note, of Antichristianisme. For, to abstain from flesh, and to fill the belly with fish, and wine, and other dainties and delicates, or, to have a law permitting this; Can any that hath but common understanding suppose it, to be available to the chastening of the body, taming of the flesh, and subduing of lust? Must not he needs be very senseless, that shall believe it, and very shameless, that shall affirm it?  
7 Touching that they allege, of the Rechabites abstaining from drinking Wine, at the commandment of their father: they did therein well, 
jer. 35.14.  to obey the lawful commandment of their father, whom God's law also requireth to honour and obey; but this is no warrant for any, to obey an unlawful commandment of an unlawful and wrong mother, namely of the Church of Rome: which is before evidently proved unto you, to be the whore of Babylon, 
Rev. 18.4.  whom all God's people be required, not to obey, but to depart from, and to renounce, and forsake. And as touching that they allege of the Nazarites, that they also abstained from wine; 
Num. 6.1.2.3.4. etc.  they had Gods express commandment, requiring them to do so, and therefore might not omit it. But have they likewise Gods express commandment to abstain from flesh in their fasts, with an allowance and permission, nevertheless, to eat fish, and other meats, during the same days, and that also for religion sake? If there be any such express commandment from God for this, as is for the other, let them bring it forth, that it may appear: but if they can show none such (as we are sure they cannot) in vain do they make those cases like, that do so far differ, and have no resemblance. As for the Fast of the Ninevites, Moses, Elias, Anna, or of any other godly persons, mentioned in the holy Scriptures (their fastings, not consisting in difference of meats, but in an abstinence from all kind of meats, for the time): they be so apparently unlike to your Fasts, as that it were but labour vainly bestowed, to take pains to make any further answer to them. Touching that you say, that in England Fish-days be observed and commanded to be observed, and therein an abstinence from flesh required, during those times: you are to know, that it is no constitution, or decree of the Church, for religion sake, but a Statute of the commonweal, made only in politic and civil respects, namely for the maintenance of Navigation, and Fishermen, and for the breed of young cattle, and such like civil uses and ends. And so much the very Statute itself made in that behalf, doth tell you, if you please to read it. But for your better and easier satisfaction, I will here recite unto you, one clause of the same Statute, which is this: Because no manner of person shall misjudge of the intent of this Statute, 
Statute 5. Eliz. cap. 5.  limiting orders to eat fish, and to forbear eating of flesh, but that the same is purposely intended and meant politicly, for the increase of Fishermen, and Mariners, and repairing of Port-townes and Navigation, and not for any superstition to be maintained in choice of meats: Be it enacted, that whosoever shall by preaching, teaching, writing, or open speech, notify, that any eating of fish, or forbearing of flesh, mentioned in this Statute, is of any necessity for the saving of the soul of man, or that it is the service of God otherwise then as other politic Laws are, and be, that then such persons shall be punished, as spreaders of false news are, and aught to be. Whereby you see, that the Statute and Law of England, is so far from favouring their opinion, touching abstinence from flesh, and eating of fish, (by reason of prohibition given in the way of religion, or otherwise then in politic, and commonweal respects) upon fish days (for so the Statute also calleth them fishdays, and not fasting days) that chose it inflicteth a punishment upon those, that shall spread or publish any such opinion.  
8 Now then, forasmuch as these two notes and marks of the Apostatical and Antichristian Church, viz. forbidding of Marriage, under colour and pretence of chastity and holiness: and commanding to abstain from some kind of meats, for Religion sake, and under pretence to chasten the body, and subdue lust, (when nevertheless Fish, and other kind of meats be permitted) be clearly and undeniably found in the Church of Rome: it followeth that the Church of Rome, is and must needs be concluded to be, not the Christian and Apostolical, but the Apostatical and Antichristian Church: and consequently that the Pope of Rome, being the Head and Ruler thereof, is and must needs be the Grand Antichrist. For howsoever the Rhemists and other Papists, to shift these things from their Church, would have, this Text of S. Paul, to Timothy, expounded only of the heretics in old time, that utterly condemned both marriage and meats as things in themselves, and by nature and creation, polluted and unclean: you perceive, that it much more fitly agreeth to the later heretics, namely the Papists. First, because the Text itself showeth, that it is most properly to be intended, of such false Teachers, as speak lies or falsehood in Hypocrisy: but those old Heretics, that utterly condemned Marriage and Meats, 
1. Tim. 4.1.2.  as things in themselves and by creation polluted and unclean, did not speak lies in Hypocrisy, but in plain, manifest, palpable, and open blasphemy: On the other side, the later Heretics, namely, the Papists, be such as speak these lies or falsehood, in Hypocrisy; inasmuch as they forbid Marriage and Meats, not in respect of any supposition that they be in themselves or by creation polluted or unclean: but upon pretence of much chastity, (forsooth) sanctity, and religion, therein to be contained. And therefore these later, rather then those old Heretics, be here to be intended. Secondly, this Prophecy is of such as did make the Apostasy or departure from the faith: Now, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostasy, 
1. Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or departure from the right faith, (being the same that is mentioned in 2. Thess. 2.3.) doth for that cause also, rightly and fitly agree to the Papacy. Thirdly observe, that he saith, this Apostasy or departure from the right faith, and this attending to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils, (by means of such persons, as speaking lies, in hypocrisy, should forbid Marriage and Meats) was to come to pass, neither in the first or elder times, not yet in the last times, but in the later times: for we must note, 
1. Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Saint Paul in these his Epistles to Timothy, speaketh distinctly of two times; showing him, what shall come to pass, not only in the later, but in the last times also. Seeing therefore he hath expressly distinguished these times, 
2. Tim. 3. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we must not confound them: and consequently this Apostasy, and prohibition of Meats and Marriage, in hycrisie (that is, under colour and pretence of sanctity, piety, and religion, when revera there appeareth to be no sanctity, piety, or good religion in them) being to fall out and to be accomplished, neither in the primitive, first, or elder times, nor yet in the last times, but in the latter times, as it were between them both, doth, for that reason also, more aptly and fitly agree to these latter Heretics, the Papists, then to those old and ancient Heretics, before mentioned. And therefore it still appeareth by this Text and Prophecy of S. Paul to Timothy, that the Church of Rome, is the undoubtedly Apostatical, and Antichristian Church, and consequently, that the Pope, the head thereof, is the undoubted grand Antichrist.   

CHAP. V.  
Answering certain Objections of the Adversaries, concerning Antichrist.  
OBJECTION. I.  
THE Bodies of the two witnesses that were slain, did lie in the streets of the great City, which spiritually is called Sodom, and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Rev. 11.8.  
Answer. By the great City, there is meant, not Jerusalem, (as you suppose) but Rome, otherwise called Babylon, which throughout the whole Book of the Revelation, is called the great City, (as namely, Rev. 14.8. Rev. 16.19. Rev. 18.10.16.18, 19.21. and Rev. 17.18. etc. except only once, that this Title is given to Jerusalem, but then also, not to the earthly, but to the new and heavenly jerusalem, which will advantage your cause nothing at all Rev. 21.10. Neither indeed, was our Lord crucified within the City of Jerusalem, but without. Heb. 13.12. Now Rome is said to be the City where our Lord was crucified, both because, by Authority of that City it was, that Christ himself was put to death (for he suffered under Pontius Pilate, the Roman Emperor's Deputy, and also because, there, and from thence it is, that he still suffereth, and is persecuted in his Members: For, the persecution done to any of his members, is by him accounted as done to himself, Act. 9.4. And therefore also be those two Martyrs, or witnesses of Christ's Truth, said to be slain, and to have their bodies lie in the streets of the great City, that is, within the compass and precincts of Rome's authority and dominion. Again, that great City (Rome) is there called Sodom, for her pride, and monstrous uncleanness: and Egypt, for her Idolatry, and cruelty towards God's people: and Babylon, for her so long and miserable detaining them, in spiritual captivity. S. Hierome also herein is directly against you: who (Ep. 17. &, ad Marcellam) earnestly contradicteth your opinion, contending and maintaining, that it cannot be meant of Jerusalem in jewry. It therefore still remaineth firm, that not Jerusalem, but Rome, is the Seat of Antichrist.  
Object. 2. I am come (saith Christ to the jews) in my father's nun, and ye receive me not: If an other come in his own name, him ye will receive. joh. 5.43.  
Ans. This Text also maketh nothing for you: For you expound it, as if Christ had spoken definitely, of one singular man (to be Antichrist) whom the jews should receive: whereas Christ speaketh indefinitely, of any False-teacher, whosoever, that should come in his own name, that is, not sent of God. And sure it is, that the jews have received more than one, of such as have come in their own name: as namely, Theudas, judas Galilaeus, Barcocabas, etc. In the text it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, indefinitely, and not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, definitely (as it is used in joh. 18.16. and joh. 20.2, 3, 4,) And therefore also doth Nonnus, in his paraphrase upon this place, expound those words thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But if any other come, whosoever he be etc. Yea, the very words of Christ be directly Hypothetical, or conditional: If another come: and not Categorical, or affirmative, of Antichrist, or of any other in particular, as ye conceive and mistake. And further, whereas Christ speaketh of those jews that were then and there present, to hear those his words: you understand him to speak of such jews, as should be, by your opinion, a little before the end of the world: at which time it is, and not before, that you suppose Antichrist shall come. Howbeit, the purpose of Christ in that place, is not to foretell, what manner of people the jews should be so long after, namely, toward the end of the world, but how, in respect of their present disposition, they were then, at that time affected: namely, that him that came in his father's name, that is, that was sent from God, they refused, and yet, if any should come in his own name, that is, not sent of God, him they were ready to receive. But lastly, why should you think, that the jews before the end of the world, shall receive Antichrist for their Messias, when as S. Paul (chose) hath foretold and assured us, 
Rom. 11.11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. etc.  that the jews, before the end of the world, shall be converted to Christ, and his religion. Yea, it is before very evident, that Antichrist, shall not be a jew, nor an observer of the jewish religion, but a pretended Christian, and such a one as shall sit in the Temple of God, and be the head of the Apostasy, & apostated and revolted Christians: of which sort and number, the Infidels, and unbelieving jews cannot be. For how can they be said to be Apostates, or to make any apostasy, or departure from Christ, who never formerly embraced him, nor received the profession of him?  
Obiect. 3 Christ is one certain and singular man, therefore Antichrist must be so also.  
Ans. It followeth not: yea, howsoever there is but one true Christ, yet are there many Antichrists, as S. john expressly affirmeth: 1. job. 2.18. and many false Christ's, and false Prophets (as Christ himself declareth) which shall Show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect. Mat. 24.24. And yet also, since the time that the Pope got the headship and Sovereignty of Rome, is Antichrist one, as the Pope of Rome is one: that is, not in number and nature, as one certain and singular man, but one, at once, by law and institution: though successively, so many, as since that time have enjoyed the same Popedom.  
Object. 4. He is Antichrist, which denieth the Father and the Son. 1. joh. 2.22.  
Ans. The Pope and Popish Church also, deny the Father and the Son, in such sort, as belongeth to Antichrist and Antichristian people to do: that is to say, not openly and professedly, but in a covert and disguised manner. For, Whosoever denyeth the Son, the same hath not the Father: saith the same S. john. 1. Io●. 2.23. The like testifieth Christ jesus himself, in job. 5.23. So that to deny the Son, is to deny the Father also: inasmuch as the one cannot be denied without denial of the other. And that the Pope and Papacy do deny the Son, namely, Christ jesus, (viz. in respect of his Person, and in respect of his office●) though not directly, yet indirectly, and by way of Consequent, and in such manner and form as becometh Antichristianisme, is before showed in diverse particulars.  
Obiect. 5 Antichrist is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in 2. Thes. 2.) The man of sin, the Son of perdition, and the lawless person: This Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth show him to be some one singular man, or particular person only, and no more.  
Ans. You are much deceived in so concluding or thinking, by reason of the Greek Article: For, although it be true, that the Greek Article there, hath his Emphasis, or force, to point at some certain thing, yet this certain thing, may be aswell, a certain kind of men (as namely of Popes, going in succesion one after another) as one singular or particular person. Neither doth Epiphanius (haeresi 9, quae est samaritanorun) teach otherwise concerning this Greek article, than other learned men do. For thus he saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Vbi enim adiungitur articulus, ad unum aliquod definitum & clarissimum, omnino & quaedam Emphasis propter articulum: sine verò articulo, sumendum est vocabulum indefinitè de re aliqua vulgari. Quemadmodum si dixerimus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nomen quidem expressimus, sed non perspicuè monstravimus definitum aliquem: Regem enim dicimus, & Persarum, & Thedorum, & Elamitarum. Sin verò, cum appositione ar●iculi, dixerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ extra dubium &, quid significetur: subindicatur enim per articulum, ipse Rex quaesitus, vel de quo sermo fuit, vel qui notus est, vel qui dominatur in Regione aliqua etc. So that it is true, that Epiphanius will, by the Greek Article added, have some certain or definite thing, to be noted, or pointed out: and so say we also: but what that certain or definite thing is, before appear. Learned men do wonder, that so learned a man as Bellarmine is, should so far be mistaken in so plain a matter. For, doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (in joh. 10.10 12.13.) because of the Greek Article added, denote only one particular man, and no more; that is to say, but only one in all the world, to be a These, or an hireling? or when Christ saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. (in Mat. 12.35.) doth he mean, that only some one good m●n, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things? and that only, one evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things? or doth he not rather mean, in a generality, or community, every, or any good man whosoever, or any evil man whosoever, in that case. Again, when it is said (in Luk. 4.4.) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, liveth not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God: It is not meant of one Individuum, or singular person only, but in a generality or community of any or every one, that he liveth by that means. So again S. Paul would, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of God should be perfect, & instructed to every good work (2. Tim. 3 17) he doth not mean because of the Greek article added, that only one man of God, but in a generality or community, that every, or any man of God whosoever, should be so perfect, and so well instructed. Again, when it is said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Heb. ●7. 25.  the high Priest alone, went once every year into the second Tabernacle: it is meant, not of one particular high Priest only, but of the whole order of high Priests. And so by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the hinderer, and that which hindered Antichrist from appearing in his height, is not meant, 
2. Thes. 2.6.7.  because of the addition of the Greek article, that only one Emperor, but the whole succession of the Emperors of Rome, even the State of the Roman Emperors, which was then flourishing, was the hinderer of that his revealing or appearing: and so also do the ancient fathers themselves expound it, as is before declared. Neither is this any unwonted, or unusual speech: For we speak so commonly, and say, that the Emperor goeth before Kings: meaning thereby, not one particular Emperor only, but the whole State and succession of Emperors: And when we say likewise, The King goeth before all Dukes and Earls, it is not meant only of this King, or that King, but generally, of all Kings, & of the very State and succession of Kings. So also, when our Adversaries themselves do say, The Pope is head of the Church, they mean not this Pope, or that Pope only, in Individuo, but, generally, the whole Order, State, and succession of Popes. And therefore, when the grand Antichrist, that is, the Pope of Rome, is thus called, The man of sin etc. Thereby likewise is, and may very well be intended not one singular man only, or this Pope, or that Pope in Individuo, but generally, the whole State, Ranke, & Order of the Popes, succeeding one another.  
Object. 6. Antichrist shall call himself in express terms, god: ostendens se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod sit Deus, showing himself that he is God, as it is in the Greek.  
Ans. But your latin translation, which you hold for the only Authentical, & which agreeth in sense with our translation, is, Ostendens se, tanquam sit Deus, showing himself as though he were God. Howbeit, because you urge the Greek Text, which we ever allow: We thereunto answer, first, with Aecumenius: that, Non ait, Dicens, sed, ostendens hoc est, operibus signis, ac miraculis, nitens ostendere quod sit Deus: The Apostles words, concerning Antichrist, be not (as you suppose) That he shall say, that he is God, but showing, that is, by his works, signs, and miracles, endeavouring to show, that he is god. And secondly, we answer, that the Pope is in express terms called god, well alloweth of that title, and thereby proveth, that he cannot be judged by men; in the Canon, Satis, the 96 Distinct. Again, the Gloss of the Extravagant, Cum inter, hath these words: To think, that our Lord God the Pope, the author of the foresaid Decretal, & of this, had no power to decree, as he hath decreed, would be judged an heresy. Here likewise you see, that they call him, Our Lord God the Pope, in express terms. In Italy also, upon the gate of Tolentum, is this inscription: To Paul the third, the most high and mighty God upon earth. In the Council of Lateran, and 9 Session, in the year 1514, one of the Secretaries of the Pope's chamber, speaks thus to Leo the 10: The looks of your Divine Majesty, with the beame-darting splendour, of which, my weak eyes are dimmed. Stapleton, in the Preface of his Book, of the Principles of the doctrine of faith, calleth Pope Gregory the 13, Supremum, planè Supremum in terris Numen: The supreme, verily the supreme god upon earth. And Steuchus, the Pope's Library keeper, in his Book of the Donation of Constantine, saith: that Constantine the Emperor, held Pope Silvester for a god, & ●doravit ut Deum, and worshipped him as God. And the Council of Lateran▪ in the 3 and 10 Sessions, further telleth you, saying: The Pope ought to be worshipped of all people, and is most like unto God: and lest you should think, that he speaketh of a civil kind of worship, it is there told you, what manner of worship it is: namely, that it is with that kind of worship or adoration, that is mentioned in the 72 Psalm: Adorabunt eum, omnes Reges terrae: All the Kings of the earth shall worship him: where by worship, the highest kind of worship is meant, which is due to the Son of God: as Tertullian also teacheth, in his 5 Book, and 7 Chapter, against Martion. Again, Leo the 10 (in the Council of Lateran, before cited) is called the Lion of the Tribe of judah, the root of David, 
Rev. 5.5. Esa. 28.16. 1. Pet 2.6. Act. 4.11. Psal. 118.22. Mat. ●1. 4●.  the Saviour of Zion. And Bellarmine, in the Preface of his Book, calleth the Pope, the Cornerstone, a tried stone, a precious stone: All which be titles, proper and peculiar to the Son of God. And in the 25 Cause, 1 quaest. it is said: that to violate his Canons and ordinances, is to blaspheme against the holy Ghost: which is a sin, not to be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come. Again, he calleth his decrees and Canons, by the name of Oracles. Now an Oracle signifieth an heavenly answer, proceeding from the mouth of God. Rom. 3.2. & 11.4. Suitably whereunto he saith: That his decretal Epistles, are to be numbered amongst the Canonical Scriptures, in the 19 distinction, in the Canon, In Canonicis. Again, what can be more said of God, then that which the before cited Council of Lateran, in the 9, and 10 Sessions attributeth to the Pope? namely, that he hath all power, above all Powers, both in heaven & earth. And himself speaketh as much of himself, in the first Book of holy Ceremonies, saying thus: This Pontifical Sword, representeth the Sovereign temporal power, that Christ hath given the Pope, his Vicar upon earth: as it is written: All power is given me, both in heaven, and in earth, and elsewhere, His dominion shall be from Sea, to Sea, and from the River, to the ends of the earth. And Pope Paul the 5. in his holy Register, calleth himself a Vicegod, the Monarch of the Christian world, and the upholder of the Papal Omnipotency: So that if the words of S. Paul in 2 Thes. 2. concerning Antichrist, had been (as they are not) that he should expressly say and affirm, that he is god, you perceive by that which is before spoken, how it might have been verified, and withal, in what sort and sense it is, that the Pope hath the very name of God, given unto him. For, it appeareth to be given him in a far other sense, than it is to Kings and Princes: 
Psal. 82.1.6.  and yet in very deed, Kings and Princes, and such like Magistrates of the earth (and not Bishops) be the men, 
Exod. 22.28.  that in Scripture be called Elohim, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Gods. And they are called Gods (as Christ himself declareth, in respect that the word of God was committed to them, 
joh. 10.34 35.  not as it is to Bishops, and Pastors, publicly to preach in the Congregations, 
joh. 10.34.35.  but by their authority to establish and promote it, to command obedience to it, and to punish the violators of it, and to countenance and encourage the professors and observers of it: For to this end is it committed to their charge and custody: And for this cause are they called, Custodes utriusque Tabulae, The keepers of the two Tables, wherein the Laws of God were written. And for this cause also, was it an Institution from God, and accordingly, an observation in the Church of the jews, that at the Coronation of a King, 
Deut. 17.14▪ ●8 19, 20. 2. Kin. 11.12  the Book of God's Law should be delivered unto him. When therefore the Bishops of Rome, take upon them this title, to be called gods, they take that which God in his Scriptures, doth no where give them: but when further they take upon them, to be adored as God, they do that which is in them most intolerably blasphemous. And when you suppose, out of this Text, that Antichrist shall call himself God, you see how much you are mistaken, and that the Text affirmeth it not.  
Object. 7. Yea, Antichrist must be exalted, even above God himself. 2. Thes. 2.4.  
Ans. How prove you that? For, in the very Text itself, the highest degree and step, of the pride and aspiring mind of Antichrist, is described and set forth in these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 
2. Thes. 2.4.  So that he shall sit in the Temple of God, as God, showing himself that he is God. He doth not say, that such shall be his pride and elation, as that he shall sit in the Temple of God, above God, or so show himself, as if he were above God, but only, that he doth sit in the Temple of God, as God, and so show himself, as if he were God. The pride of the Devil himself, is noted to be such, as that he would be only as God, 
Esai. 14 14.  or, like the most high, but not above Him. And when the Devil tempted the first man, Adam, (being in state of Innocence and Integrity) unto pride, 
Gen. 3.5.  and ambition, it was not to any such pride or elation, as to be above God, but to be only, as God, knowing good and evil. It were therefore strange, if the pride of Antichrist, should be supposed to exceed or go beyond the pride of the Devil, his Master. Yea, indeed, how can it enter into the conceit of any creature, to think it any way possible for him, to be exalted above God, his creator? when nothing can be conceived or imagined, greater, nobler, or higher, than He: who is God over all, blessed for ever. But secondly, observe, 
Rom. 9.5.  that the words be, not as you suppose, viz. that Antichrist shall be exalted above God, but above all, or every one, that is called God: 
2. Tess. 2 4.  for the words (in the Greek Text) be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super omnem qui dicitur Deus, aut Sebasma: that is, above every one that is called God, and above every one also, that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sebasma, i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, Augustus, (for so Pausanias interpreteth that word, 
Pausan.  and so is it likewise taken and used in the New Testament itself. 
Act. 25.21.25. ) So that the meaning of those words, is, that the grand Antichrist, should be exalted, not only above Kings, Princes, and other Magistrates, but even above those also that be Emperors, and have an Imperial command and authority. For it was, indeed, this Imperial State that was the hindrance or impediment that Antichrist could not (so long as that flourished) appear in his height. And therefore well saith Optatus: Cum super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, certè qui se super Imperatorem extollit, 
Optat. lib. 5. p. 85.  iam quasi hominum excesserit metas, se, ut Deum, non Hominem aestimat: Seeing there is None above the Emperor, but God only, which made the Emperor, certainly he that exalteth himself above the Emperor, as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men, esteemeth himself, not now any longer as a Man, but, as God. You must then, ever remember to distinguish between these two, which Irenaeus also observeth: namely, between him that is God indeed and essentially, and those that be called Gods. Non super hunc extolletur Antichristus, sed super eos, qui dicuntur quidem, 
Iren. lib. 3. c. 6.  von autem sunt Dij: Not above Him, that is God indeed, shall Antichrist be exalted (saith he), but above those that he called Gods, and are not. Anselmus doth also so distinguish, and saith: Antichrist shall be exalted, 
Anselm. in 2. Thess. 2.  super omne quod dicitur Deus: id est, super illos qui nuncupatiuè, non essentialiter sunt Dij: Deus enim dici aliquando & homo potest etc. above all that is called God, that is (saith he) above those that be Gods, nuncupatively, but not essentially. For, even a man, may sometime be called God. And so likewise doth Remigius Remensis, Peter Lombard, Bruno, Thomas Aquinas, and Dionysius Carthusian●●, distinguish, writing upon this Text of 2. Thess. 2. And therefore observe well the difference, and forget not withal, that the Pope is exalted above all these, namely, above all Emperors, Kings, Princes, and other Potentates of the earth.  
But you will say, that not only Princes on earth, but Angels also in heaven, be, in Scripture, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Gods, as appeareth by conferring Psal. 8.5 with Heb. 2.7. and Psal. 97 7. with Heb. 1.6. etc. and that therefore the Pope must have an exaltation above Angels also, if he shall be Antichrist. But, first, what necessity is there, that these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super omnem, should extend any further, then to Every man? for he is but a man himself of whom that Text speaketh, namely Antichrist, the man of sin: and is it not sufficient to declare his pride and elation, that he is exalted above every one of his own kind, 
c. in canonem de constit. Conditori canonis omnis creatura subjicitur. Dec●us in Decret. de constit. C. Canonum. so. 5. n 14 Antonin. sum. p. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. Aug. Tr. ep. dedic. ad joan. 22. Felin. extr. de constitut. Statuta canonum & alij canonista apud Phillip morn. myster. Iniquit. sub joan. 22. ●dit. in 8. pag 991.  that is, above Every Man on Earth, be he never so sacred, regal, or Imperial, or never so high or Majestical? But if these words be to be extended to Angels in heaven also, then hath Innocentius the fourth, told you, that to the Pope, subdita est omni● creatura, Every creature is subject Antoninus saith: that, His power is greater than all other created powers; extending itself to things celestial, terrestrial and infernal. Augustinus Triumphus likewise saith: that, All knees must how unto him, both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things infernal. Again it is said, that the Pope, Vicariatum Christi gerit, non tantum in terrenis, coelestibus, & infernis, sed etiam in & super Angelos bonos & malos, beareth the Vicarship of Christ, not only in earthly, heavenly, and infernal things, but also over and above the Angels both good and bad. Yea, it is there said, that Potestatem habet maiorem quam omnes Angeli, adeo ut ipsos excommunicare possit: He hath greater power than all Angels, so that he may excommunicate them. And therefore it is further said, that Papa Angelis habet imperare, the Pope hath to do, 

Greg. Halmburg. in appell. Sigism. Duc. Austr. Nichol. Egmundan apud. Bal. de vit. pont▪ in Clem▪ 8 in fine. C. Agrip. de vanit. scient. ex car. notensi.  
Clem. 6. in Bulla super An. 1350. Jub. Barnes. in vit. Clem. 6. Vid. etiam Myst. Iniquit. seu histor. Papatus sub Clem. 5. & 6. & Cor. Agri, ●de vanit. scient. obi. Morton. Apol. cathol. l. 1.249.   to command the Angels. And again: Papa habet Imperium in Angelos & Daemonas, The Pope hath command over Angels and Devils. And again: Papa Angelis praecipit: The Pope commandeth the Angels. And the Pope hath (accordingly) actually commanded the Angels. For Pope Clement the sixth, in that his indulgent Bull, in the year of jubiley, commandeth the Angels that they should carry the right way to heaven, the souls of them that purposed to go on pilgrimage to Rome, if being confessed, they chanced to die by the way: Mandamus prorsus Angelis paradisi, quatenus animam à purgatorio penitus absolutam, in paradisi gloriam introducant: We straightly command the Angels of Paradise (saith he) that they bring the soul being altogether absolved, from Purgatory, into the glory of Paradise. So that you see, the Pope of Rome, is exalted even above the Angels also▪ which be in Scripture called Gods. What then now hindereth but that he should be the undoubted grand Antichrist? Yea by thus exalting himself above the Angels, what doth he else, but so show himself, as if he were God? For by this argument doth the Apostle prove Christ to be God, 
Heb. 1.4.5.  in that he is superior to the Angels.  
As for the Idols or gods of the Gentiles, if any do vilipend and contemn them, it is not to be imputed to him for a fault: for all those Gods, be (as the Psalmist saith of them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Psal. 96.5. 1. Cor. 8.4.  res nihili, things of no account or esteem. Yea the sacrifices which the Gentiles offered unto them, were made, not unto God, but unto Devils, as S. Paul affirmeth. 
1. Cor. 10.20.  And therefore when the Apostle saith of Antichrist, (as taxing, therein, his pride, and alleging it as a matter highly faulty and blameworthy in him) that he did exalt himself above all that is called God: it is manifest that it cannot be meant of the Idols, or false gods of the Gentiles (which it is no fault for any man to debase, or depress) but it must be intended of his exaltation above such as be called gods, 
Psal. 82.1.6. Exod. 22.28.  by Gods own good liking and approbation: of which sort, are Kings, Princes, and the other Potentates of the earth. And so also for the same reason must the Sebasma, mentioned in this Text, be intended, not of the Idols or superstitious worship used amongst the Pagans, 
Act. 17.23. Wisd. 15.17.  Heathens, or Gentiles (although they be also called Sebasmata) but of such a Sebasma, as God in his censure and word, alloweth. Now it is expressly evident, that the Emperor is called, and that by way of approbation, in God's Book, 
Act. 25.21.25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. Sebastos, Augustus, & consequently the reverence, worship, and honour, that was given unto him, might well be called Sebasma. And yet, if this Text were to be understood of any false gods, or superstitious Sebasmata, used in the Popish Church, we see, that the Pope is, in that Church, exalted above them all. Is not the Altar a sacred and venerable thing unto them? 
Lib. Carem. 1. fol. 16. & lib. e● 'em 3. sect 4. ca 1. fol. 296.  Yet when the Pope is once chosen, he is exalted above the Altar, and the Altar is made his seat to sit upon. Is not the Cross also another great and venerable Sebasma amongst them? They say, it is to be worshipped with divine honour, 
Lib. carem. 1. sect▪ 12. c. 4. ●. 112  even with Latria, that is, with that worship that is due and proper unto God: and yet is this Cross laid under the Pope's feet, and carried before him, as an Ensign of honour, and as the Sword is before a King, to wait and attend upon him. So that he is also exalted above this Sebasma. Yea what say ye to this, that he is exalted even above their consecrated Host, which they so devoutely worship, accounting it their God and their Maker, and affirm to be the very Body of Christ? is not this the greatest & highest Sebasma, or, the most venerable thing in their Service and Religion? and yet is even this their god, and body of Christ (as they call it) as well as the Cross, made to wait and attend upon the Pope▪ 
Lib. 1▪ sect. 12. c. 4. fol. 112 & fol 34.  Ante Pontificem semper praefertur Crux: & post Crucem portatur corpus Christi super equum album cum campanella: The Cross is always carried before the Pope (saith the Book of Ceremonies) and after the Cross, is the Body of Christ carried, upon an white horse with a little Bell etc. Yea, the fact of Pope Gregory the seventh declareth, how much the Pope, when he listeth, 
●eno. Card. in vita Greg. 7. seu Hildebr.  esteemeth this breaden God and consecrated Host▪ and how far, when he pleaseth, he exalteth and magnifieth himself above it: for He consulting with that breaden god, and demanding answers of it, for that it gave him no answer, he took it, and threw it into the fire. And therefore you perceive how the Pope is exalted & advanced, even above the greatest & highest Sebasmata in the Romish church, aswell as above those amongst the Gentiles, if the text were of them to be understood.  
Yea, if you would further force the words of the Text, and make the meaning of them to be, that Antichrist should be exalted, even above the true God himself, you may see, 

Cardinal. Cusan epist. 2. ad Bohem. Dist. 40. c. 51. papa.  
Eckins Enchir. loc. 1. de Eccles. Pist●rius Archim. cont. disp. 1. Mentz. 898 Pigh▪ hier. Eccl. lib, 1. c. 2, 3. & 4.   how even that also is found verified in the Pope. For doth not he exalt himself, even above the true God, which holdeth his Authority, and the Authority of his Church, to be greater than the authority of the holy Scripture? That without the Authority of the Church, the Scripture is not authentical? Yea, that the Scriptures be of as much worth as Aesop's fables if they be destitute of the authority of the church? Doth not Pighius also teach: Authoritatem Ecclesiae, & in ea pontificis, maiorem esse quam Scripturae: That the authority of the Church, and therein of the Pope, is greater than the authority of the Scripture? Doth not Stapleton likewise teach, 
Staplet. controv. 5. lib. 9 c. 14. Antonin. p. 3. ●. 22▪ c. 6. §. 2.  and defend the same, and sundry other Popish writers? Again, when the Pope dispenceth with the Law, Commandments, and Precepts of God, what doth he else, but advance and exalt himself above God? For, In praecepto superioris, 
De conces. prebend. cap. proposuit. decret. Greg. l. 3. tit. 8. cap. 4. vid. glos. Hostiens. in c. proposuit. de concess. praebend. num. 12.  non debet dispensare inferior: With the precept of a superior, an inferior ought not to dispense. Now, the Pope boasteth, that by that fullness of power which he hath, he may lawfully dispense above the Law. And they say, that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle: and against the Canons of the Apostles: and, in matters of Oaths, Vows, Marriages, obedience of Subjects, and such like: and against the Old Testament and the New. Yea, they say: Papam posse mutare Evangelium, 

Bertach. repert. dictione papa. Henric. Doct. Magister sacr. pala.  
Card. Cusan. ep. 2. ad Bohem. p. 833 & ep▪ 7.857. Hosius de expresso Dei verbo.   eique pro loco & tempore alium sensum tribuere: That the Pope may change the Gospel, and give unto it another sense, as time and place requireth. And that the Scripture, and sense of it, is to be fitted to the time, and as the practice of the Church is: so that it is sometimes to be taken in one sense, and sometimes in an orher: and that the Scripture, is not otherwise to be accounted the word of God, then in that sense, or interpretation, which the Pope, or Church of Rome approoveth and setteth upon it: and that if it be in any other sense, it is not the Word of God, but the word rather of the Devil. Observe then, that they say; first, that the authority of the Church, is above the authority of the Scriptures: and secondly, that the Pope's authority is above the authority of the Church: so, by this reckoning, they make the Pope to be two degrees above God, speaking in his Word: seeing he is above the Church, & the Church above the Scriptures. But yet further, who knoweth not that an offence against the Pope, and his constitutions, and the commandments of his Church, is, amongst them, more heedfully regarded, and more severely censured, and punished, than an offence against God and his Commandments? Whereby doth likewise appear, that the Pope beareth sway, amongst his followers, more than God, and consequently, that he is amongst them exalted, even above God himself. But now, lastly, consider, how much you be here again mistaken, whilst you think, that Antichrist shall be exalted above God, which the words of the Text do not affirm.  
Object. 8. The whore of Babylon, in the Revelation of S. john, may be interpreted for the universal Corpse, or Company of all the wicked in the world.  
Answ. It cannot be so taken, or interpreted: For then upon the burning and destruction of that Whore of Babylon, should all the ungodly & wicked of the world, come also to confusion, and be destroyed: but it is evident, that after her burning and destruction, sundry wicked and ungodly people of the world, do live, lamenting that her ruin. Rev. 18.9, 10, 11.15, 16. etc. Yea, the very description of that Whore of Babylon, in Rev. 17, and all the circumstances, to her belonging, do show, that it is meant of a particular City, and even of that particular City, which then reigned over the Kings of the earth, and was situate upon seven hills, namely Rome. And therefore doth Bellarmine himself confess, that the better exposition, even in his judgement, is: Per Meretricem, intelligi Romam: That by the Whore, Rome is understood. 
Bellar. de ●ont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13.  And again, Cap. 5, he saith: Explicat Mulierem esse urbem magnum quae sedet super septem colle●, id est, Romam: The Angel Explaineth that woman to be the great City, which fitteth upon seven hills, that is, Rome. Other jesuits that have written Commentaries upon the Revelation, as namely, Ribera, and Viegas, do also expressly affirm, that it is to be understood of a particular City, and namely, of Rome. Yea, whereas Bellarmine, for an evasion, would have it understood only of Heathen Rome. Ribera, against that conceit, saith: We are to understand it, not only of Rome, as it was long sithence, under the heathen Emperors, but also, 
Ribera in Apoc. cap. 14. numb. 4●  as it shall be in the end of the world. And Viegas likewise speaketh after the same manner, saying: All that which is spoken in those Chapters, doth most manifestly agree to Rome. And again he saith: The name of Babylon. is to be applied to Rome, which served Idols before ever it received the faith of Christ, and to Rome also, 
Vieg. in Apoc. 17. Com. 1. sect. 3.  as it shall be in the time of Antichrist. And thus you see, that not only the Adversaries themselves, do confess this Whore of Babylon, to be Rome, but further also, some of them, against Bellarmine acknowledge and teach, that it is to be understood, not only of heathen Rome, but of Rome also, after it had forsaken heathenism, and had received the faith of Christ, and turned again from that, unto Antichristianisme.  
Object. 9 But although those jesuits do mean, that Rome shall become Antichristian, and be ruled by Antichrist, yet they do not mean that it shall be so, until some few years before the end of the world.  
Ans. They mean (as they must needs) that Rome should become Antichristian, in the days and times of the Grand Antichrist, who is come long sithence. For whereas they have a conceit, that this Antichrist is not yet come, and that when he cometh, he shall reign but three years and a half, therein is their great error, and mistaking. For, what was it that hindered, or letted his appearing? was it not the Roman Empire? Only be which now letteth, shall let, until he be taken out of the way: and then shall that wicked man be revealed: saith S. Paul. Hereupon Tertullian, in his Book of the Resurrection of the flesh: Chapt. 24, saith thus: Only he which now letteth, must let, till he be abolished: 
2. Thes. 2.7.8.  What is this but the Roman Empire? Chrysostome in his fourth Sermon upon the second to the Thessalonians, is of the same opinion, and so is the Greek Scholiast: And so doth S. Augustine also expound it, in his twentieth Book, and ninteenth Chapter, of the City of God: and Primasius also. S. Hierome likewise saith the same, in th' 11 Question to Algasia, and addeth: That the Apostles durst not say, in express terms, that the Roman Empire should be abolished, for fear of drawing persecution upon the Church. Howbeit, this needeth no proof at all, because the Adversaries themselves do also teach, that the impediment to Antichrist, mentioned by S. Paul, was the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire (which was the Only let, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 2. Thes. 27.  or impediment, of Antichrist his appearing) is now long sithence taken out of the way: Ergo, long since, was the time of Antichrist his coming and appearing. That the Roman Empire, which was so flourishing in S. Paul's time, is now long sithence abolished, or taken out of the way, is before proved by the express testimony of the Historiographers themselves, affirming the same: as namely by Machiavelli, who dedicateth his Florentine History to Pope Clement the seventh: by Guicciardine, in the fourth Book of his history: and by Augustinus Steuchus: and by Lipsius etc. And so also is it testified in Synodo Reginoburgensi, that Romani Maiestas Populi, 
Avent. Annal. lib. 7.  qua olim orbis regebatur, Sublata est de terris: Imperator, vana apellatio, & sola umbra est: The Majesty of the Roman people, whereby the world in times past was governed, is taken from the earth. The Emperor is now a vain title, and a shadow only. And so likewise affirmeth Lyranus: that, Ab Imperio Romano, recesserunt quasi omnia Regna, negantia ei subijci, & redditionem Tributi: All Kingdoms, in a manner, have departed from the Roman Empire, 
Lyran in 2. Thes. cap. 2.  denying to be subject to it, and to pay it tribute. And he further addeth, saying: I am a multis annis, Imperium illud caruit Imperatore: Now many years sithence, hath that Empire wanted an Emperor. This also appeareth by Sigonius, in his history of the Kingdom of Italy, lib. 3. where, showing by what means it was, that the Emperors lost all their right in Rome: he concludeth thus, saying: By this means, Rome, and the Dukedom of Rome, came to be in the Pope's power. But what need any proofs by histories, or Authors, of a matter so clear and evident? For, doth not every man's knowledge, eyes, and ears, tell and testify unto him, without any more ado, that he that is called the Emperor at this day, is the Emperor of Germany, and that the Emperor of Germany, (howsoever he be entitled) is not, for all that, Emperor of Rome? For, he hath not the headship, or Sovereign rule there. Yea, the Pope is he, that now is, & long hath been (to the eyes and view of the whole world) the head and Sovereign ruler of that City. If then the Pope be at this day (as none is so simple or ignorant, but he knoweth it) the head and Sovereign Ruler of Rome, then is not the Emperor of Germany, nor any other, the head & supreme Governor of it. Yea, the Emperor of Germany, is so far from having any chief, or supreme rule there, that clean contrariwise, he acknowledgeth subjection to him that hath the Headship and Sovereignty there, namely, to the Pope, to whom, for that purpose, he giveth an oath of homage, fealty, or allegiance. The ample and Sovereign rule of the Emperors, then, which they had, appeareth to be long sithence abolished, and taken away, and the Popes have succeeded in their place, at Rome, and have gotten the headship and Sovereign rule there. And therefore also the grand Antichrist, who by this direct Prophecy of S. Paul, was then to appear, hath accordingly appeared long sithence, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thes. 2.8.  even ever since the time, that the headship and supreme rule and government of that City, was taken from the Emperors, and exercised by the Popes. For there be two or three degrees of the appearing of that grand Antichrist: the one, when he became an universal Bishop, over all Bishops, and was made head over all the Christian Churches in the world. The second, when after that his Episcopal, and Ecclesiastical supremacy obtained, he attained to a Temporal supremacy, or terrestrial Monarchy, which he also got, by the decay and ruins of the Empire. But an other clear and demonstrative argument of this matter, hath also S. john given us (in Rev. 17.3.7.9, 10, etc.) Showing, that the state of Rome, from the beginning of it, to the end of it, is to have but seven sorts of Sovereign Rulers, or Heads of it, which be, King's Consuls, Decemvirs, Tribunes, Dictator's, Emperors, and Popes, (For though an eight head be there mentioned, yet is that eight expressly affirmed to be one of the seven, Rev. 17.11. Rev. 13.3.) Now then, if Rome be to have, in all, but these seven heads, as is apparent: and that Rome, at some one time or other, before the end of the world, is to become Antichristian, and to be ruled and governed by Antichrist, as the Adversaries also themselves confess: How can they choose but grant, that Antichrist is already come,, and hath long since ruled and reigned in Rome, and at this day there ruleth and reigneth? inasmuch, as the Popes, visibly, and undeniably, appear to be the seventh, and consequently, the last head of that City. Yea, this the Rhemists themselves, confess, and do say: 
Rhem. Test. upon Rev. 17 9  the seventh head, is Antichrists state, which shall not come, so long as the Empire of Rome stands. And Bellarmine likewise writeth: Antichristum fore ultimum, qui tenebit Romanum Imperium, 
Bellar. cap. 15. de miracu. Antichrist.  tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris: That Antichrist shall be the last head, who shall hold the Empire of Rome, and yet without the name of the Roman Emperor. Seeing then the Empire of Rome is dissolved, ever since the Emperor ceased to have any Sovereign command in that City, and that the Pope hath gotten the sovereign rule and command there, & is apparently become the seventh, & so the last Head of Rome; How can it be avoided, but that Antichrist must needs be come long sithence, and that the Pope of Rome undoubtedly is he, and that there is none other to be expected?  
Object. 10. Antichrist is to be an open oppugner of Christ, and a direct and professed enemy to all manner of Christianity.  
Ans. You are mightily deceived, if you think so. For, first, the Scripture telleth us of many Antichrists, & of one grand Antichrist above the rest. 
1. joh. 2.18. 2. Thes. 2.3, 4. Orig. in Math. tract. 30.  According whereunto Origen saith: Generaliter unus est Antichristus, species illius multae etc. Generally there is one Antichrist, but there be many sorts of him etc. For as all the true Prophets had relation to Christ, By whose spirit they spoke (as S. Peter showeth): 
1. Pet. 1.11.  so have all the false teachers, and false prophets, in the Church, relation to Antichrist, 
1. joh. 4.3.  by whose spirit they speak (as S. john affirmeth) in the Church, relation to Antichrist, by whose spirit they speak (as S. john affirmeth). For which cause, 
Cypr. epist. 75.  S. Cyprian saith: that Novatianus the Schismatic, is to be reckoned amongst the Antichrists. And so saith S. Hierome: 
Hier. in Matth. c. 24. & in Nahum. cap. 3. 1. joh. 2.18.19. 2. joh. 7. 1. joh. 4 3.  that all Arch▪ Heretics, be Antichrists: and again, there be so many Antichrists (saith he) as there be teachers of false doctrine in the Church. Yea, this they might learn of S. john himself, in his Epistles, who likewise calleth those that were heretics, and false Teachers in the Church, so many Antichrists. And this also Saint Augustine teacheth, saying: Hide quibus johannes, 
Aug de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 29.  Epist. 1, Antichristi, sunt ad illum novissimum pertinentes etc. These Antichrists of which Saint john speaketh in his first Epistle, be belonging to that last, the grand Antichrist. Again, Quisquis Christum, qualis est ab Apostolis praedicatus, negat, Antichristus est. 
Hillar contr. Auxentium.  Whosoever (saith Saint Hillary) denyeth Christ to be such a one, as he was preached to be by the Apostles, is an Antichrist. Irenaeus affirmeth, that Valentinus, Basilides, and C●rinthus, were Antichrists. 
Iren. li. 3. cap 17. Origen. in Matt. Tract. 24.  Antichrist (saith Origen) hath nothing but the name of Christ: for he neither doth the works of Christ, nor teacheth his doctrine. Christ is the very Truth▪ and Antichrist is the disguiser or counterfeyter of Truth. 
2. Thess▪ 2.7.  The mystery of that Antichristian Iniquity, wrought even in S. Paul's time, as he himself affirmeth. 
Chrysost. in 2. Thess. 2.  He well calleth it (saith S. Chrysostome) a mystery of Iniquity: because he shall not come like a Nero, by open force, and without all manner of shame &c but entisingly, and underhand. This Mystery (saith Theodoret) signifieth the heresies, 
Theod. in 2. Thess. 2. Greg. in Moral. lib. 33. cap. 26.  by which the Devil maketh way for Antichrist. S. Gregory saith, that Antichrist seduceth the people, by his Preachers, the ministers of lying. He hath two horns like to those of the Lamb (Rev. 13.11.) that is, (saith S. Augustine) he hath the two Testaments, like to those of the Lamb: inasmuch as under the name of Christ, 
August. in Apoc. hom. 11.  he doth covertly infuse the venom of the Dragon. And for this cause, is he called the false-Prophet, divers times, 
Rev. 16.13. Rev. 19.20. Rev 20.10.  in the Revelation, by reason of the false Religion, and false doctrines he teacheth in the world, under the name of Christ and Christian verities. Yea, this Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God, amongst Christians, 
2. Thess. 2.4.  & within Christendom (and not without it, amongst Turks, jews, and such like Infidels of the world) for he must pretend himself to be a chief Christian (as S. Hierome also showeth): 
Hieronym. in Dan. 11.  which, none of those so much as pretend themselves to be: yea they utterly disclaim to be any Christians at all: so that those be rightly and properly to be termed unchristian, 
A difference Between unchristian and Antichristian people, is ever to be observed.  but not Antichristian people. Within Christendom then, and no where else, is Antichrist to be sought and found. Now then within Christendom, where shall we find him? Can Protestants be he? No: for they profess not to confirm their doctrine and religion, nor any point thereof, with miracles, signs, and wonders done by them, 
2. Thess. 2.9.  as this Antichrist and his complices do: neither do any of their Bishops or Pastors, exalt themselves against or above all Kings, 
2. Thess. 2.4.  Princes, Emperors & Magistrates of the earth, (which be called gods in the Scripture) as this Antichrist also doth: neither do they teach that doctrine of Devils (as S. Paul calleth it), which consisteth in prohibiting of Meats, and Marriages, 
1. Tim 4.1 2▪ 3.4.5.  for conscience and religion sake, as this Antichristian and Apostatical Church likewise doth. Protestants then, very clearly appear to be such as belong not to this Antichristian crew or company. Who then within Christendom, or outwardly professing Christianity, is more likely, or so likely to be, or possibly can be, this grand Antichrist, but he only that exalteth himself, not only against, but above all Kings, Princes, Emperors, and Potentates of the world? and that obtrudeth, vaunteth, and boasteth of so many miracles, signs, and wonders, done in his Church, and by him, and his Clergy, and people, for confirmation of his religion? and that teacheth also that doctrine of Devil's aforesaid, consisting in prohibition of Meats and Marriage, that is to say, the Pope of Rome? For there is no other within Christendom to be named, to whom these things do thus fitly agree. Yea He, and only he, in all the world, hath all the marks of the grand Antichrist, upon him. And therefore he, and only he, and no other, is to be held of all, for the undoubted grand Antichrist.  
Object. 11. The grand Antichrist, is, The man of sin, the son of perdition, 2. Thess. 2.3. But shall any be so bold to affirm these things of the Pope of Rome? especially doth it not seem to be a rash and uncharitable thing to affirm of him, that he is the son of perdition?  
Answ. It is never any rashness, or uncharitableness, to affirm, what God in his word affirmeth. It were rather incredulity not to believe it, and impiety not to affirm, it. For if the Pope of Rome be that grand Antichrist, and the man of sin, doth it not well agree, unto him, that he should also be the son of perdition; as well as judas Iscariot, 
2. Thess. 2.3. joh. 17.12.  who likewise pretending to be a friend to Christ, did nevertheless betray him? He that under the like pretence of being a special friend to Christ, and under colour of Christianity, destroyeth himself and others, and that without check of conscience, remorse, or repentance, at any time showed, is he not worthily and justly called the son of perdition? Yea, doth not the Scripture directly say of him, that he is in Hebrew, Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon, that is, in English, 
Rev 9.11.  a destroyer. And must not he needs be deemed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The son of Perdition▪ who, together with himself, thus destroyeth others? For, all those, that be led by him, and maugre all admonitions, will nevertheless irremoveably adhere unto him and follow him, be (answerably thereunto) expressly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, such as perish, and are to go (with him) to destruction. Can any thing then be more evident? 
2. Thess. 2.10. Rev. 19.20. Rev. 20.10. Rev. 14.9.10.11.  Now, that the Pope of Rome, is The man of sin, that is, according to the Hebrew phrase, a very notorious sinner, or, a most sinful man (and consequently well deserveth to be called the son of perdition) who can doubt of it? inasmuch as he is in Christendom, like jeroboam in Israel, who not only was a great sinner in his own person, but caused also Israel to sin: or like Ahab, with his jezabel, 
1. Kin. 15.30. 1. Kin. 16 30.31. etc.  who did exceed jeroboam in wickedness: or worse than these. For must not he needs be a very notorious wicked man, who being at first a Bishop equal with the rest of his fellow Bishops, was not so content, but with his wings of pride and ambition, would mount above them all? Yea who, with that his unmeasurable pride, hath exalted himself, not only above all those his fellows, but even above his superiors also, namely above all Kings, Princes, and Emperors of the world? nor yet so content, proceeded further, claiming authority also even over the Angels of heaven: for so it appeareth by the Bull of Pope Clement the sixth, before mentioned, where he saith: Mandamus prorsus Angelis Paradisi &c We straightly command the Angels of Paradise, etc. And in another place, he forbiddeth Hell also from taking any hold of those, that should cross themselves for the holy wars. But hath he here ceased? No: for he hath gone yet further, claiming the power and authority of God himself, and even the name of God also, to be given him: and (which is yet a further degree, beyond all degrees) he hath exalted himself even above God himself, amongst his followers, as before appear. But to show this matter yet further by some other particulars. And, to begin with the word of God, the sacred and canonical Scriptures: doth not He, and his Clergy, extremely dishonour and vilipend them? 1. In that they prefer their corrupt Latin translation, before the originals of the Greek and Hebrew. 2. In that they make Apocryphal books, to be of equal authority, with the Canonical. 3. In that they equal their Traditions, with the Canonical Scriptures. 4. In that they number their Decretal Epistles also, amongst the canonical Scriptures. 5. In that they accuse the holy Scriptures, as not containing sufficient matter of instruction, for a man's salvation, without their Traditions. 6. In that they take upon them to expound those Scriptures according to their own fancy, sense, and pleasure, and as they list themselves. 7. In that they prefer the authority of their Church, before the authority of the scriptures, and the Pope's authority above both. Concerning the Sacraments also: how have they perverted those Two, which be of Christ his institution? and have added to the number of them, making seven in all? And this is one note of Antichrist (as S. Hierome upon 2. Thess. 2. observeth) that he should change, & attempt to increase the Sacraments of the Church. The Sacraments they also strangely hold to give grace, ex opere operato, by virtue of the very work done and performed. And touching Baptism, have they not horribly polluted and abused it? And concerning the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, have they not also taken away the one half of it from the people, and moreover turned it into such a fearful and abominable Idolatry, viz. of adoring and worshipping a piece of bread, for God, as that amongst the very Pagans and Heathens, the like hath not been seen? The virtue also, efficacy, end, fruit, and benefit of Christ, his coming into the world, they have likewise clean overturned, debased, or diminished: 1. in that themselves take upon them, either in the whole, or in part, to be their own Saviour's and Redeemers, by their own merits, and works of satisfaction, (as they call them) to God's justice: as also by suffering satisfactory punishments in their own persons, for their sins, after this life ended, in their supposed Purgatory: 2. for that in their detestable Mass, their Priests take upon them, to offer up Christ every day, or often, in a bodily manner, and that as a sacrifice propitiatory for the taking away of the sins of men: when in very deed, that Bodily propitiatory sacrifice, was offered but Once, and that by Christ himself only, and namely upon the Crosse. 3. In that they hold not justification in God's sight, to be by faith in Christ, but by a righteousness inherent in their own persons▪ nor will allow a man to make a particular application of Christ to himself to be his Saviour & Redeemer: or any way to be, & rest so assured: which what is it else, but to bereave a man of all sound comfort and benefit by Christ? For what profit, comfort, or benefit, is it, to any, to know and believe that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer indefinitely, or to others, if he know not, or believe not, that he is a Saviour and redeemer to himself, in particular? For so far even the Devils themselves do go, believing all to be true that God speaketh in his word, and that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer to others, and hereat they tremble, as S. james speaketh. 
jam. 2.19. Mar. 1.24. Luke 4.34. Act. 19.15.  It is not enough therefore for men that desire to be saved, to believe (historically) all the Articles of the Creed to be true, or whatsoever God speaketh in his word, to be true, or, that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer to others (for thus far, as is evident, even Devils, and, Reprobates, may go) but they must go further, by applying the truth of all the Articles of the Creed, and of the promises of salvation, made in God's word, and of Christ jesus, to bes a Saviour and Redeemer, in particular, to themselves, by a special faith. 4. In that they allow not Christ to be the sole and only Mediator and Intercessor between God and his People, but will needs have other Mediators, and Intercessors for them, besides him, namely, the blessed Virgin Marie, and other Saints, and Angels. The Ecclesiastical discipline likewise, especially in the point of Excommunication, they have extremely perverted, abusing it most grossly, impiously, and traitorously, to the deposing of Kings and Princes, from their Thrones and Kingdoms, and to the disannulling of the subjection and loyalty of Subjects, and to the raising of treasons and rebellions within their Kingdoms. And as touching Prayer, Almesdeeds, Fasting, and all the chief duties, & works of Christianity, they have also utterly marred & corrupted them: For their usual fasting, is not an abstinence from all kind of meats and drinks, joined with fervent and repentant Prayers unto God, and other holy exercises & divine meditations, during that time or day of the fast (as true Christians, and rightly religious fasts ought to be) but consisteth in a difference of meats, as namely, in an abstinence from flesh, and eating fish, and whitmeates. Yea, all their Fast, Almsdeeds, and the rest of their best works they do, be, in them, turned to sin, as being poisoned with a conceit of their own merits, and of making satisfaction to God's justice for their sins, by that means. And be not even their Prayers also, and Invocations, 
Prov. 15.8.  which they make unto GOD, poisoned, & become wicked and abominable, whilst they pray to be heard, and their petitions to be granted them, for the merit, or merits of such a Saint, or such a Saint, or of all Saints? or for the Intercession-sake of such a Saint or such a Saint, or of all Saints? and not for the merit, or Intercessions sake of jesus Christ only? Yea, do they not direct, and make their prayers, many times, and too often, not unto God himself (as they ought) but to his Creatures, as namely, to the blessed Virgin Mary, and to other Saints, and to Angels, which is a most intolerable impiety? Yea, do they not also suffer and allow a Psalter, commonly called the Psalter of Bonaventure, made in honour of the Virgin Marie. For, in that Book, sundry parts of the Psalms of David, be applied to the Virgin, and her name put in the place of God's name, most audaciously, & blasphemously. As for example, in the 110 Psalm, where it is said in David's Psalter, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand etc. In that Psalter, it is thus: Dixit Dominus Dominae nostrae etc. The Lord said to our Lady, sit thou at my right hand etc. Again, the words in 130 Psalm, be in that Psalter made thus: De profundis cla●●avi ad te Domina, etc. Out of the deep places have I cried unto thee, O Lady: O Lady, hear my voice, etc. and sundry such like: whereby doth appear, that they not only (very dishonourably, and injuriously to God) pray to the Virgin Marie, but further also falsify, and misturne the words of holy Scripture, to serve their own bad humours and fancies. There is moreover a Book, called Liber Taxarum, or Taxa Cancellariae Apos●●lica, their Taxe-booke, (Printed at Paris with privilege, sub sole aureo) which showeth, what intolerable Licentiousness and Wickedness, is permitted and dispensed with in the Papacy. For, even Murders, Incests, Sodomitry, and other most gross sins, be there rated and taxed at a certain price: which being paid, the Pope's Pardons, Indulgences, Licenses, & dispensations be permitted to have passage in those cases. Where, together with this licentiousness permitted, you may observe a most horrible licentiousness in the Pope, and his Clergy: For poor men that have not wherewithal to pay, may not be partakers of any of those favours: as appeareth by a note in the 23 leaf of that Book, in the Chapter of Matrimonial causes, where it is said thus: Nota diligenter etc. Note diligently, that these favours, and dispensations, are not granted to the poor, because they have not wherewithal, and therefore they cannot receive consolation. And there you may observe further, that even the most monstruous sins, as Incest, Sodomitry, Dealing with beasts, (sins, not meet to be named, or heard of amongst Christians) be not taxed at so high a rate, as those be, that be committed against the Pope's laws, and the Commandments of his Church, as the eating of White-meats, of Butter, of Flesh upon days and times, by them forbidden, etc. So that intolerable pride & ambition, joined with unmeasurable avarice, and covetousness, in the Pope and his Clergy, together with abominable licentiousness, permitted to the people, by reason of the Stews, Priests absolutions, Pope's pardons, Indulgences, Dispensations, and such like, and a great deal of hypocrisy also, under pretext of Piety, therewithal intermingled, may and do appear, to be the Founders, Pillars, Supporters, and Upholders of all Popery. If a man feared Purgatory, either for himself or his friends, though he had done all the villainies of the world; yea, though he had deflowered the Virgin Marie (for such were the wicked and execrable speeches of Teceleus, 
Sleid. Comment. Christoph. Massaeut in Chron. Anno 1515.  and other Preachers of the Pope's Indulgences, in times past) yet so soon as ever he had cast the money into the Basin, the Souls were presently said to be set at liberty. The Abbot of Vsperge (in the life of Philip the Emperor, pag. 321) writeth in this sort: Scarce is there (saith he) any Bishopric, or Ecclesiastical dignity, or Parish Church, remaining, that is not made litigious, and the cause by an appeal, brought to be heard at Rome: But it is in vain to go thither with an empty hand. Rejoice, O Mother Rome, because the floudgates of earthly treasures be laid open unto thee, that whole Rivers and heaps of silver might come flowing upon thee, in great abundance. Rejoice thou, because of the iniquities of the sons of Men: for they pay thee a price, in recompense of all their transgressions. Rejoice thou, because of Discord, which is profitable for thee, she coming out of the bottomless Pit, to beape store of money upon thee. Thou hast that now which thou hast desired a long time: Sing a Song, because that by the wickedness of men, and not by any virtue of thy religion, thou hast overcome the world. Theodorick de Nihem also (in his 6 Tractat. chap. 32) speaketh to the like purpose, saying thus: The Apostolic Chamber is like to the Sea, into which all Rivers do run, and yet it doth never overflow: For thither, from most parts of the world, are there great su●●es of gold, carried by thousands, and yet it is never full. There is a generation in that place, that have swords, instead of teeth, for to devour the poor of the earth. There are also many H●rsleeche●, which cry, Bring, Bring. And a little after, he saith thus▪ O just Men, who if you had your right, should have your portion with the Harpies, infernal Furies, and T●●tal●●, that can never be satisfied. Likewise Aeneas Sylvi●● (afterward called, Pope Pius Secundus) in the 66 Epistle to john Peregall, speaketh to the same effect: The Court of Rome (saith he) gives nothing without m●ny: yea, the imposition of hands, & the gifts of the holy Ghost, he sold: And the remission of s●nnes is communicated to none, 〈◊〉 have not wherewithal to pay for it. Never was there man that did more prostitute himself, to uphold the ruinous and tottering Papacy, than Baronius: & yet, behold his own words, upon the year 912, and 8 Article: With what face (saith he) did the Church of Rome then look, and how illfavouredly? Then, when famous Que●nes, & lewd Strumpets, did domineered Rome, at whose pleasure, Church livings were bestowed, Bishoprickes were given, and that which is horrible to hear, and not to be spoken, their Lovers, false Popes, thrust into the seat of Peter. And then afterward he addeth, saying: What Priests & Deacons Cardinal, do ye think, were chosen by these Monsters? There he complaineth, that jesus Christ did sleep. But he speaketh of such a number of vicious and wicked Popes▪ that it should seem by his reckoning, that jesus Christ slept a long time: For from the year 870, to the year 1050, whom do you see but Necromancers, but Adulterers, and Murderers, and Infamous persons, preferred to the Papacy? Platius, in the life of Benedict the fourth, speaketh the like, and giveth the reason of all this, saying thus: This liberty of sinning (saith he) hath begotten us these Monsters and Prodigies, who by ambition and corruption, have rather usurped, then possessed the holy chair of Peter: there being no Prince to repress the wickedness of these men. Yea, Platina, though the Pope's Servant and Secretary, yet well knowing their vices, and the vices of the people under his government, doth in a manner speak, as if himself despaired of their salvation; for thus be his words: Our vices (saith he) be grown to tha● height, that they will hardly ever find mercy in the sight of God. But observe yet further, how horrible and wicked their reproachings, slander, and defame, heretofore have been, and yet still be, of God's church & people, & their religion: calling them usually Heretics, schismatics, and by such other odious names, & laying sometimes, most notorious slanders, and most impious false accusations to their charge: & persuading, as if our religion, were a religion allowing licentiousness, a condemner and disallower of all good works, and as though we approved of all dissoluteness, and were enemies to the Virgin Marie, & to all Saints, & as though we made God the Author of sin and evil, & other such like things, which we utterly detest, dislike, and abhor, and which he clean contrary to our opinion, and to the doctrine of our Religion. Yea, they not only thus dishonour & wrong the true Church, and people of God, upon earth, but even the Church triumphant and Saints also in heaven. For, is it not a great wrong and dishonour to the glorified Saints in heaven, to turn them into Idols, or to make them instruments of Idolatry, or, of dishonouring God, by invocating & praying unto them? when as Prayer and Invocation, is a service, worship, and honour, properly and only belonging to God? Again, do they not much dishonour the Saints, when they employ them about base offices? commending the keeping of their Hogs to one, of their horses to another, the curing of the Scurf to a third, etc. Yea, even concerning that most chaste, blessed, & glorious Virgin Mary, Do they not extremely dishonour her, when they make her to favour Immodesty, & uncleanness? For there is an Italian book, entitled: Miracoli d●ella glorios● Virgin Maria, printed at Milan, in the year 1547, which saith: that, a certain Abbess, being with Child, the holy Virgin, being willing to cover her crime, did in her stead, present herself before the Bishops in form of the Abbess▪ and showed him by an ocular demonstration, that she was not with Child. Caesarius also, in his seventh Book, Chapt. 35▪ reports: that the Virgin Marie, for twelve whole years, did supply the place of a certain Nun●●, called Beatrice, whilst she lay in the S●ewes: till at last she came back again to take her place, and freed the Virgin from being in her room any longer. But consider yet further, the most terrible, cruel, barbarous, and bloody persecutions of God's Church and people, committed by Papists About 400 years since, Pope Innocent the third, within the space of a few months, made more than 200000 of the faithful to be slain, whom they called Albigenses. In S. Bartholomewes' Massacre, in the year 1572, more than 80000 men were slain, in cold blood. In a Massacre in France, within a few days, were murdered, 70000 persons. And how execrable, & beyond all measure abominable, and damnable, was that their late Plot of Gunpowder-Treason, for the overthrow of the whole State of England, in Parliament at a blow, and God knoweth, of how many States and Kingdoms beside▪ Yea▪ what meaneth their Holy League, (as they call it) not long since made, for the extirpation, and rooting out of all protestancy? Do they not by all these, show themselves to be utter enemies, and that in the worst sort that can be, to all Civil States, Kings, and Kingdoms, which reject the Pope's usurped Supremacy, and his depraved and Antichristian Religion. Why else, also, have they decreed, that, Faith is not to be kept with Heretics? And why else do they hold, that, before Heretical judges, and Magistrates, (as they call them) it is lawful for them to swear with Equivocations, and Mental reservations, and in a false, deluding, and deceitful manner? And why else do they dislike, and disallow Subjects, not only to take the Oath of Supremacy, but the Oath also of Allegiance, when, in very deed, and of right, neither of both aught to be refused? What also meaneth, the resort and coming of Popish Priests, and jesuits, into Protestant Kingdoms, under colour and pretence of Religion? Is it not to make a party for the Pope, or some of his confederates, against a fit time? And doth it not also tend to sedition and treason in a Commonweal? What doth the Pope's claim, to depose Kings, and to give away their Kingdoms, when, and to whom he list, tend unto, but to the setting of Princes together by the Ears, aswell as Subjects to rebel against their lawful Sovereigns? Do not all these things tend to the overthrow, aswell of civil States, and civil justice, as of Religion? and of Kingdoms and Commonweals, aswel as of God's Church? and (which maketh the matter yet more, and indeed, most odious) all this they do, under pretence of Christianity, and of a Catholic cause, when it is nothing so, but, clean contrariwise, extremely devilish and Antichristian. Let then every equal person now judge, whether the Pope of Rome, that thus wrongeth God, his Church, and Religion; and not only Bishops, but all Kings, Princes, and Emperors also, their People, Kingdoms, and Commonwealths, and that thus intolerably abuseth the whole Christian world, and yet for all that, inflexibly persisteth therein, without any remorse, or repentance showed, yea, which with all his power and strength, justifieth, upholdeth, & defendeth, all those his wrongs errors, abuses, and impieties, boasting, glorying, and delighting in them, be not rightly affirmed to be, The Man of sin, the Son of perdition, and the very undoubted Grand Antichrist, in all respects.    

THE CONCLUSION, to the same pretended CATHOLICS.  
NOw then, it appearing very clearly by the premises, that the Pope of Rome, (whom his blinded followers so much adore and reverence) is the very grand Antichrist: and that the Popish City of Rome, whereof he is the Head and Ruler, is undoubtedly the Whore of Babylon, mentioned in the Revelation of S. john: What scruple or doubt should you, or any of you, conceive, to make all the good haste ye may, to forsake that grand Antichrist, & that his Concubine the whore of Babylon, and all his Priests, Jesuits, Bishops, Monks, Friars, Nuns, and the rest of that his Antichristian rabble, and to betake and apply yourselves, with us, to the embracing and following of Christ, and of his most holy and most pure Religion, and ordinances, delivered in the sacred and canonical Scriptures, the Infallible rule of Truth? For do you think, that ever Christ and Antichrist, will agree together? What hath the chaff to do with the wheat? saith the Lord. Or, 
jer. 23.28.  What fellowship (as S. Paul speaketh) hath righteousness with unrighteousness? 
2. Cor. 6.14.15.16.  what communion hath light with darkness? what concord hath Christ with Belial? what part hath the Believer with the Infidel? what agreement hath the Temple of God, with Idols? In some things, I grant, the Popish Church holdeth rightly, and in all things (such is the mystery of Iniquity) maketh a semblance and pretence of piety and Christianity. But take heed, and be not here with deceived: for (beside that it is the nature and manner of Hypocrisy, so to do) you now, I hope, do sufficiently understand, that neither the Pope of Rome could be Antichrist, nor his Church be the Antichristian, unless they did make this semblance of piety, & outward sh●w and pretence of Christianity: yea, clearly, they should be altogether unchristian, and not Antichristian people, if they made no semblance or profession at all of Christ. But all is not gold that glistereth: nor that ever right and true Christianity, that seemeth to be so. The Devil himself will hold some things rightly, and will sometimes utter and tell some truths: but it is to the end, to gain credit and belief to himself, at other times, and in other things, when and wherein he speaketh lies. And this craft and subtlety, have all Antichristian and false teachers, learned, and do practise: being (as S. Paul calleth them) False-Apostles, deceitful workmen, 
2. Cor. 11.13.14.15.  transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ: And no marvel (saith he): for Satan also himself is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing, though his ministers transform themselves, as though they were the Ministers of righteousness: whose end shall be according to their works. Now then, concerning the King's Supremacy, and his Authority, in all kind of causes, and over all sorts of people, aswell Ecclesiastical, as Civil, you see what it is, and you understand, I trust, the clear lawfulness of it, within his own Dominions. For, a time there was (as before is showed) when the Bishop of Rome was limited his precincts and bounds, aswell as other Bishops, and had no more Supremacy or Authority over other Bishops, than they had over him▪ Yea a time there was when Bishops in a Council assembled, had authority over the Pope of Rome, and might and actually did depose him: and when also the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperor, and at his command, as is likewise before declared. So that the best title, which the Bishop of Rome at any time had to his Supremacy, within any Kingdom, appeareth to be, not by any institution or law of God, but by an humane constitution only, and a positive law: And seeing that this his Supremacy was afterward put down again, dissolved, and abolished, within this Kingdom, as also in all the rest of his Majesty's Dominions, by as high and as good authority, as at any time it was erected and established in the same, namely by Act of Parliament, made within those Realms: Every subject to his Majesty now standeth tied and bound in duty, utterly to renounce and forsake it. If yet ye allege (as ye sometimes do) that for the space of diverse hundreth years, in the later times, the Kings and Princes in Christendom, submitted themselves to this Supremacy of the Pope: I answer, first, that it is apparent, that, Non fuit sic, ab initio, it was not so, from the beginning: and, that the most ancient Precedents be to the contrary. Secondly, that this was to fulfil a prophecy in the Scripture, which foretold that so it should come to pass, namely, that, these Kings should, 
Rev. 1●. 13.17.  with one consent, submit, or give their Kingdom, unto the Beast, until the words of God were fulfilled. Yea, these Kings not only submitted themselves, and their Kingdoms, to this Supremacy of the Pope, but to the adulterated Religion likewise of that Whore of Babylon, the Papal City of Rome, to fulfil the like Prophecy, which saith, that with her have committed fornication, the Kings of the earth, 
Rev. 17.2. Rev 18.3. Rev. 14.8.  and the Inhabitants of the earth have been made drunken, with the wine of her fornication. Inasmuch then, as these things be thus foretold in holy Scripture to come to pass, what marvel should it now be to any, to see and know them to have been accomplished accordingly? But yet thirdly, observe that although these kings did for so long time yield and submit themselves, and the people of their kingdoms, to this Beast & whore of Babylon, yet the later part of this Prophecy, remaineth to be fulfilled, which is this: that Ten of these Kings, that were so long enchanted and bewitched with this Whore, and seduced and abused by her, shall afterward discern and espy her frauds and wickedness, and thereupon shall detest and hate her, 
Rev. 17.16. Rev. 18.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. etc. 2. Thess. 2.8.  make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. Which Prophecy, as it is already begun to be performed, in some of these Kings which have fallen from her, hating and detesting both her authority, and her adulterated religion: so, shall it, in all the parts and points of it, in the due time appointed of God, be fully and actually performed, and accomplished. The long continuance then of Pope and Popery in the world, is no argument or proof of the lawfulness or allowablenesse of them: for (beside that it was foretold to be of that long continuance) Mahometisme, Paganism, heresy, and error, drunkenness, adultery, and sundry other sins, and vices, be also very ancient, and of long continuance, in the world, yet doth not that make them therefore to be ever the more lawful, or allowable. Yea, the longer the Pope's Supremacy, and his adulterated Religion, have continued, the greater wrong and injury hath been done, all that while, not only to all other Bishops in the world, and to all Emperors, Kings, and Princes likewise, but also to the whole Church and religion of God, and even to God himself. And therefore this maketh not for the upholding or confirmation, but for the further and greater detestation and condemnation of them both.  
2 So that, no sufficient cause or reason can any of you show, why ye should refuse to be of our Religion, or why ye should not all come to our Churches & assemblies, and join with us in the right and true service of God. For first, where ye suppose Ours, the Protestant Religion (as it is called) to be false and heretical, and yours, the Popish, to be the only Catholic & right: it hath before bni made very manifest unto you, clean chose, that Ours is the right, Apostolic, Catholic, & most ancient religion, & that yours, coming in afterward, is the new, adulterate, heretical, false, & Antichristian: and that those be not the children of the right and true Church, but of the whore of Babylon, which submit themselves, and yield their obedience to the Pope, and Popish Rome. And whereas, secondly, ye object, that it would move scandal and offence to others, if ye came to our Churches: What need ye care that others, without cause, be offended, so long as God is well pleased. For in such a case, it is an offence not given, but taken. And when there is, no just cause given, why any should be offended, the fault is theirs that be so causelessly offended, and not yours. A man must never forsake God, and God's religion, nor absent himself from the true Church of God, because some seduced or ill-disposed people, will find fault with it. Thirdly, ye object, that it were but a point of dissembling to come, if your mind stand against it: But this allegation is soon answered, if ye please to come (as ye may, and aught) that is, with sincere hearts, and unfeigned affections, and without any such wicked Hypocrisy, and Dissembling: For, indeed, all halting, dissembling, and counterfeiting, especially in matters of God's service, and religion, is ever to be eschewed and detested. Fourthly, ye object, that the Translation of the holy Scriptures amongst us, is not right: But it hath before been showed unto you, that our Translations, being according to the originals of the Hebrew and Greek, must needs be right: whereas chose, your Translations, not being according to those originals, be, and must needs be untrue, in all those sundry and many places (detected and discovered at large, by the Protestants), wherein they differ from those originals. Fiftly, ye say, that our Church-Service, and Liturgy, is disallowable, for that it wanteth your Popish Mass, and sacrificing Priesthood: But to that we answer, that our Church-Service is so much the better, and the more to be liked, for that it hath abolished (as it ought) that Idolatrous Popish Mass, and that abominable Priesthood, thereto belonging, which, fearelesly and impiously, presumeth to offer up, and that in a bodily manner (as they say) Christ jesus, again, and again, and often, and that also as a Sacrifice propitiatory for the taking away of men's sins: whereas all true Christians do know, chose, that Christ jesus, was in a Bodily manner to be offered up in sacrifice to his Father but once, and that was upon the Cross: and that himself was the only Priest allowed and appointed of God, to make that Bodily oblation, and no other: and that this Bodily oblation and sacrifice by himself performed upon the Cross, is the only propitiatory Sacrifice, and only available, and effectual, to cleanse and take away the sins of men. So that our Church and Church-Service were, indeed, justly worthy to be abhorred, detested, and condemned, (as now yours is, for the same cause) if such blasphemous, and intolerable monstrous abominations, were suffered or allowed in it. And we are highly and everlastingly to thanks God, that they be removed▪ and abolished. Sixtly, ye allege, that in a Psalm or Hymn which we sometimes sing in our Churches, we pray unto God, to keep and defend us from the Pope and Turk: and why should we not do so? It is plainly and clearly proved before, that the Pope is the grand Antichrist, and that he, not openly and professedly (as the Turk doth) but closely and covertly (and therefore in a more subtle, and more dangerous manner) oppugneth Christ and his religion, and ordinances: deceiving under the name of Catholics, and of the Catholic Church, and pretence of the Holy Ghost ruling that Church of his, so that it cannot err, as he suggesteth to his credulous and blinded followers: whereunto he hath also added all manner of impostures, and deceivable and lying signs and wonders, to enchant and seduce the people, and to allure them to himself, and to confirm them in their misbelief and errors. Wherefore, not without good cause, do we pray God to keep and defend us from him, especially now in this later age of the world, wherein he useth not only secret sleights and frauds, but open wars also and rebellions, when he seeth fit time for them, and murders and massacres of Protestant Princes and people, Gunpowder villainies, and such like hellish abominations. Who then can justly blame us, for praying against him that doth thus abound with these his wicked and mischievous plots, frauds, forces, treacheries and conspiracies? Lastly, ye allege it to be against your conscience to come to our Churches: But herein I desire you, to consider better and more seriously, whether this will stand, or be allowed for a good excuse or plea for you, in the day of judgement. For may not Turks, jews, Pagans, heretics, schismatics, or whatsoever other erroneous, deceived, and misbelieving persons, make the like excuse, and plead the same plea, and say, that it is against their conscience, to become Christians, or to come to their assemblies, or to be Orthodox and right-beleeving people? Or, if they make that plea, do you think it will pass for good and allowable, before God's judgement seat in the last day? But ye, I pray, show some cause, or reason, (if ye can) why your ●●●science will not give you leave, to come to our Churches? Is there any thing in our Church-Service that may justly offend▪ any of you▪ ●f there be, declare it. But you were 〈◊〉 yet able to show it, and I assure myself you never will be able. If then, your Conscience be (as in this case, it appeareth to be) not, a right but a wrong and an erring and miss conscience, you must endeavour to rectify and reform this kind of conscience, and not be guided or carried any longer by it▪ For so also ●tacheth Si●●●●●● Pri●rias (in●●●●●●●scientia) that a man is bound to forsake his erroneous conscience, and not to follow it.  
3 But consider yet further, how many Martyrs also, there have been, that have died for & in defence of several points of our religion: and how few, or rather none at all, there be, that have been put to death, for & in defence of any one particular point of Popish religion against Protestantie: unless you will account denying the King's Supremacy, and such like points of treason, disloyalty▪ and contempt against Princes, the●● Commonweals, and Kingdoms, to be points of that Religion. For example, that I may be the better understood, What man amongst them, was ever put to death for that their Article of Transubstantiation: or for their opinion of Purgatory▪ or for their opinion of praying to Saints and Angels▪ or for their opinion of me●● meri●●? or for any other such like point of their religion? for of such it is, that I speak and mean. Can ye name or produce any one man that ever since the world began died for any of these articles? If you say (〈◊〉 some amongst you have been bold to say) that there neither was, nor is, any Law amongst us to put Papists to death for any point of their religion, are you not, therein, much deceived? For may not Heretics, by the Law of the Realm, be put to death? or was there a Law, in former times, when Popery reigned, to put Protestants to death, under the 〈◊〉 of Heretics, which were in very died no Heretics, but of the most ancient religion, and the Orthodox and right believing Christians? and is there not a Law now, when protestancy reigneth to put Papists to death for heresy, who be Heretics reve●●, and in verse deed? For you must 〈…〉 it is not the Determination of a Council, without approbation of God's word, that is sufficient to prove a man an Heretic: because then should that renowned, famous, & godly Bishop Athanasius, (who was condemned in the Counsels of Tire and Antioch) be held and concluded to be an Heretic, Which God forbid. Yea, if (as is evident) the determination of Counsels, be not sufficient, to convince or prove, Athanasius, john Chrysostome, and other Orthodox Bishops, in that time, to be Heretics: much less is the determination of the Bishop of Rome, and of his Counsels, in these latter times, (when both he and they be so far revolted and degenerate) able to convince the Orthodox Protestants, of Heresy. The strength, force, and authority of the holy & Canonical Scriptures, must be produced to convince a man to be an Heretic: For an Heretic is he, that stiffly and obstinately holdeth & maintaineth an error in matter of Faith, against the manifest authority of the Canonical Scriptures. So that, not what men hold, but what God holdeth to be error & heresy, is so to be reputed? And by this rule, namely, by sufficient evidence and warrant of the Canonical Scriptures, it was, that the Bishops & their Counsels, in ancient time, convinced the Arrian●, Nestorian●▪ E●t●chians, & the other Heretics of their days. Which rule of judging, and convincing Heretics, by the Canonical Scriptures, if it had been held, as evermore it ought: it is thereby evident, that Protestants never were, nor ever rightly could have been concluded to be Heretics. Yea, by this rule, Papists clearly are to be judged the Heretics: as appeareth by examining and trying their several and particular Doctrines, and Opinions (wherein they differ from us, and wherein they be so wilful and pertinacious) by the same Canonical Scriptures. And how should it, or can it be otherwise? For, must not the doctrine of the g●and Antichrist, & of his Concubine the Whore of Babylon, bring adulterate, erroneous, and Antichristian, needs be concluded, if it be wilfully and obstinately persisted in, to be clear Heresy? If then our Bishops should, as they might (if they were so disposed, and that His Majesty would give ●●ave thereunto) censure some points of Popery to be heresy, being 〈…〉, and obstinately persisted in, and thereupon should city some Papists to come before them to answer as for heresy, and did upon hearing and examining of the cause, by sentence definitive, declare and pronounce them to be Heretics: What should, or can hinder, but that the King's Writ, de Haeretic● Comburendo, (after all due circumstances observed) might issue, and be awarded for the putting of them to death? Doth not the Law of the Realm apparently warrant this? For the Lawyers of your own Religion can tell you, that even by course of Common Law, those that be convicted and condemned of heresy, may be put to death. 
Fitzherb. not. brev. fol. 269.  And this it further evident, even by those very Statutes themselves, viz. of 2. H. 4. cap. 1.5. and 2. H. 5. cap. 7. and 25. H. 8, cap. 14. which, although they were afterward repealed in England, yet do they sufficiently show & declare, both what was & yet still is, the Common-law in that case: namely, that Bishops in their several Dioceses, and Provinces, (aswell as in their Convocations) might, and therefore still may, even by course of Common-law, (notwithstanding the repeal of those Statutes) by their jurisdiction ordinary, cite Heretics, 
10 H. 7. fol. 17.  censure, and sentence them, and so leave them to the Lay power, to be executed. And this also, is learned and judicious Writer, in his Apology of certain proceedings, by jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, doth tell you, and testifieth (against fitzherbert's opinion, who seemeth to put a difference in this point, between the Bishop of a Diocese, and the Convocation) that he hath heard the two Chief justices, the Lord chief Bar● 〈◊〉 some other judges, 
Apolog. part. 1. cap. 12. pag. 81, 82. & cap. 8. pa. 47.  and the Queen's learned Council, resolve (against that difference) in a special consultation, held about the matter of Heresy: viz that Every Bishop within his own Diocesse● as well as the Convocation, might, at the Common-law, and still may, condemn an Heretics: Yea, he hath made a whole Chapter, affirming this very point, viz. that, judgement of Heresy▪ still re●aineth at the Common-law, 
Apolog part. 1. cap. 13. pag. ●9.  in judges Ecclesiastical: and that the Provise, in the Statute of 1 Fliz. cap. 1, (which is in Ireland 2 Eliz. cap. 1.) touching Heresy, is only spoken of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and such as be authorized by that Statute. So that the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops, in their several Dioceses & Provinces, as also in their Convocations, notwithstanding that, or any other Stat. still remaineth such as it was at the Common-law, namely, of force sufficient for the citing, censuring, & sentencing of Heretics: whereupon, Execution of death by burning, may ensue. All which, nevertheless, I speak not to any such end, as to incense or exasperate any in authority, so far against papists, but only to answer, and disannul their untrue conceits, and so to repress and remove the insolency of some of them, and to show them, that if our Protestant princes pleased, and were so disposed, they might have found, as still also they may, a way and mean, and law sufficient to put Papists to death for Heresy. Wherefore it is no defect of matter of Heresy in Popery (wherewith it doth abound) nor any defect of law (which sufficiently warranteth the putting of Heretics to death) but it is the mere mercy and clemency of His Majesty, and of other Protestant Princes, his Predecessors, that doth thus spare and forbear them. Whereby, as they may all learn to be highly thankful unto God, for such merciful & gracious Princes to whom they are so much beholding, for not executing the severity of their laws upon them, in this case: so is it their parts to give no occasion, further to incense, or any way to provoke them thereunto. Where also you may observe to put a difference between the two Religions, viz. of protestancy, and Popery: considering how mild, gentle, and merciful the one is, namely, protestancy, in comparison 〈◊〉 the other, which is, and ever hath been (where it is predominant, and beareth rule) against Protestants, most terrible, cruel, inhuman, and extremely Bloody: and so be moved to affect and embrace the one, and to abhor and detest the other, as it deserveth.  
But as touching these points, I shall not need to use many words to men of understanding, learning, and judgement: especially when the thing desired of you, tendeth to your own good, not only in respect of this world▪ but chiefly in respect of the world to come. For it hath (as you see) Gods own express commandment, bidding all his people to depart from that mystical Babylon, Popish Rome. 
Rev. 18.4.  When therefore God himself thus speaketh, and would have none that be his people, to adhere to such a Mother, as the Whore of Babylon is, but clean chose, would have them to depart from her, and utterly to renounce, abhor, and detest her, as being indeed, the Mother of Whoredoms, 
Rev. 17.5.  and abominations of the Earth: (as she is entitled) is it not good reason, and your bounden duty, to give ear unto him, and to obey his voice herein, as you tender your own salvations, and desire to be His People? It appeareth that ye have been of a long time mistaken, as touching the right Mother-Church: For not Popish Rome, but Jerusalem, which is from above, is the Mother of us all, as S. Paul expressly witnesseth: Yea, 
Gal. 4.26.  what manner of Mother Popish Rome is, I trust ye now sufficiently perceive. Be no longer therefore so much abused, or so extremely deluded, as to take the wrong Mother for the right: and him that is the grand Antichrist, to be Christ's Vicar, the head of his Church, S. Peter's successor, and the Bishop that cannot err, in matter of Faith: For what christian, charitable, and good mind, doth not grieve to see so many honourable, and honest-hearted men▪ to be so far carried away, and misled, to their own perdition?  
Howbeit, if any amongst you rest not satisfied herewith, but thinketh that he can answer this Book, and will take upon him so to do: I desire him, first, that he will do it, not by parts or piecemeals, but wholly and entirely, from the beginning of it to the end. Secondly, I desire him to do it, not superficially, or sophistically, but substantially, sound, and satisfactorilie, if he can. Thirdly, as I would have him to do it in love and charity, and with an affection only to follow God's truth; so do I also desire him to set his name unto it, as I have done here to this. But if none amongst you, can make any solid, sound, sufficient, and satisfactory Answer unto it, (as I rest assured before hand, none can, or will be able: For, who was, or ever will be able to Answer or confute that Word of God, whereupon the Protestants Doctrine & Religion is apparently grounded?) then is there so much the more reason, for you all, to yield to that which you see to be evident, unanswerable, and irrefutable. God Almighty (if it be his will) open all your eyes to see his splendent and invincible truth, in his sacred & Canonical Scriptures contained; and grant both to you and to us, that we may all acknowledge, profess, and observe it to his glory, the discharge of our duties, and our own everlasting comforts, and salvation, through jesus Christ. Amen.  
Wisdom is justified of all her Children. Luk. 7.35.  
Unto the King everlasting, Immortal, Invisible, unto GOD only wise, be honour, and glory, for ever, and ever. AMEN. 1. Tim. 1.17.  
FINIS.   

AN EPISTLE WRITTEN BY THE REVEREND FAther in God, James Usher Bishop of Meath, concerning the religion anciently professed by the IRISH and SCOTTISH; Showing it to be for substance the same with that which at this day is by public authority established in the Church of ENGLAND.  
WORTHY SIR:  
I Confess, I somewhat incline to be of your mind, that if unto the authorities drawn out of Scriptures and Fathers (which are common to us with others) a true discovery were added of that religion which anciently was professed in this kingdom; it might prove a special motive to induce my poor countrymen to consider a little better of the old and true way from whence they have hitherto been misledd. Yet on the one side, that saying in the Gospel runneth much in my mind; 
a Luk. 16.31.  If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead: and on the other, that heavy judgement mentioned by the Apostle; 
b 2▪ Thess. 2.10, 11.  because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies. The woeful experience whereof, we may see daily before our eyes in this poor nation: where, such as are slow of heart to believe the saving truth of God delivered by the Prophets and Apostles, do with all greediness embrace, & with a most strange kind of credulity entertain those lying Legends, wherewith their Monks & Friars in these latter days have polluted the religion and lives of our ancient Saints.  
I do not deny but that in this country, as well as in others, corruptions did creep in by little and little, before the Devil was let loose to procure that seduction which prevailed so generally in these last times: but as far as I can collect by such records of the former ages as have come unto my hands (either manuscript or printed) the religion professed by the ancient Bishops, Priests, Monks, and other Christians in this land, was for substance the very same with that which now by public authority is maintained therein, against the foreign doctrine brought in thither in later times by the Bishop of Rome's followers. I speak of the more substantial points of doctrine, that are in controversy betwixt the Church of Rome and us at this day; by which only we must judge, whether of both sides hath departed from the religion of our ancestors: not of matters of inferior note, much less of ceremonies and such other things as appertain to the discipline rather than to the doctrine of the Church. And whereas it is known unto the learned, that the name of Scoti in those elder times (whereof we treat) was common to the inhabitants of the greater and the lesser Scotland (for so heretofore they have been distinguished) that is to say, of Ireland, and the famous colony deduced from thence into Albania: I will not follow the evil example of those that have of late laboured to make dissension betwixt the daughter and the mother, but account of them both, as of the same people.  Tros Rutulúsve fuat, nullo discrimine habebo. 
That we may therefore fall upon the matter in hand, without further preambles: two excellent rules doth S. Paul prescribe unto Christians for their direction in the ways of God: the one, that they 
c Ephes. 5.17.  be not unwise, but understanding what the will of God is; the other, that they 
d Rom. 12.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  be not more wise than behoveth to be wise, but be wise unto sobriety, and that we might know the limits, within which this wisdom and sobriety should be bounded; he elsewhere declareth, that not to be more wise than is fitting, is 
e 1. Cor. 4.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not to be wise above that which is written. Hereupon Sedulius (one of the most ancient writers that remaineth of this country birth) delivereth this for the meaning of the former rule; 
f Scrutamini legem, in quâ voluntas ejus continetur. Sedul. in Ephes. 5.  Search the Law, in which the will of God is contained: and this for the later; 
g Plus vult sapere, qui illa scrutatur qu●e Lex non dicit. Id. in Rom. 12.  He would be more wise than is meet, who searcheth those things that the Law doth not speak of. Unto whom we will adjoin Claudius another famous Divine, (counted one of the founders of the university of Paris) who for the illustration of the former, affirmeth that men 
h Proptereà errant, quia scripturas ne sciunt: & quia scripturas ignorant, consequenter nesciunt virtutem Dei, hoc est, Christum, qui est Dei virtus & Dei sapientia. Claud. in Matth. lib. 3.  therefore err, because they know not the Scriptures; and because they are ignorant of the Scriptures, they consequently know not Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God: and for the clearing of the latter, bringeth in that known Canon of S. Hierome; 
i Hoc, quia de scriptures non habet authoritatem, eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur. Id. ib.  This, because it hath not authority from the Scriptures, is with the same facility contemned, wherewith it is avowed.  
Neither was the practice of our ancestors herein different from their judgement. For as Bede touching the latter, recordeth of the successors of Columkille the great Saint of our country; that they 
k Tantùm ea qua● in Propheticis, Evangelicis & Apostolicis literis discere poterant, pietatis & castitatis opera diligenter observantes. Bed. lib. 3. histor ecclesiast. cap. 4.  observed only those works of piety and chastity, which they could learn in the Prophetical, Evangelicall and Apostolical writings: so for the former, he specially noteth of one of the principal of them, to wit Bishop Aidan; that 
l In tantum autem vita illius á nostri temporis segniciâ distabat; ut omnes qui cum eo incedebant, sive adtonsi sive laici, meditari deberent, id est, aut legendis Scripturis aut Psalmis discendis operam dare. Id. ibid. cap 5.  all such as went in his company, whether they were shorn or laymen, were tied to exercise themselves, either in the reading of Scriptures or in the learning of Psalms. For the 
m Bonis semper moribus delectatur & consentit; & assiduis scripturarum meditationibus & eloquiis animam vegetat. Patric. de abusionibus saculi, cap 5. de Pudi●itiâ.  continual meditation of the Scriptures was held to give special vigour and vegetation to the soul (as we read in the book attributed unto S. Patrick, of the abuses of the world:) and the holy documents delivered therein, were esteemed by Christians as their chief riches; according to that of Columbanus, 
n Columban. in Mon●stichis; & in epistolà ad Hunaldum.  Sint tibi divitiae, divinae dogmata legis. In which heavenly riches our ancient Scottish and Irish did thrive so well, that many worthy personages in foreign parts were content to undergo a voluntary exile from their own country; that they might more freely traffic here for so excellent a commodity. And by this means Altfrid king of Northumberland, purchased the reputation of 
o Successit Ecgfrido in regnum Altfrit, vir in scriptures doctissimus. Bed. lib. 4. hist. cap. 26.  a man most learned in the Scriptures. 
Scottorum qui tum versatus incola terris,  
Coelestem intento spirabat corde sophiam.  
Nam patriae fines & dulcialiquerat arva,  
Sedulus ut Domini mysteria disceret exul.  as Bede writeth of him, in his poem of the life of our countryman S. Cuthbert. So when we read in the same Bede of 
p Ab ipso tempore pu●ritiae suae curam non modicam lectionibus sacris, simul & monasticis exhibebat disciplinis. Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 19  Fursaeus, and in another ancient author of 
q A pucrili aetate magnum habet studium sacras discere literas. Tom. 4. Antiqu. lect. Henr. Canis. pag. 642.  Kilianus, that from the time of their very childhood, they had a care to learn the holy Scriptures: it may easily be collected, that in those days it was not thought a thing unfit, that even children should give themselves unto the study of the Bible. Wherein how greatly some of them did profit in those tender years, may appear by that which Boniface the first archbishop of Mentz, relateth of Livinus (who was trained, up in his youth by Benignus in 
r Davidicis psalmorum melodiis, & sanctorum Evangeliorum mellifluis lectionibus, atque caeteris divinis exercitationibus. Bonifac. in Vitâ Livini.  the singing of David's Psalms, and the reading of the holy Gospels, and other divine exercises) and jonas of Columbanus; in whose 
s Tantum in eius pectore divinarum thesauri scripturarum conditi tenebantur; ut intra adolescentiae aetatem detentus, Psalmorum librum elimato sermone exponeret. jonas, in Vitâ Columbani, cap. 2.  breast the threasures of the holy Scriptures were so laid up, that within the compass of his youthful years he set forth an elegant exposition of the book of the Psalms. by whose industry likewise afterward, the study of God's word was so propagated; that in the monasteries which were founded 
t B Burgundofora monasterium quod Euoriacas appellatur, etc. secundùm regulam S. Columbani instituit. Id. in Vitâ Burgundof.  according to his rule beyond the Seas, not the men only but the religious women also did carefully attend the same, that through patience and comfort of the Scriptures they might have hope. See for this, the practice of the virgin 
u cum ●am in extremis posita posceret per successiones noctium lumen coram se accendi, & sacrae lectionis praeconia ante se legi, etc. Id. ib.  Bitihildis lying upon her deathbed; reported by the same jonas, or whosoever else was the author of the life of Burgundofora.  
As for the edition of the Scriptures used in these parts at those times: th● Latin translation was so received into common use among the learned, that the principal authority was still reserved to the original fountains. Therefore doth Sedulius in the Old Testament commend unto us 
x Hebraicam veritatem. Sedul. in Gal. 3. & Hebr. 7.  the Hebrew verity (for so with S. Hierome doth he style it:) and in the New correct oftentimes the vulgar Latin according to the truth of the Greek copies. For example: in 1. Cor. 7.34 he readeth as we do, There is difference between a wife and a virgin; and not as the Rhemists have translated it out of the Latin. Rom. 12.19. he readeth, Non vosmetipsos vindicantes, not avenging yourselves: where the vulgar Latin hath corruptly, Non vosmetipsos defendentes, not defending yourselves. Rom. 3.4. where the Rhemists translate according to the Latin, God is true: he showeth that in the Greek copies it is found, Let God be true, or, let God be made true. Rom. 15.17. he noteth that the Latin books have put glory for gloriation. Galat. 1.16. where the Rhemists have according to the Latin, I condescended not to flesh and blood: he saith, that in Graeco meliùs habet (for so must his words be here corrected out of S. Hierome, whom he followeth) the Greek hath it better, I conferred not. Rom. 8.3. where the Rhemists say of God, according to the Latin translation, that of sin he damned sin in the flesh: Sedulius affirmeth, that veriùs habetur apud Graecoes, it is more truly expressed in the Greek books; that for sin he damned sin in the flesh. Lastly, where the Rhemists translate after their Latin copy, Gal. 5.9. A little leaven corrupteth the whole paste: he saith it should be, leaveneth, (as we have it) and 
y Non, ut malé in Latinis codicibus, corrumpit. Sedul. in Gal. 5.  not, corrupteth, as it is ill read in the Latin books. So where they translate by the same authority, Gal. 6.1. Instruct such an one in the spirit of lenity: 
z Instruat; sive, ut meliùs habetur in Graeco, perficiat in spiritu lenitatis. Claud. in Gal. 6.  Claudius, following S. Hierome, affirmeth that it is better in the Greek, Restore or perfect him. and where they make S. Peter say, Matth. 16.22. Lord, be it far from thee: 
a Absit á te Domine: vel, ut meliùs habetur in Graeco; Propitius esto tibi, Domine. Id. lib. 2. comment. in Matth. Habetur MS. Romae in Bibliothecâ Vallicellanâ & Cantabrigia in Bibliothec. Colleg. Benedict. & Aula Pembrochianae.  he noteth, that it is better in the Greek; Lord, favour thyself.  
The doctrine which these worthy men observed out of the Scriptures and the writings of the most approved Fathers, was this. that God 
b Praescitam & praedestinatam immobili consilio creaturam, ad se laudandum, & ex se & in se & per se beat vivendun. S. Gallus in serm. habit. Constant.  by his immovable counsel (as Gallus speaketh in his Sermon preached at Constance) ordained some of his creatures to praise him, and to live blessedly from him and in him, and by him: namely, 
c Praedestinatione scilicèt aeternâ, non creatione temporariâ, sed vocatione gratuitâ, vel indebitâ gratiâ. Id. ib.  by his eternal predestination, his free calling, and his grace which was due to none. that 
d Miseretur magnâ bonitate, & obdurate nullâ iniquitate: ut neque liberatus de suis meritis glorietur, neque damnatus nisi de suis meritis conqueratur. Sola enim gratia redemptos discernit á perditis; quos in unam perditionis concreaverat massam, ab origine ducta caussa communi Sedul. in Rom. 9  he hath mercy with great goodness, and hardeneth without any iniquity: so as neither he that is delivered can glory of his own merits, nor he that is condemned complain but of his own merits. forasmuch as grace only maketh the distinction betwixt the redeemed and the lost; who by a cause drawn from their common original, were framed together into one mass of perdition. For 
e Videt universum genus humanum tam justo judicio divinoque in apostaticâ radice damnatum; ut etiamsi nullus inde liberaretur, nemo recte posset Dei vituperare justitiam: & qui liberantur, sic oportuisse liberari, ut ex pluribus non liberatis, atque damnatione justissimâ de●elictis, ostenderetur quid meruisset universa conspersio. quòd etiam justos debitum judicium Dei damnaret, nisi in ejus debitum miscricordia subveniret: ut volentium dei suis meritis gloriari, omne os obstruatur; & qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Id. ibid.  all mankind stood condemned in the apostatical root (of Adam) with so just and divine a judgement; that although none should be freed from thence, no man could rightly blame the justice of God: and such as were freed, must so have been freed, that by those many which were not freed but left in their most just condemnation it might be showed, what the whole lump had deserved. that the due judgement of God should have condemned even those that are justified, unless mercy had relieved them from that which was due: that so all the mouths of them, which would glory of their merits, might be stopped; and he that glorieth, might glory in the Lord.  
They further taught (as S. Augustin did) that 
f Libero arbitrio malé utens homo, & se perdidit, & ipsum. Sicut enim qui se occidit, utique vivendo se occidit, sed se occidendo non vivit, neque seipsum poterit resuscitare cum occiderit: ita cum libero arbitrio peccaretur, victore peccato amissum est & liberum arbitrium. á quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est. sed ad bene faciendum ista libertas unde erit homini addicto & vendito, nisi redimat, cujus illa vox est; Si vos Filius liberaverit, veré liberi eritis? Id. ib.  Man using ill his Free will, lost both himself & it. that, as one by living is able to kill himself, but by killing himself is not able to live, nor hath power to raise up himself when he hath killed himself: so when sin had been committed by freewill, sin being the conqueror freewill also was lost; forasmuch as of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought in bondage (2. Pet. 2.19.) that unto a man thus brought in bondage and sold, there is no liberty left to do well, unless he redeem him, whose saying is this; If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (joh. 8.36.) that 
g Quòd ab adolescentiâ mens hominum apposita sit ad malitiam: non est enim homo qui non peccet. Id. in Ephes. 2.  the mind of men from their very youth is set upon evil: there being not a man which sinneth not. that a man 
h Quid habes ex ●eipso nisi peccatum? Id. in 1. Cor. 4.  hath nothing from himself, but sin. that 
i Deus author est omnium bonorum, hoc est, & naturae bonae, & voluntatis bonae; quam nisi Deus in illo operetur, non facit homo. quia praeparatur voluntas á Domino in homine bona; ut faciat Deo donante, quod á seipso facere non poterat per liberi arbitrii voluntatem. Claud. lib. 1. in Matth.  God is the author of all good things, that is to say, both of good nature, and of goodwill; which unless God do work in him, man cannot do. because this good will is prepared by the Lord in man; that by the gift of God he may do that, which of himself he could not do by his own freewill. that 
k Praecedit bona voluntas hominis multa Dei dona, sed non omnia: quae autem non praecedit ipsa, in eyes est & ipsa. Nam utrumque legitur in sanctis eloquiis; & misericordia eius praveniet me, & misericordia eius subsequetur me: nolentem praev●●it ut velit, volentem subsequitur, ne frustrà velit. Cur enim admonemur petere ut accipiamus; nisi ut ab illo fiat quod volumus, á quo factum est ut velimus? Sedul. in Rom. 9  the good will of man goeth before many gifts of God, but not all: & of those which it doth not go before, itself is one. For both of these is read in the holy Scriptures; His mercy shall go before me, and, His mercy shall follow me: it preventeth him that is unwilling that he may will, and it followeth him that is willing, that he will not in vain. and that therefore we are admonished to ask that we may receive; to the end, that what we do will may be effected by him, by whom it was effected that we did so will.  
They taught also, that 
l Non ergo lex data est, ut peccatum auferret, sed ut sub peccato omnia concluderet. Lex enim ostendebat esse peccatum, quod illi per consuetudinem caecati possent putare justitiam: ut hoc modo humiliati cognoscerent non in suâ manu esse salutem suam, sed in manu mediatoris. Id. in Gal 3.  the Law was not given, that it might take away sin, but that it might shut up all under sin: to the end that men, being by this means humbled, might understand that their salvation was not in their own hand, but in the hand of a Mediator. that by the Law cometh, 
m Non remissio, nec ablatio peccatorum, sed cognitio. Id. in Rom. 3.  neither the remission nor the removeall, but the knowledge of sins: that it 
n Lex, quae per Moysen data est, tantùm peccata ostendit, non abstulit Claud. in Gal. 2. Perque illam legem morbos ostendentem non auferentem, etiam praevaricationis crimine contrita superbia est. Id. in Gal. 3.  taketh not away diseases, but discovereth them; 
o Lex non donat peccata, sed damnat. Sedul. in Rom. 4.  forgiveth not sins, but condemneth them. that 
p Dominus Deus imposuerat non justitiae servientibus sed peccato: justam scilicèt legem iniustis hominibus dando, ad demonstranda peccata eorum, non auferenda. Non enim aufert peccata nisi gratia fidei quae per dilectionem operatur. Claud in argument. epist. ad Galat.  the Lord God did impose it, not upon those that served righteousness, but sin; namely by giving a just law to unjust men, to manifest their sins, and not to take them away: forasmuch as nothing taketh away sins but the grace of faith which worketh by love. That our 
q Gratis nobis donantur peccata. Sedul. in Gal. 1. A morte redemptis gratis peccata dimittuntur. Id. in Ephes. 1.  sins are freely forgiven us; 
r Absque operum merito, & peccata nobis concessa sunt pristina, & pax indul●a post veniam. Claud. in Gal. 1.  without the merit of our works: that 
s Gratiâ estis salvati per fidem, id est, non per opera Sedul. in Ephes. 2.  through grace we are saved, by faith, and not by works; and that therefore we are to rejoice, 
t Non in propriâ iustitiâ, vel doctrinâ, sed in fide crucis, per quam mihi omnia peccata dimissa sunt. Sedul. & Claud. in Gal. 6.  not in our own righteousness, or learning, but in the faith of the Cross, by which all our sins are forgiven us. That 
u Abiecta & irrita gratia est, si mihi sola non sufficit. Sedul. in Gal. 2.  grace is abject and vain, if it alone do not suffice us: and that we 
x Christum vilem habetis, dum putatis eum vobis non sufficere ad salutem. Id. in Gal. 3.  esteem basely of Christ, when we think that he is not sufficient for us to salvation.  
That 
y Disposuit Deus propitium se futurum esse humano generi, si credant in sanguine eius se esse liberandos. Id. in Rom. 3.  God hath so ordered it, that he will be gracious to mankind, if they do believe that they shall be freed by the blood of Christ. that, as 
z Vita corporis anima, vita animae fides est. Id. in Hebr. 10.  the soul is the life of the body, so faith is the life of the soul: and that we live 
a In fide vivo filii Dei, id est, in solâ fide, qui nihil debeo legi. Id. in Gal. 2.  by faith only, as owing nothing to the Law. that 
b Perfectionem legis habet, qui credit in Christo. cum enim nullus iustificaretur ex lege, quia nemo implebat legem, nisi qui speraret in promissionem Christi: fides posita est, quae cederet pro perfectione legis; ut in omnibus praetermissis fides satisfaceret pro totâ lege. Id. in Rom. 10.  he who believeth in Christ, hath the perfection of the Law. For whereas none might be justified by the Law, because none did fulfil the Law, but only he which did trust in the promise of Christ: faith was appointed, which should be accepted for the perfection of the Law, that in all things which were omitted faith might satisfy for the whole Law. That this righteousness therefore is 
c Non nostra, non in nobis, sed in Christo, quasi membra in capite. Id in 2 Cor. 5.  not ours, nor in us, but in Christ▪ in whom we are considered as members in the head. That 
d Fides, dimissis per gratiam peccatis, omnes credentes filios efficit Abrahae. Id. in Rome 4.  faith, procuring the remission of sins by grace, maketh all believers the children of Abraham: and that 
e justum fuerat, ut quo modo Abraham credens ex gentibus per solam fidem iustificatus est; ita caeteri fidem eius imitantes salvarentur. Id. in Rom.  it was just, that as Abraham was justified by faith only, so also the rest that followed his faith should be saved after the same manner. That 
f Per adoptionem efficimur filii Dei, credendo in Filium Dei. Claud. lib. 1. in Matth.  through adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God: and that this is 
g Testimonium adoptionis, quòd habemus spiritum, per quem ita oramus: tantam enim arram non poterant, nisi filii accipere▪ Sedul. in Rom. 8.  a testimony of our adoption, that we have the spirit; by which we pray, and cry Abba Father; forasmuch as none can receive so great a pledge as this, but such as be sons only. That 
h Ipse Moses distinxit inter utramque iustitiam, fidei scilicet atque factorum: quia altera operibus, altera solâ credulita●e iustificet accedentem▪ Id. in Rom. 10.  Moses himself made a distinction betwixt both the justices, to wit of faith and of deeds: that the one did by works justify him that came, the other by believing only. that 
i Patriarchae & Prophetae non ex operibus legis, sed ex fide iustificati sunt. Id. in Gal. 2.  the patriarchs and the Prophets were not justified by the works of the Law, but by faith. that 
k Ita praevaluit consuetudo peccandi, ut nemo iam perficiat legem: sicut Petrus Apostolus ait; Qu●d neque nos neque patres nostri portare potuimus. Si qui veró iusti non erant maledicti; non ex operibus legis, sed fidei gratiâ salvati sunt. Id. in Gal. 3.  the custom of sin hath so prevailed, that none now can fulfil the Law: as the Apostle Peter saith, Act. 15.10. Which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. But if there were any righteous men which did escape the curse: it was not by the works of the Law, but for their faith's sake that they were saved.  
Thus did Sedulius and Claudius, two of our most famous Divines deliver the doctrine of freewill and grace, faith and works, the Law and the Gospel, justification and Adoption; no less agreeably to the faith which is at this day professed in the reformed. Churches, then to that which they themselves received from the more ancient Doctors, whom they did follow therein. Neither do we in our judgement one whit differ from them, when they teach that 
l Hoc contra illos agit, qui solam fidem posse sufficere dicunt. Sedul in Eph●s. 5▪ Non ergo sola ad vitam sufficit fides. Claud in Gal. 5. b●. Haec sententia illos revincit, qui solam fidem ad salutem animarum suarum sufficere arbitrantur. Id. ibid. in fine.  faith alone is not sufficient to life. For when it is said, that Faith alone justifieth: this word alone may be conceived to have relation either to the former part of the sentence, which in the schools they term the Subject; or to the latter, which they call the Predicat. Being referred to the former, the meaning will be; that such a faith as is alone (that is to say, not accompanied with other virtues) doth justify: and in this sense we utterly disclaim the assertion. But being referred to the latter, it maketh this sense; that faith is it which alone or only justifieth: and in this meaning only do we defend that proposition; understanding still by faith, not a dead carcase thereof (for how should the just be able to live by a dead faith?) but a true and lively faith, 
m Gal. 5.6.  which worketh by love. For as it is a certain truth, that among all the members of the body, the eye is the only instrument whereby we see; and yet it is as true also, that the eye being alone, and separated from the rest of the members, is dead, and for that cause doth neither se● only, nor see at all: so these two sayings likewise may stand well enough together, that among all the virtues in the soul, faith is the only instrument whereby we lay hold upon Christ for our justification; and yet, that faith being alone, and disjoined from the society of other graces, is dead in itself, (as S. 
n jam. 2.17.  james speaketh) and in that respect can neither only justify, nor justify at all.  
So though Claudius do teach, as we do, that 
o Si gentes fides sola non salvat, nec nos: quia ex operibus legis nemo iustificabitur. Claud. in Gal. 2.  faith alone saveth us; because by the works of the law no man shall be justified: yet he addeth withal this caution. 
p Non quò legis op●ra contemnenda sint, & absque eis simplex fides adpetenda; sed ipsa opera fide Christi adornentur. Scita est enim sapientis viri illa sententia; non fidelem vivere ex iustitiâ, sed iustum ex fide. Id. in Gal. 3.  Not as if the works of the law should be contemned, and without them a simple faith (so he calleth that solitary faith whereof we spoke, which is a simple faith indeed) should be desired; but that the works themselves should be adorned with the faith of Christ. For that sentence of the wise man is excellent; that the faithful man doth not live by righteousness, but the righteous man by faith. In like manner Sedulius, acknowledgeth with us, that God 
q Gratis proposuit per solam fidem dimittere peccata. Sedul. in Rome▪ 4.  hath purposed by faith only to forgive our sins freely, and 
r Vt solâ fide salvarentur credentes. Id. in Gal. 3.  by faith only to save the believers; and that, when men have fallen, they are to be renewed 
s Per solam fidem Christi, quae per dilectionem operatur. Id. in Heb 6.  only by the faith of Christ, which worketh by love. intimating by this last clause, that howsoever faith only be it which justifieth the man, yet the work of love is necessarily required (for all that) to justify the faith. And this faith (saith 
t Haec fides cum iustificata fuerit, tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo; ut cum per legem Dei excoli caeperit, rursùm in came surgant rami, qui fructus operum ferant. Non ergo ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae fructus operum crescit: illâ scilicèt radice iustitiae, cui Deus acceptam fert iustitiam sine operibus. Id. in Rom. 4.  he) when it hath been justified, sticketh in the soil of the soul like a root, which hath received a shower: that when it hath begun to be manured by the law of God, it may rise up again into bows, which may bear the fruit of works. Therefore the root of righteousness doth not grow out of works, but the fruit of works out of the root of righteousness; namely out of that root of righteousness, which God doth accept for righteousness without works. The conclusion is: that saving faith is always a fruitful faith; and though it never go alone, yet may there be some gift of God, which it alone is able to reach unto. as 
u Columban. in Monoslichis.  Columbanus also implieth in that verse: Sola fides fidei dono ditabitur almo.  
The greatest depressers of God's grace, and the advancers of man's abilities, were Pelagius and Celestius: the one borne in Britain (as appeareth by Prosper Aquitanus) the other in Scotland or Ireland; as 
x Pers. three Convers. part. 1. chap. 3. s●●t. 10.  Mr. Persons doth gather out of those words of S. Hierome in one of the Prefaces of his commentaries (not upon Ezechiel, as he quoteth it, but) upon jeremy. 
y Habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis, de Britannorum viciniâ. Hieronym pro●●m●i●. 3. commentar. in jerem.  He hath his offspring from the Scottish nation, near to the Britan's. Against these Palladius and Patricius, 
z Prosp. Aquitan. advers Collator. circa finem.  sent into these parts by Celestinus Bishop of Rome, bend their forces: by whose means, the grounds of sound doctrine in these great points were well settled among the Scottish and Irish. And when the poison of the contrary heresy, about two hundred years after that, began to break out among them again: the Clergy of Rome in the year of our Lord DCXXXIX. (during the vacancy of the See, upon the death of Severinus) directed their letters unto them, for the preventing of this growing mischief. Wherein among other things they put them in mind, that 
a Blasphemia & stultiloquium est dicere, esse hominem sine peccato: quod omnino non potest, nisi unus mediator Dei & hominum homo Christus jesus, qui sine peccato est conceptus & partus. Epist. Cler. Roman. apud Bedam, lib. 2. hist. cap. 19  it is both blasphemy and folly to say, that a man is without sin: which none at all can say, but that one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ jesus, who was conceived and borne without sin. Which is agreeable, partly to that of Claudius; that 
b Quja, (quod omnibus sapientibus patet, licèt haeretici contradicant) nemo est, qui sine adtactu alicuius peccati vivere possit super terram. Claud. lib. 2. in Matth.  it is manifest unto all wise men, although it be contradicted by heretics, that there is none who can live upon earth without the touch of some sin: partly to that of Sedulius, that 
c Nullus electus et ita magnus, quem Diabolus non audeat accusare: nisi illum solum, qui peccatum non fecit, qui & dicebat; Nunc venit princeps huius mundi, & in me nihil invenit. Se●ul. in Rom. 8.  there is none of the elect so great, whom the Devil doth not dare to accuse, but him alone who did no sin, and who said; The Prince of this world cometh now, and in me he findeth nothing.  
For touching the imperfection of our sanctification in this life, these men held the same that we do: to wit, that the Law 
d Non potest impleri. Id. in Rom. 7.  cannot be fulfilled; that 
e Non est qui faciat bonum, hoc est, perfectum & integrum bonum. Id. in Rom. 3.  there is none that doth good, that is to say, perfect and entire good. that 
f Ad hoc nos elegit, ut essemus sancti & immaculati, in futurâ vitâ; quoniam Ecclesia Christi non habebit maculam neque ●ugam Licèt etiam in praesenti vitâ iusti, & sancti, & immaculati, qu●●is non ex toto, tamen ex parte, non inconvenienter dici possunt Id in Ephes. 1.  Gods elect shall be perfectly holy and immaculate in the life to come, where the Church of Christ shall have no spot nor wrinkle: whereas in this present life they are righteous, holy, and immaculate, not wholly, but in part only. that 
g Tunc erit iustus sine ullo omnino peccato, quando nulla lex erit in membris eius, repugnans legi mentis eius Claud. in Gal 5.  the righteous shall then be without all kind of sin, when there shall be no law in their members, that shall resist the law of their mind. that although 
h Non enim iam regnat peccatum in eorum mortali corpore ad obediendum desideriis eius: quamvis habitet in eodem mortali corpore peccatum, nondum extincto impetu consuetudinis naturalis, quâ mortaliter natisumus, & ex propriis vitae nostrae, cum & nos ipsi peccando auximus quòd ab origine peccati humani damnationis trahebamus. Id. ibid.  sin do not now reign in their mortal body to obey the desires thereof: yet sin dwelleth in that mortal body, the force of that natural custom being not yet extinguished, which we have gotten by our original and increased by our actual transgressions. And as for the matter of merit: Sedulius doth resolve us out of S. Paul, that we are Saints 
i Vocatione Dei, non merito facti Sedul. in Rom. 1.  by the calling of God, not by the merit of our deed; that God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, 
k Secundùm virtutem quae operatur in nobis; non secundùm merita nostra. Id. in Ephes. 3.  according to the power that worketh in us, not according to our merits; that 
l Sciendum est, quia omne quod habent homines á Deo, gratia est: nihil enim ex debito habent. Id. in Rom. 16.  whatsoever men have from God, is grace, because they have nothing of due; and that 
m Nihil dignum inveniri vel comparari ad futuram gloriam potest Id. in Rom. 8.  nothing can be found worthy or to be compared with the glory to come.  
The next point that offereth itself unto our consideration, is that of Purgatory. Whereof if any man do doubt; 
n Qui de Purgatorio dubitat, Scotiam pergat, Purgatorium sancti▪ Patricii intret, & de Purgatorii poenis ampliùs non dubitabit. Caesar. Heisterbach. Dialog. lib. 12. cap. 38.  Caesarius (a German Monk of the Cistercian order) adviseth him for his resolution to make a journey into Scotland (the greater Scotland he meaneth) and there to enter into S. Patrick's Purgatory: and then he giveth him his word, that he shall no more doubt of the pains of Purgatory. If Doctor Terry (who commendeth this unto us as the testimony of 
o Cuius loci fama, ita sparsim per omnes▪ Europae parts volare visa est; ut Caesarius celeberrimus auctor, de eo nihil dubitans sic scribat. Guil. Thyram, in Discurs. Panegyrie. de S. Patric. pag. 151.  a most famous author) should chance to have a doubtful thought hereafter of the pains of Purgatory: I would wish his ghostly Father to enjoin him no other penance, but the undertaking of a pilgrimage unto S. Patrick's purgatory; to see whether he would prove any wiser when he came from thence, than when he went thither. In the mean time, until he hath made some further experiment of the matter, he shall give me leave to believe him that hath been there, and hath cause to know the place as well as any (the Island wherein it is seated, being held by him as a part of the inheritance descended unto him from his ancestors) and yet professeth that he found nothing therein, which might afford him any argument to think there was a Purgatory. I pass by, that Nennius, and Probus, and all the elder writers of the life of S. Patrick that I have met withal, speak not one word of any such place; and that 
p Hem. Sal●●reyens. in lib. de Visione Oëul militis. MS. in publicâ Cantabrigiensi● academiae Bibliothec●; & privatâ viri doctiss. M. Thoma Alani Oxoniensis; & in Nigro libro Ecclesia S. Trinitat. Dublin.  Henry the monk of Saltrey, in the days of king Stephen, is the first in whom I could ever find any mention thereof. this only would I know of the Doctor, what the reason might be, that where he bringeth in the words of Giraldus Cambrensis touching this place, as 
q De posteriori non minùs auctentica videtur auctoritas Geraldi Cambrensis, rerum Ibernicarum diligentissimi investigatoris, qui taliter loquitur. Thyr. Discurs. Panegyric. pag. 153.  an authentical authority; he passeth over that part of his relation, wherein he affirmeth, that S. Patrick intended by this means to bring the rude people to a persuasion of the certainty 
r De infernalibus namque reproborum poenis, & de verâ post mortem perpetuaque electorum vitâ vir sanctus cum gente incredulâ dum disputâsset: ut tanta, tam inusitata, tam inopinabilis retum novitas rudibus infidelium animis oculatâ fide certiùs imprimeretur: efficaci orationum instantiâ magnam & admirabilem utriusque rei notitiam, duraeque cervicis populo perutilem, meruit in terris obtinere. Giral. Cambrens. T●pograph. Hibern. distinct. 2. cap. 5.  of the infernal pains of the reprobate, and of the true and everlasting life of the elect after death.  
The Grecians allege this for one of their arguments against Purgatory: that whereas 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Marcus Ephesius, in Gratorum Apolog. de igne Purgatori● ad Concil. Florentin.  their Fathers had delivered unto them many visions and dreams and other wonders concerning the everlasting punishment wherewith the wicked should be tormented in Hell; yet none of them had declared any thing concerning a purgatory temporary fire. Belike the Doctor was afraid, that we would conclude upon the same ground; that S. Patrick was careful to plant in men's minds the belief of Heaven and Hell, but of Purgatory taught them never a word. And sure I am, that in the book ascribed unto him, De tribus habitaculis, (which is to be seen in his Majesty's Library) there is no mention of any other place after this life, but of these two only. I will lay down here the beginning of that treatise; and leave it to the judgement of any indifferent man, whether it can well stand with that which the Romanistes teach concerning Purgatory at this day. 
t Tria sunt sub omnipotentis Dei nutu habitacula: primum, imum, medium. Quorum summum, regnum Dei vel regnum Coelorum dicitur, imum vocatur Infernus, medium Mundus praesens vel Orbis terrarum appellatur. Quorum extrema omnino sibi invicem sunt contraria, & nullâ sibi societate conjuncta: (quae enim societas potest esse luci ad tenebras, et Christo ad Belial?) medium veró nonnullam habet similitudinem ad extrema. etc. Commixtio namque malorum simul & honorum in hoc mundo est. In regno autem Dei nulii mali sunt, sed omnes boni: at in Inferno nulli boni sunt, sed omnes mali. Et uterque locus ex medio suppletur. Hominun enim hujus mundi alii elevantur ad Coelun, alii trahuntur ad Infernun. Similes quip similibus junguntur, id est, boni bonis, & mali malis; justi homines justis angelis, transgressores homines transgressoribus angelis; servi dei Deo, servi diaboli Diabolo. Benedicti vocantur ad regnum sibi paratum ab origine mundi: maledicti expelluntur in ignem aeternum, qui praeparatus est Diabolo & angelis ejus. Patrie de trib. habitac. MS. in Bibliotheâ Regiâ jacobaeâ.  There be three habitations under the power of almighty God: the first, the lowermost, and the middle. The highest whereof is called the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Heaven, the lowermost is termed Hell, the middle is named the present World or the circuit of the Earth. The extremes whereof are altogether contrary one to another: (for what fellowship can there be betwixt light and darkness, betwixt Christ & Belial?) but the middle hath some similitude with the extremes. For in this world there is a mixture of the bad and of the good together, whereas in the kingdom of God there are none bad, but all good: but in Hell there are none good, but all bad. And both those places are supplied out of the middle. For of the men of this world, some are lifted up to Heaven, others are drawn down to Hell, namely, like are joined unto like, that is to say, good to good, and bad to bad: just men to just Angels, wicked men to wicked Angels; the servants of god to God, the servants of the devil to the Devil. The blessed are called to the kingdom prepared for them from the beginning of the world: the cursed are driven into the everlasting fire that is prepared for the Devil and his angels. Thus far there:  
Hitherto also may be referred that ancient Canon of one of our Irish Synods, wherein it is affirmed, that the soul being separated from the body is 
u Custodit animam usque dum steterit ante tribunal Christi; cui refert sua prout gesserit propria. Nec archangelus potest ducere ad vitam, usque dum judicaverit came Dominus; nec Z●bulus ad poenam traducere, nisi Dominus damnaverit eam. Synod. Hibern. in vet. cod. Canonun, titulorum 66. MS. in Bibliothecâ D. R●ber●i Cottoni.  presented before the judgement seat of Christ, who rendereth it own unto it, according as it hath done: and that neither the Archangel can lead it unto life, until the Lord hath judged it; nor the Devil transport it unto pain, unless the Lord do damn it. as the sayings of Sedulius likewise; that after the end of this life, 
x Finem dixit exitum vitae & actuum; cui aut mors, aut vita suceedit. Sedul. in Rome 7.  either death or life succeedeth, and that 
y Mors porta est, per quam itur a● regnum. Id. in 1. Cor. 3.  death is the gate by which we enter into our kingdom: together with that of Claudius; that 
z Suscepit Christus sine reatu supplicium nostrum; ut inde solveret reatum nostrum, & finiret etiam supplicium nostrum. Claud. in Galat. 3.  Christ did take upon him our punishment without the guilt, that thereby he might lose our guilt, and finish also our punishment. Cardinal Bellarmine indeed allegeth here against us the vision of Furseus: who 
a Beda lib. 3. hist. Anglor. cap. 19 scribit, B. Fursaeum á mortuis resurgentem narrâsse multaquae vidi● de purgatoriis poenis. Bellarm. de Purgator. lib. 1. cap. 11.  rising from the dead, told many things, which he saw concerning the pains of purgatory; as Bede, he saith, doth write. But, by his good leave, we will be better advised, before we build articles of faith upon such visions and dreams as these: many whereof deserve to have a place among 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ph●● Bibliothec. num. 130.  the strange narrations of souls appearing after death, collected by Damascius the heathen Idolater; rather than among the histories & discourses of sober Christians. As for this vision of Furseus: all that Bede relateth of it to this purpose, is concerning certain great fires above the air, appointed to 
c Etsi terribilis iste & grandis rogus videtur, tamen juxta merita operum singulos examinat: quia uniuscujusque cupiditas in hoc igne ardebit. Bed. lib. 3. ca 19  examine every one according to the merits of his works. which peradventure may make something for Damascius his Purgatory in Circulo lacteo (for in that circle made he 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Damasc. apud. lo. Philoponum. in 1. Meteor. fol. 104. b.  a way for the souls that went to the Hades in heaven; and 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Ibid.  would not have us wonder, that there they should be purged by the way:) but nothing for the Papists Purgatory, which Bellarmine by the common consent of the Schoolmen determineth to be within the bowels of the earth. Neither is there any thing else in the whole book of the life of Furseus (whence Bede borrowed these things) that looketh toward Purgatory: unless peradventure that speech of the Devil may be thought to give some advantage unto it. 
f Hic homo non purgavit delicta sua in terrâ; nec vindictam h●c recipit. Vbi est ergo justitia Dei? Lib. vitae Fursai.  This man hath not purged his sins upon earth; neither doth he receive punishment for them here. Where is therefore the justice of God? as if God's justice were not sufficiently satisfied by the sufferings of Christ; but man also must needs give further satisfaction thereunto by penal works or sufferings, either here or in the other world. which is the ground, upon which our Romanists do lay the rotten frame of their devised Purgatory.  
The latter visions of Malachias, Tundal, Owen, and others that lived within these last five hundred years; come not within the compass of our present inquiry: nor yet the fables that have been framed in those times, touching the lives and actions of elder Saints; whereof no wise man will make any reckoning. Such (for example) is that which we read in the life of S. Brendan: that the question being moved in his hearing, 
g Si peccata mortuorum redimi possunt ab amicis suis remanentibus in hâc vitâ; orando, vel eleemosynas faciendo. Vit. Brendani, in Legendâ Io. Capgravij.  Whether the sins of the dead could be redeemed by the prayers or almsdeeds of their friends remaining in this life (for that was still a question in the Church:) he is said to have told them, that on a certain night, as he sailed in the great Ocean, the soul of one Colman 
h Colmannus, inquit, vocor; qui fui monachus iracundus, discordiaeque seminator inter fratres. Ibid.  (who had been an angry Monk, and a sour of discord betwixt brethren) appeared unto him; who complained of his grievous torments, entreated that prayers might be made to God for him, and after six days thankfully acknowledged that by means thereof he had gotten into heaven. Whereupon it is concluded, 
i In hoc ergo, dilectissimi, apparet: quòd oratio vivorum multùm mortuis prodest. Ibid.  that the prayer of the living doth profit much the dead. But of S. Brendans sea-pilgrimage, we have the censure of Molanus a learned Romanist; that there be 
k Multa apocrypha deliramenta. Molan. in Vsuard. martyrolog. Mai. 26.  many apocryphal fooleries in it: & whosoever readeth the same with any judgement, cannot choose but pronounce of it, as Photius doth of the strange narrations of Damascius, formerly mentioned; that it containeth not only apocryphal but also 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phot. Bibliothec. num. 130.  impossible, incredible, ill-composed, and monstrous fooleries. Whereof though the old Legend itself were not free (as by the heads thereof, touched by Glaber Rodulphus and Giraldus Cambrensis, may appear) yet for the tale that I recited out of the 
m Nova Legenda Angliae. impress. Londin. an. 1516.  New Legend of England, I can say, that in the manuscript books which I have met withal here, in S. Brendans own country, (one whereof was transcribed for the use of the Friars minors of Kilkenny, about the year of our Lord 1350.) there is not the least footstep thereof to be seen.  
And this is a thing very observable in the ancienter lives of our Saints (such I mean, as have been written before the time of Satan's losing; beyond which we do not now look:) that the prayers and oblations for the dead mentioned therein, are expressly noted to have been made for them, whose souls were supposed at the same instant to have rested in bliss. So Adamnanus reporteth, that S. Colme (called by the Irish, both in 
n Qui videlicèt Columba nunc á nonnullis, composito á cella & Columba nomine, Colum-celli vocatur. Bed. lib. 5 hist. cap. 10.  Bedes and our days, Columkille) 
o Adamn●n. Vit. Columb. lib. 3. cap. 15.  caused all things to be prepared, for the sacred ministry of the Eucharist; when he had seen the soul of S. Brendan received by the holy Angels: and that he did the like, when Columbanus Bishop of Leinster departed this life. for I must to day (saith S. Colme 
p Meque (ait) hodie, quamlibet indignus sim, ob venerationem illius animae, quae hâc in nocte inter sanctos Angelorum choros vecta ultra siderea caelorum spatia ad Paradisum ascendit, sacra oportet Eucharistiae celebrare mysteria. Ib. cap. 16.  there) although I be unworthy, celebrate the holy mysteries of the Eucharist, for the reverence of that soul which this night, carried beyond the starry firmament betwixt the holy quires of Angels, ascended into Paradise. Whereby it appeareth, that an honourable commemoration of the dead was herein intended, and a sacrifice of thanksgiving for their salvation rather than of propitiation for their sins. In Bede also we find mention of the like obsequies celebrated by S. Cuthbert for one Hadwaldus; after 
q Vidi, inquit, animam cujusdam sancti manibus Angelicis ad gaudia regni coelestis ferri. Bed. in vit. Cuthbert. cap. 34  he had seen his soul carried by the hands of Angels unto the joys of the kingdom of heaven. So Gallus and Magnus (as Walafridus Strabus relateth in the life of the one, and Theodorus Campidonensis or whosoever else was author of the life of the other) 
r Coeperunt missas agere, & precibus insistere pro commemoratione B Columbani. Walafrid. Vit. Gall. lib. 1. cap. 26. Theodor. Vit. Magni, lib. 1. cap. ult. edit. Goldasti, cap. 12. Canisijs.  said Mass (which what it was in those days, we shall afterward hear) and were instant in prayers for the commemoration of abbot Columbanus their countryman; 
s Deinde tanti patris memoriam precibus sacris & sacrificiis salutaribus frequentaverunt. Ibid  frequenting the memory of that great Father, with holy prayers, and healthful sacrifices. Where that speech of Gallus unto his deacon Magnus or Magnoaldus, is worthy of special consideration: 
t Post hujus vigilias noctis, cognovi per visionem, Dominun & patrem meum Columbanum de huius vitae angustiis hodie ad Paradisi gaudia con migrâsse. Pro eius itaque requie sacrificium salutis debeo immolare. Ibid.  After this night's watch, I understood by a vision, that my master and father Columbanus is to day departed out of the miseries of this life unto the joys of Paradise. For his rest therefore I ought to offer the sacrifice of salvation. In like manner also, when Gallus himself died; 
u Presbyter cum ut surgeret monuit, & pro requie defuncti ambitiosiùs Dominum precaretur: intraverunt itaque ecclesias, & Episcopus pro carissimo salutares hostias immolavit amico. Finito autem fraternae commemorationis obsequio, etc. Walafrid Strab. Vit. Gall. lib. 1. cap. 30. qui etiam addit postea, Discipulos eius, pariter cum Episcop● orationem pro illo fecisse. cap. 33.  john Bishop of Constance prayed to the Lord for his rest, and offered healthful sacrifices for him: although he were certainly persuaded that he had attained the blessing of everlasting life; as may be seen in Walafridus. And when Magnus afterwards was in his deathbed, he is said to have used these words unto Tozzo Bishop of Ausborough, that came to visit him. 
x Noli ●lere, venerabilis Praesul, quia me in tot mundialium perturbationum procellis laborantem conspicis: quoniam credo in misericordiâ Dei, quòd anima mea in immortalitatis libertate sit gavisura. tamen deprecor, ut orationibus tuis sanctis me peccatorem & animam meam non desinas adjuvare▪ Theodor. Campidon. vel quicunque author fuit Vitae Magni, lib. 2. cap. 13. edit. Goldasli, cap 28. Canisijs.  Do not weep, reverend Prelate, because thou beholdest me labouring in so many storms of worldly troubles: because I believe in the mercy of God, that my soul shall rejoice in the freedom of immortality. yet I beseech thee, that thou wilt not cease to help me a sinner and my soul with thy holy prayers. Then followeth: that at the time of his departure, this voice was heard; 
y Veni, Magne, veni; accipe coronam, quam tibi Dominus praeparatam habet. Ibid.  Come, Magnus, come, receive the crown which the Lord hath prepared for thee. and that thereupon Tozzo said unto Theodorus (the supposed writer of this history) 
z Cessemus flere, frater; quia potius nos oportet gaudere de animae eius in immortalitate sumptae in hoc signò audito, quam luctum facere: sed ●amus ad Ecclesiam, & pro tam charissimo amico salutares hostias Domino immolare studeamus. Finito itaque fraternae commemorationis obsequio, etc. Ibid.  Let us cease weeping, brother; because we ought rather to rejoice, having heard this sign of the receiving of his soul unto immortality, than to make lamentation. but let us go to the Church, and be careful to offer healthful sacrifices to the Lord for so dear a friend.  
I dispute not of the credit of these particular passages: it is sufficient, that the authors from whom we have received them, lived within the compass of those times, whereof we now do treat. For thereby it is plain enough (and if it be not, it shall elsewhere be made yet more plain) that in those elder days it was an usual thing, to make prayers and oblations for the rest of those souls, which were not doubted to have been in glory: and consequently, that neither the Commemoration nor the Praying for the dead nor the Requiem Masses of that age, have any necessary relation to the belief of Purgatory. The lesson therefore which Claudius teacheth us here out of S. Hierome, is very good: that 
a Dum in praesenti seculo sumus, sive orationibus sive consiliis invicem posse nos adiuvari▪ cum autem ante tribunal Christi venerimus, nec job, nec Daniel, nec No, rogare posse pro quoquam; sed unumquemque porta●e onus suum. Claud. in Galat. 6.  while we are in this present world, we may be able to help one another, either by our prayers or by our counsels, but when we shall come before the judgement seat of Christ, neither job nor Daniel nor Noah can entreat for any one, but every one must bear his own burden. and the advise which the no less learned than godly abbot Columbanus giveth us, is very safe: not to pitch upon uncertainties hereafter, but now to trust in God, and follow the precepts of Christ; while our life doth yet remain, and while the times, wherein we may obtain salvation, are certain.  
Vive Deo fidens (saith 
b Columban. in epist▪ ad Hunaldum.  he) Christi praecepta sequendo;  
Dum modò vita manet, dum tempora certa salutis.  
Touching the worship of God (that I may now come to that point) Sedulius delivereth this general rule: that to 
c Adorare alium praeter Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum sanctum, impietatis crimen est. Sedul. in Rom. 1.  adore any other beside the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, is the crime of impiety; and that 
d Totum quod debet Deo anima, si alicui praeter Deum reddiderit, moechatur. Id. in Rom. 2.  all that the soul oweth unto God, if it bestow it upon any beside God, it committeth adultery. More particularly, in the matter of Images, 
e Recedentes á lumine veritatis sapientes; quasi qui invenissent, quo modo invisibilis Deus per simulacrum visibile coleretur. Id. in Rom. 1.  he reproveth the wise men of the heathen, for thinking that they had found out a way, how the invisible God might be worshipped by a visible image: with whom also acordeth Claudius; that 
f Deus non in manufactis habitat, nec in metallo aut saxo cognoscitur. Claud. lib. 2. in Matth.  God is to be known, neither in mettle nor in stone. and for Oaths, there is a Canon ascribed to S. Patrick; wherein it is determined, that 
g Non adiurandam esse creaturam aliam, nisi creatorem. Syno●. Patricij. can. 23. MS.  no creature is to be swor●e by, but only the Creator. As for the form of the Liturgy or public service of God, which the same S. Patrick brought into this country: it is said, that he received it from Germanus and Lupus; and that it originally descended from S. Mark the Evangelist. for so have I seen it set down in an ancient fragment, written wellnigh 900. years since: remaining now in the Library of Sir Robert Cotton, my worthy friend; who can never sufficiently be commended, for his extraordinary care, in preserving all rare monuments of this kind. Yea S. Hieroms authority is there vouched for proof hereof. Beatus Hieronymus adfirmat, quòd ipsum cursum, qui dicitur praesente tempore Scottorum, beatus Marcus decantavit. which being not now to be found in any of S. Hieroms works, the truth thereof I leave unto the credit of the reporter.  
But whatsoever Liturgy was used here at first: this is sure, that in the succeeding ages no one general form of divine service was retained, but divers rites and manners of celebrations were observed in divers parts of this kingdom; until the Roman use was brought in at last by Gillebertus and Malachias and Christianus, who were the Pope's Legates here about 500 years ago. This Gillebertus (an old acquaintance of 
h Anselm. lib. 3. epist. 143.  Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury) in the Prologue of his book De usu ecclesiastico, directed to the whole Clergy of Ireland, writeth in this manner. 
i Episcopis, presbyteris totius Hiberniae, infimus praesulum Gille Lunicensis in Christo salutem. Rogatu, nec non & praecepto multorum ex vobis (Charissimi) canonicalem consuetudinem in dicendis Horis, & peragendo totius Ecclesiastici ordinis officio, scribere conatus sum; non praesumptivo, sed vestrae cupiens piissim● servire jussioni: ut diversi & schismatici illi Ordines, quibus Hibernia pené tota delusa est, uni catholico & Romano cedant officio Quid enim magis indecens aut schismaticum dici poterit; quam doctissimum unius ordinis in alterius Ecclesiâ idiotam & laicum fieri? etc. Prologue. Gille sive Gilleberti Lumnicensis episc. De usu Ecclesiastic. MS. in Bibliothec. Colleg. S. Benedict. Cantabrig.  At the request, yea and at the command of many of you (dear beloved) I endeavoured to set down in writing the canonical custom in saying of Hours, and performing the Office of the whole Ecclesiastical Order; not presumptuously, but in desire to serve your most godly command: to the end that those divers and schismatical Orders, wherewith in a manner all Ireland is deluded, may give place to one Catholic and Roman Office. For what may be said to be more undecent or schismatical; then that the most learned in one order, should be made as a private and lay man in another man's Church?  
These beginnings were presently seconded by Malachias: in whose life, written by Bernard, we read as followeth. 
k Apostolicas sanctiones ac decreta sanctorum patrum, praecipueque consuetudines sanctae Romanae ecclesiae in cunctis ecclesiis statuebat. Hinc est quòd hodieque in illis ad horas canonicas cantatur & psallitur juxta morem universae terrae: nam minimé id antè fiebat, ne in civitate quidem. Ipse veró in adolescentiâ cantum didicerat, & in suo coenobio mox cantari fecit; cum necdum in civitate seu in episcopatu universo canta●e scirent, vel vellent. Bernard. in vitâ Malachia.  The Apostolical constitutions, and the decrees of the holy Fathers, but especially the customs of the holy Church of Rome, did he establish in all Churches. And hence it is, that at this day the canonical Hours are chanted and sung therein, according to the manner of the whole earth: whereas before that, this was not done, no not in the city itself. (the poor city of Ardmagh he meaneth.) But Malachias had learned song in his youth, and shortly after caused singing to be used in his own Monastery; when as yet, aswell in the city as in the whole Bishopric, they either knew not, or would not sing. Lastly, the work was brought to perfection, when Christianus Bishop of Lismore, as Legate to the Pope, was Precedent in the Council of Casshell: wherein a special order was taken for 
l Officium etiam Ecclesiasticum ritè modulandum statuerunt. johan. Brampton, in ●oralanensi historiâ. MS.  the right singing of the Ecclesiastical Office; and a general act established, that 
m Omnia divina ad instar sacrosanctae Ecclesiae, iuxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia, in omnibus partibus Hiberniae amodo tractentur. Girald. Cambr. Hibern. ex pugna●. lib. 1. cap. 34.  all divine offices of holy Church should from thenceforth be handled in all parts of Ireland, according as the Church of England did observe them. The statutes of which Council were 
n Concilii statuta subscripta sunt, & Regiae sublimitatis authoritate firmata. Id. ib.  confirmed by the Regal authority of King Henry the second; 
o Ex ip sius triumphatoris mandato, in civitate Cassiliensi convenerunt Id. ibid.  by whose mandate, the Bishops that met therein were assembled, in the year of our Lord 1172. as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth, in his history of the Conquest of Ireland. And thus late was it, before the Roman use was fully settled in this kingdom.  
The public Liturgy or service of the Church, was of old named the Mass: even than also, when prayers only were said, without the celebration of the holy Communion. So the last Mass that S. Colme was ever present at, is noted by 
p Adamnan. Vit. Columb. lib. 3. cap. 31.  Adamnanus to have been vespertinalis Dominicae noctis Missa. He died the midnight following; whence the Lords day took his beginning (9º viz. junij, anno Dom. 597.) according to the account of the Romans: which the Scottish and Irish seem to have begun from the evening going before▪ and then was that evening Mass said: which in all likelihood, differed not from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by 
q Leon. Tactic. cap. 11. sect. 18.  Leo the Emperor in his Tactics, that is to say, from that which we call Evensong or Evening prayer. But the name of the Mass was in those days more specially applied to the administration of the Lords Supper: and therefore in the same 
r Adamnan. Vit. Columb. lib. 3. cap. 15.  Adamnanus we see that Sacra Eucharistiae ministeria and Missarum solemnia, the sacred ministry of the Eucharist and the solemnities of the Mass, are taken for the same thing. So likewise in the 
s Walafrid. Strab. Vit. Galli, lib. 1. cap. 26. Theodor. Campidonens. vel quicunque auth●r fuit Vit. Magni, lib. 1. cap. 9 edit. Goldast. cap. 12. Canisijs.  relation of the passages that concern the obsequies of Columbanus, performed by Gallus and Magnoaldus; we find that Missam celebrare and Missas agere, is made to be the same with Divina celebrare mysteria and Salutis hostiam (or salutare sacrificium) immolare: the saying of Mass, the same with the celebration of the divine mysteries and the oblation of the healthful sacrifice▪ for by that term was the administration of the sacrament of the Lords Supper at that time usually designed.  
For as in our 
t Hebr. 13.16. 2. Cor. 8.5.  beneficence, and communicating unto the necessities of the poor (which are sacrifices wherewith God is well pleased) we are taught to give both ourselves and our alms, first unto the Lord, and after unto our brethren by the will of God: so is it in this ministry of the blessed Sacrament. the service is first presented unto God, (from which, as from a most principal part of the duty, the sacrament itself is called the Eucharist; because therein we 
u Hebr. 13.15.  offer a special sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving always unto God) and then communicated unto the use of God's people. in the performance of which part of the service, both the minister was said to give, and the communicant to receive the sacrifice: as well as in respect of the former part, they were said to offer the same unto the Lord. For they did not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament, as the Romanists do now adays: but used the name of Sacrifice indifferently, both of that which was offered unto God, and of that which was given to and received by the communicant. Therefore we read of offering the sacrifice to God: as in that speech of Gallus to his scholar Magnoaldus; 
x Praeceptor meus B. Columbanus in vasis aeneis Domino solet sacrificium offerre salutis. Walaf. id. Strab. Vit. Gall. lib. 1. cap. 19  My master Columbanus is accustomed to offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of salvation in brazen vessels. Of giving the sacrifice to man: as when it is said in one of the ancient Synods of Ireland, that 
y Testamentum Episcopisive principis est; 10. scripuli Sacerdoti danti sibi sacrificium. Synod. Hibern. in vet. lib. Canonum Cottoniano, titulorum 66.  a Bishop by his Testament may bequeath a certain proportion of his goods for a legacy to the Priest that giveth him the sacrifice. and of receiving the sacrifice from the hands of the minister: as in that sentence of the Synod attributed unto S. Patrick; 
z Qui in vitâ suâ non merebitur sacrificium accipere: quomodo post mortem illi potest adjuvare? Synod. Patric. cap. 12.  He who deserveth not to receive the sacrifice in his life, how can it help him after his death? and in that gloss of Sedulius upon 1 Cor. 11.33. 
a Invicem expectate, id est, usque quo sacrificium accipiatis. Sedul. in 1. Cor. 11.  Tarry one for another, that is, (saith he) until you do receive the sacrifice. Whereby it doth appear, that the sacrifice of the elder times was not like unto the new Mass of the Romanists, wherein the Priest doth eat and drink alone, the people being only lookers on; but unto our Communion, where all that are present at the holy action do 
b Hebr. 13.10.  eat of the Altar, as well as they that serve the Altar.  
Again, they that are communicants in the Romish sacrament, receive the Eucharist in one kind only: the Priest in offering of the sacrifice receiveth the same distinctly, both by way of meat and by way of drink; which they tell us 
c Id fit potissimùm ob Sacrificii, non ob Sacramenti integritatem. Bellarmin. de sacrament Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 22. in fine.  is chiefly done, for the integrity of the Sacrifice and not of the Sacrament. For in the Sacrifice, they say, 
d Rhem. Annotat. in Matth. 26.26.  the several elements be consecrated, not into Christ's whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or now is in heaven: but the bread into his body apart, as betrayed, broken, and given for us; the wine into his blood apart, as shed out of his body for remission of sins and dedication of the new Testament, which be conditions of his person as he was in sacrifice and oblation. But our ancestors, in the use of their Sacrament, received the Eucharist in both kinds: not being so acute as to discern betwixt the things that belonged unto the integrity of the sacrifice & of the sacrament; because, in very truth, they took the one to be the other.  
Thus Bede relateth, that one Hildmer, an officer of Egfrid king of Northumberland, entreated our Cuthbert 
e Mittas presbyterum qui illum, priusquam moriatur, visitet; cique Dominici corporis & sanguinis sacramenta ministret. Bed. de Vit. Cuthbert. pros. cap. 15.  to send a Priest that might minister the sacraments of the Lords body and blood unto his wife that then lay a dying: and Cuthbert himself, immediately before his own departure out of this life, received the communion of the Lords body and blood; as 
f Acceptis á me sacramentis salutaribus exitum suum, quem jam venisse cognovit, Dominici corporis & sanguinis communione munivit Ibid. cap. 39  Herefride abbot of the monastery of Lindisfarne (who was the man that at that time ministered the sacrament unto him) made report unto the same Bede. who elsewhere also particularly noteth, that he then tasted of the cup. 

g Bed. de Vit. Cuthbert. carm. cap. 36.  Pocula degustat vitae, Christique supinum  
Sanguine munit iter.  lest any man should think, that under the forms of bread alone he might be said to have been partaker of the body & blood of the Lord, by way of Concomitance: which is a toy, that was not once dreamt of in those days. So that we need not to doubt, what is meant by that which we read in the book of the life of Furseus (which was written before the time of Bede) that 
h Petivitque & accepit sacri corporis & sanguinis communionem. Author antiqu. Vita Fursai.  he received the communion of the holy body and blood; and that he was wished to admonish 
i Principes & doctores Ecclesiae Christi, animas fideliu ad poenitentiae lamentum post culpas provocent; & eas spirituali pastu doctrinae, ac sacri corporis & sanguinis participatione solidas reddant. Ibid.  the Pastors of the Church, that they should strengthen the souls of the faithful with the spiritual food of doctrine, and the participation of the holy body and blood. or of that which Cogitosus writeth in the life of S. Brigid, touching the place in the Church of Kildare; 
k Per alterum ostium Abbatissa cum suis puellis & viduis fidelibus tantùm inerat, (leg. intrat) ut convivio corporis & sanguinis fivantur jesu Christi, Cogitos. rit. Brigid.  whereunto the abbottess with her maidens and widows used to resort, that they might enjoy the banquet of the body and blood of jesus Christ. which was agreeable to the practice, not only of the Nunneries founded beyond the seas according to the rule of Columbanus; where the Virgins 
l Quaedam ex his nomine Domna, cum iam corpus Domini accepisset, ac sanguinem libâsset. jon. Vit. Burgundofor.  received the body of the Lord, and sipped his blood (as appeareth by that which jonas relateth of Domna, in the life of Burgundofora:) but also of S. Brigid herself, who was the foundress of the monastery of Kildare; one of whose miracles is reported, even in the later Legends, to have happened when she was about to drink out of the Chalice, at the time of her receiving of the Eucharist. which they that list to look after, may find in the collections of Capgrave, Surius, and such like.  
But, you will say; these testimonies that have been alleged, make not so much for us, in proving the use of the communion under both kinds, as they make against us, in confirming the opinion of Transubstantiation: seeing they all specify the receiving, not of bread and wine, but of the body and blood of Christ. I answer, that forasmuch as Christ himself at the first institution of his holy Supper did say expressly; This is my body, and, This is my blood: he deserveth not the name of a Christian, that will question the truth of that saying, or refuse to speak in that language, which he hath heard his Lord and Master use before him. The question only is, in what sense, and after what manner, these things must be conceived to be his body & blood. Of which there needed to be little question: if men would be pleased to take into their consideration these two things; which were never doubted of by the ancient, and have most evident ground in the context of the Gospel. First, that the subject of those sacramental propositions delivered by our Saviour (that is to say, the demonstrative particle THIS) can have reference to no other substance, but that which he then held in his sacred hands, namely, bread and wine: which are of so different a nature from the body and blood of Christ, that the one cannot possibly in proper sense be said to be the other; as the light of common reason doth force the Romanists themselves to confess. Secondly, that in the predicate, or later part of the same propositions, there is not mention made only of Christ's body and blood; but of his body broken, and his blood shed: to show, that his body is to be considered here apart, not as it was borne of the Virgin or now is in heaven, but as it was broken and crucified for us, and his blood likewise apart, not as running in his veins, but as shed out of his body; which the Rhemists have told us to be conditions of his person, as he was in sacrifice and oblation.  
And lest we should imagine, that his body were otherwise to be considered in the sacrament then in the sacrifice; in the one alive, as it is now in heaven, in the other dead, as it was offered upon the cross: the Apostle putteth the matter out of doubt, that not only the minister in offering, but also the people in receiving, even 
m 1. Cor. 11.26.  as often as they eat this bread and drink this cup, do show the Lords death until he come. Our elders surely, that held the sacrifice to be given and received (for so we have heard themselves speak) as well as offered; did not consider otherwise of Christ in the sacrament then as he was in sacrifice and oblation. If here therefore, Christ's body be presented as broken and liveless, and his blood as shed forth and severed from his body; and it be most certain, that there are no such things now really existent any where (as is confessed on all hands:) then must it follow necessarily, that the bread and wine are not converted into these things really. The 
n 1. Rhem. in Matth. 26.26.  Rhemists indeed tell us, that when the Church doth offer and sacrifice Christ daily; he in mystery and sacrament dieth. Further than this they durst not go: for if they had said, he died really; they should thereby not only make themselves daily killers of Christ, but also directly cross that principle of the Apostle, Rom. 6.9. Christ being raised from the dead dyeth no more. If then the body of Christ in the administration of the Eucharist be propounded as dead (as hath been showed) & die it cannot really but only in mystery and sacrament: how can it be thought to be contained under the outward elements, otherwise then in sacrament & mystery? and such as in times past were said to have received the sacrifice from the hand of the Priest; what other body and blood could they expect to receive therein, but such as was suitable to the nature of that sacrifice, to wit, mystical and sacramental?  
Coelius Sedulius (to whom Gelasius Bishop of Rome, with his Synod of LXX. Bishops, giveth the title of 
o Venerabilis viri Sedulii Paschale opus, quod heroicis descripsit versibus, insigni laude praeferimus. Synod. Roman. sub Gelasio.  venerable Sedulius; and Hildephonsus Toletanus of the 
p Bonus Sedulius, poëta Evangelicus, orator facundus, scriptor catholicus. Hildephons. Toletan. serm. 5. de assumpt. Mariae.  good Sedulius, the Evangelicall poet, the eloquent orator, and the catholic writer) is by Trithemius and others supposed to be the same with our 
q Sedulii Scoti Hiberniensis, in omnes epistolas Pauli Collectan: excus. Basil. an. 1528.  Sedulius of Scotland (or Ireland) whose Collections are extant upon S. Paul's Epistles: although I have forborn hitherto to use any of his testimonies, because I have some reason to doubt, whether he were the same with our Sedulius or no. But Coelius Sedulius (whatsoever countryman he was) intimateth plainly, that the things offered in the Christian sacrifice, are the fruit of the corn and of the vine: 
(
r Sedul. Carm. Paschal. lib. 4.  Denique Pontificum princeps summusque Sacerdos  
Quis nisi Christus adest? geminy libaminis author,  
Ordine Melchisedech, cui dantur munera semper  
Quae sua sunt, segetis fructus, & gaudia vitis.)  or, as he expresseth it in his prose, 
s Triticeae sementis cibus suavis, & amaenae vitis potus amabilis. Id. pros. lib. 4. cap. 14.  the sweet meat of the seed of wheat, and the lovely drink of the pleasant vine. Of Melchisedek (according to whose order Christ, and he only, was Priest) our own Sedulius writeth thus: 
t Melchisedech vinum & panem obtulit Abraham, in figuram Christi, corpus & sanguinem suum Deo patri in cruse offerentis. Sedul. in Hebr. 5.  Melchisedek offered wine and bread to Abraham, for a figure of Christ, offering his body and blood unto God his father upon the Crosse. Where note, that first he saith, Melchisedek offered bread and wine to Abraham, not to God: and secondly, that he was a figure of Christ offering his body and blood upon the cross, not in the Eucharist. But we (saith 
u Nos veró in commemorationem Dominicae semel passionis quotidie nostraeque salutis offerimus. Id. in Hebr. 10.  he) do offer daily, for a commemoration of the Lords passion (once performed) and our own salvation. and elsewhere, expounding those words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me; he bringeth in this similitude, used before and after him by others. 
x Suam memoriam nobis reliquit: quenadmodum si▪ quis peregrè proficiscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat; ut quotiescunque illud viderit, possit eius beneficia & amicitias recordari. Id. in 1. Cor. 11.  He left a memory of himself unto us: even as if one that were going a far journey, should leave some token with him whom he loved; that as oft as he beheld it, he might call to remembrance his benefits and friendship.  
Claudius noteth, that our Saviour's 
y Voluit antè discipulis suis tradere sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui, quod significavit in fractione corporis (so it is in my transcript: but it should doubtless ●e panis) & effusione calicis; & posteà ipsum corpus immolari in ara Crucis. Claud. lib. 3. in Matth.  pleasure was, first to deliver unto his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood; and afterwards to offer up the body itself upon the altar of the cross: thereby plainly distinguishing the sacrament from the body represented thereby. and for the sacramental relation betwixt the one and the other, he yieldeth this reason. 
z Quia panis corpus confirmat, vinum veró sanguinem operatur in carne: hic ad corpus Christi mysticé, illud refertur ad sanguinem. Id. ibid.  Because bread doth confirm the body, and wine doth work blood in the flesh: therefore the one is mystically referred to the body of Christ, the other to his blood. Which doctrine of Claudius Scotus (that the sacrament is in it own nature bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ by mystical relation) was within fifty or threescore years afterwards so fully maintained by johannes Scotus in a book that he purposely wrote of that argument: that when it was alleged and extolled by Berengarius; Pope Leo (the ninth) with his Bishops assembled in Synodo Vercellensi, ano. Domi. 1050. (which was 235. years after the time that Claudius wrote his commentaries upon S. Matthew) had no other means to avoid it, but by flat 
a johannis Scoti liber de Eucharistiâ lectus est, ac damnatus. Lanfranc. de Eucharist. contr. Berengar.  condemning of it. Of what great esteem this john was with king Alfred, may be seen in William of Malmesbury, Roger Hoveden, Matthew of Westminster and other writers of the English history. The King himself, in the preface before his Saxon translation of S. Gregory's Pastoral, professeth that he was holpen in that work by 
b johanne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aelfred. prafat. in Gregor. Pastoral Saxoni●.  john his Mass-priest. By whom if he did mean this john of ours: you may see, how in those days a man might be held a Mass-priest, who was far enough from thinking that he offered up the very body and blood of Christ really present under the forms of bread and wine; which is the only Mass that our Romanists take knowledge of.  
Of which wonderful point how ignorant our elders were, even this also may be one argument: that the author of the book of the wonderful things of the holy Scripture (who is accounted to have lived here, about the year of our Lord DCLVII.) passeth this quite over, which is now esteemed to be the wonder of all wonders. And yet doth he profess, that he 
c Praesertim cum ex mirabilibus Scripturae Dominicae nil▪ praeterire disposui, in quibus á ministerio quotidiano excellere in aliis videntur. Lib. ●. de mirabilib. Scripture. cap. 21. (inter opera B. Augustini, tom. 3.)  purposed to pass over nothing of the wonders of the Scripture, wherein they might seem notably to swerve from the ordinary administration in other things. Only when he cometh to the apocryphal additions of Daniel he telleth us, that what is reported 
d De lacu veró iterùm & Abacuk translato in Belis & Draconis fabulâ, id circo in hoc ordine non ponitur; quòd in authoritate divinae Scripturae non habentur. Ibid. cap. 32.  touching the lake (or den) and the carrying of Abackuk, in the fable of Bel and the Dragon, is not therefore placed in this rank, because these things have not the authority of divine Scripture. as also, when he cometh to the Maccabees: 
e In Macca baeorum ibris etsi aliquid mirabilium numero inserendum conveniens fuisse huic ordini inveniatur; de hoc tamen nullâ curâ fatige bimur: quia tantum agere proposuimus, ut de divini canonis mirabilibus exi guam (quamvis ingenioli nostri modulum excedentem) historicam expositionem ex parte aliquâ tangeremus. Ibid. cap. 34.  In the books of the Maccabees, saith he, howsoever some wonderful things be found, which might conveniently be inserted into this rank; yet will we not weary ourselves with any care thereof: because we only purposed to touch in some measure a short historical exposition of the wonderful things contained in the divine Canon. Which two last sentences I thought good not to pretermitt: because thereby men may see, that in the distinction of the apocryphal books from the Canonical, we still retain the tradition of our ancestors; which the late Romanists have openly forsaken.  
Who, as they have increased the Canon of the divine Scriptures, by addition of other books not received into that rank by the ancient Church: so have they augmented the number of the Sacraments, by intruding into that reckoning five new ones; to wit, Confirmation, Penance (which carrieth sacramental Confession and Absolution with it) Matrimony, Orders, and Extreme Unction. Of the last of which I find no mention at all, of the next to that, very frequent mention, but no where as of a sacrament; in any of our writings, that may appear to have been written before the Hildebrandine times. Touching the rest, Bernard reporteth, that Malachias in his time (which was after Hildebrands' days) did 
f Vsum saluberrimum Confessionis, sacramentum Confirmationis, contractum con●ugiorum (quae omnia aut ignorabant aut negligebant) M●lachias de novo instituit. Bernard in Vit. Mala●●iae.  of the new institute the most wholesome use of Confession, the sacrament of Confirmation, and the contract of marriages: all which he saith the Irish before were either ignorant of, or did neglect. Which, for the matter of Confession, may receive some further confirmation from the testimony of Alcuinus: who writing unto the Scottish (or, as other copies read, the Gothish) & commending the religious conversation of their laity, who 
g Inter mundanas occupationes castissimam vitam ratio●abili consideratione degere dicuntur. Alcuin. epist. 26. edit. H. Can s●●, 71. Andreae Quercetani  in the midst of their worldly employments were said to lead a most chaste life; condemneth notwithstanding another custom, which was said to have continued in that country. For 
h Dicitur veró neminem ex Laicis suam velle Confessionem sacerdotibus dare: quos á Deo Christo cum sanctis Apostolis ligandi solvendique potes●a emaccepisse credimus. Ibid.  it is said (quoth he) that no man of the laiety will make his confession to the Priests; whom we believe to have received from the Lord Christ, the power of binding and losing, together with the holy Apostles.  
They had no reason indeed to hold (as Alcuinus did) that they ought to confess unto a Priest all the sins they could remember: but upon special occasions, they did (no doubt) both publicly and privately make confession of their faults; aswell that they might receive counsel and direction for their recovery, as that they might be made partakers of the benefit of the keys, for the quieting of their troubled consciences. Whatsoever the Gothish did herein: sure we are, that this was the practice of the ancient Scottish and Irish. So we read of one Fiachna or Fechnau●, that being touched with remorse for some offence committed by him, he fell at S. Colmes feet, lamented bitterly, and 
i Coram omnibus qui ibidem erant peccata sua confessus est, Adamnan. Vit. Columb. lib. 1. cap. 16. (vel 20. in MS.)  confessed his sins before all that were there present. Whereupon the holy man, weeping together with him, is said to have returned this answer: 
k Surge fili, & consolare: dimissa sunt tua, quae commisisti, peccamina. quia sicut scriptum est; Cor contritum & humiliatum Deus non spernit. Ibid.  Rise up, Son, and be comforted, thy sins which thou hast committed are forgiven; because (as it is written) a contrite and an humbled heart God doth not despise. We read also of Adamanus, that being very much terrified with the remembrance of a grievous sin committed by him in his youth; he 
l Accedens ad Sacerdotem, á quo sibi sperabat iter salutis posse demonstrari; confessus est r●atum suum, petiitque ut consilium sibi daret, quo posset fugere á venturâ Dei irâ. Bed. lib. 4. histor. cap. 25.  resorted unto a Priest, by whom he hoped the way of salvation might be showed unto him, he confessed his guilt, and entreated that he would give him counsel, whereby he might flee from the wrath of God that was to come.  
Now the counfell commonly given unto the Penitent after Confession, was; that he should 
m Confessa dignis (ut imperabat) poenitentiae fructibus abstergerent. Id. ibid. cap. 27.  wipe away his sins by meet fruits of repentance: which course Bede observeth to have been usually prescribed by our Cuthbert. For penances were then exacted, as testimonies of the sincerity of that inward repentance which was necessarily required for obtaining remission of the sin: and so had reference to the taking away of the guilt, and not of the temporal punishment remaining after the forgiveness of the guilt; which is the new found use of penances, invented by our later Romanists. One old Penitential Canon we find laid down in a Synod held in this country about the year of our Lord CCCCXL. by S. Patrick, Auxilius, and Isserninus: which is as followeth. 
n Christianus qui occiderit, aut fornicationem fecerit, aut more Gentilium ad aruspicem meaverit; per singula crimina annum poenitentiae agate, impleto cum testibus veniat anno Poenitentiae, & posteà resolvetur á Sacerdote. Synod. Patricij, Auxilij & Issernini MS. in Bibliothecâ Collegij Benedict. Cantabrig.  A Christian who hath killed a man, or committed fornication, or gone unto a soothsayer after the manner of the Gentiles, for every of those crimes shall do a year of Penance: when his year of penance is accomplished, he shall come with witnesses, and afterward he shall be absolved by the Priest. These Bishops did take order (we see) according to the discipline generally used in those times, that the penance should first be performed; and when long and good proof had been given by that means of the truth of the party's repentance, they wished the Priest to impart unto him the benefit of Absolution▪ whereas by the new devise of sacramental penance the matter is now far more easily transacted: by virtue of the keys the sinner is instantly of attrite made contrite, and thereupon as soon as he hath made his Confession he presently receiveth his Absolution: after this, some sorry penance is imposed, which upon better consideration may be converted into pence; and so a quick end is made of many a foul business.  
But for the right use of the keys, we fully accord with Claudius: that 
o Necnon etiam nunc in Episcopis ac Presbyteris omni Ecclesiae officium idem committitur: ut videlicèt agnitis peccantium caussis, quoscunque humiles ac vere poenitentes aspexerint, hos jam á timore perpetuae mortis miserantes absolvant; quos vero in peccatis quae egerint persistere cognoverint, illos perennibus supplicus obligandos insinuent. Claud in Matth. lib. 2.  the office of remitting and retaining sins which was given unto the Apostles, is now in the Bishops and Priests committed unto every Church. namely, that having taken knowledge of the causes of such as have sinned, as many as they shall behold humble and truly penitent, those they may now with compassion absolve from the fear of everlasting death; but such as they shall discern to persist in the sins which they have committed, those they may declare to be bound over unto never ending punishments. And in thus absolving such as be truly penitent, we willingly yield, that the Pastors of God's Church do remit sins after their manner, that is to say, ministerially and improperly: so that the privilege of forgiving sins properly and absolutely, be still reserved unto God alone. Which is at large set out by the same Claudius; where he expoundeth the history of the man sick of the palsy, that was cured by our Saviour in the ninth of S. Matthew. For following Bede, upon that place, he writeth thus. 
p Verum dicunt Scribae, quia nemo dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus potest; qui per eos quoque dimittit, quibus dimittendi tribuit potestatem. Et ideò Christus veré Deus esse probatur; quia dimittere peccata quasi Deus potest. Verum Deo testimonium reddunt; sed personam Christi negando falluntur. Id. in Matth. lib. 1.  The Scribes say true, that none can forgive sins but God alone; who also forgiveth by them, to whom he hath given the power of forgiving. And therefore is Christ proved to be truly God; because he forgiveth sins as God. They render a true testimony unto God: but in denying the person of Christ, they are deceived. and again. 
q Si & Deus est, juxta Psalmistam, qui quantum distat Oriens ab occasu elongavit á nobis iniquitates nostras; & silius hominis potestatem habet in terrâ dimittendi peccata: ergo idem ipse & Deus & filius hominis est. ut & homo Christus per divinitatis suae potentiam peccata dimittere possit; & idem Deus Christus per humanitatis suae fragilitatem pro peccatoribus mor●. Ibid.  If it be God that, according to the Psalmist, removeth our sins as far from us, as the East is distant from the West; and the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins: therefore he himself is both God and the Son of man. that both the man Christ might by the power of his divinity forgive sins; and the same Christ being God, might by the frailty of his humanity dye for sinners. and out of S. Hierome: 
r Ostendit se Deum, qui potest cordis occulta cognoscere; & quodam modo tacens loquitur. Eâdem majestate & potentiâ quâ cogitationes vestras intucor, possum & hominibus delicta dimittere. Ibid.  Christ showeth himself to be God, who can know the hidden things of the heart; and after a sort holding his peace he speaketh. By the same majesty & power, whereby I behold your thoughts, I can also forgive sins unto men. In like manner doth the author of the book of the wonderful things of the Scripture observe these 
s In paralytico á quatuor viris portato, quatuor divina opera cernuntur. Dum dimittuntur ei peccata, & praesentis aegritudinis plaga verbo tunc solvitur, & cogitationibus in ore Dei omnia scrutantis respondetur. Auth. lib. de Mirabilib. S. Scripture. lib. 3. cap. 7.  divine works in the same history: the forgiving of sins, the present cure of the disease, and the answering of the thoughts by the mouth of God who searcheth all things. With whom, for the property of beholding the secret thoughts, Sedulius also doth concur, in those sentences. 
t Deus solus potest occulta hominum scire. Sedul. in Rom. 2.  God alone can know the hidden things of men. 
u Corda hominum nôsse solius Dei est, & mentis secreta agnoscere. Id. ibid.  To know the hearts of men, and to discern the secrets of the mind, is the privilege of God alone.  
That the contract of Marriages, was either unknown or neglected by the Irish, before Malachias did institute the same anew among them (as Bernard doth seem to intimate) is a thing almost incredible. although 
x Nondum decimas vel primitias solvunt: nondum matrimonia contrahunt; non ince●●us vitant. Girald. Cambr. Topograph. Hibern. distinct. 3. cap. 19  Giraldus Cambrensis doth complain that the case was little better with them after the time of Malachias also. The licentiousness of those ●uder times, I know, was such, as may easily induce us to believe, that a great both neglect and abuse of God's ordinance did get footing among this people. Which enormities Malachias, no doubt, did labour to reform: and withal peradventure brought in some new matters, not known here before; as he was very desirous, his countrymen should generally conform themselves unto the traditions and customs of the Church of Rome. But our purpose is here only to deal with the doctrine and practice of the elder times: in which, first, that Marriage was not held to be a sacrament, may be collected from 
y Videtur indicare, esse aliquid quod donum quidem ●it, non tamen spirituale: ut Nuptiae. Sedul. in Rom. 1.  Sedulius, who reckoneth it among those things, which are gifts indeed, but not spiritual. Secondly, for the degrees of Consanguinity hindering marriage, the Synod attributed unto S. Patrick seemeth to refer us wholly unto the levitical law; prescribing therein 
z De consanguinitate in coniugio. Intelligite quid Lex loquitur, non minùs nec plus. Quod autem observatur apud nor, ut quatuor genera dividantur; nec vidisse dicunt nec legissaes. Synod. Patrie. cap 29.  neither less nor more than the Law speaketh: and particularly, against matching with the wife of the deceased brother (which was the point so much questioned in the case of King Henry the eight) this 
a Audi decreta Synodi super istis. Frater thorum defuncti fratris non ascendat: Domino dicente, Erunt duo in carne unâ. Ergo uxor fratris tui soror tua est. Ibid. cap. 25. & in Excerpti● é jure Sacerdotali Egber●i archiepiscoper Hucarium Levitam. MS.  Synodical decree is there urged. The brother may not ascend into the bed of his deceased brother: the Lord having said, They two shall be one flesh. Therefore the wife of thy brother, is thy sister. Yet how far this abuse prevailed afterward in this country, and how foul a crime it was esteemed to be by others abroad (notwithstanding the Pope doth now by his Bulls of dispensation take upon him to make a fair matter of it) may easily be perceived by this censure of Giraldus: 
b Quinimo (quod valde detestabile est, & non tantùm fidei, sed & cuilibet honestati valde contrarium) fratres pluribus per Hiberniam locis fratrum defunctorum uxores, non dico ducunt, sed traducunt, imo veriùs seducunt; dum turpiter eas, & tam incestuosé cognoscunt: vetoris in hoc testamenti non medullae sed cortici adhaerentes, veteresque libentiùs in vitiis quam virtutibus imitari volente●. Girald. Cambr. Topograph. Hibern. distinct. 3. cap. 19  Moreover, saith he, which is very detestable, and most contrary not only to the faith but also unto common honesty; brethren in many places throughout Ireland do, I say not marry, but mar rather and seduce the wives of their deceased brothers, while in this sort they filthily and incestuously have knowledge of them: cleaving herein not to the marrow but to the bark of the old testament, and desiring to imitate the ancient in vices more willingly then in virtues.  
Thirdly, touching divorces, we read in Sedulius; that 
c Non licet secundùm proeceptum Domini ut dimittatur conjunx, nisi caussâ fornicationis. Sedul. in 1. Cor. 7.  it is not lawful, according to the precept of our Lord, that the wife should be put away, but for the cause of fornication. and in the Synod ascribed to S. Patrick. 
d Non licet viro dimittere uxorem nisi ob caussam fornicationis. ac si dicat, ob hanc caussam. Vnde si ducat alteram, velut post mortem prioris, non vetant. Synod. Patric. cap. 26.  It is not lawful for a man to put away his wife, but for the cause of fornication, as if he should say; for this cause, he may. Whence if he marry another, as it were after the death of the former, they forbid it not. Who they were, that did not forbid this second marriage, is not there expressed: that S. Patrick himself was of another mind, would appear by this constitution following; which in another ancient Canon-book I found cited under his name. 
e Si alicujus uxor fornicata fuerit cum alio viro: non adducet aliam uxorem, quandiu viva fuerit uxor prima. Si fortè conversa fuerit, & agate poenitentiam, suscipiet eam; & se●●iet ei in vicem ancillae: & annum integrum in pane & aquâ per mensuram poeni●eat; nec in uno lecto permaneant. Ex libro Canonum Cottoniano, titulorum 66.  If any man's wife have committed adultery with another man: he shall not marry another wife, as long as the first wife shall be alive. If peradventure she be converted, and do penance: he shall receive her; and she shall serve him in the place of a maid servant. Let her for a whole year do penance in bread and water, and that by measure: neither let them remain in the same bed together. Fourthly, concerning single life, I do not find in any of our records, that it was generally imposed upon the Clergy; but the contrary rather. For in the Synod held by S. Patrick, Auxilius, and Isserninus; there is a special order taken, 
f Quicunque Clericus, ab Ostiario usque ad Sacerdoten, sine tunicâ visus fuerit, etc. & uxor ejus si non velato capite ambulaverit: pariter á laicis contemnentur, & ab Ecclesiâ separentur. Synod. Patric. Auxil. Issernin.  that their wives shall not walk abroad, with their heads uncovered. And S. Patrick himself confesseth (at leastwise the Confession which goeth under his name saith so; and Probus, jocelinus, and others that write his life, agree therewith) that he 
g Patrem habui Calpornium Diaconem, filium quondam Potiti presbyteri. S. Patricij Confessio. MS.  had to his father Calpurnius a Deacon, and to his grandfather Potitus a Priest. True it is, that for the most part the Clergy here did live unmarried: but the special reason thereof was, because 
h Feré omnes Hiberniae praelati de monasteriis in clerum electi sunt. Girald. Cambren. Topograph. Hibern. distinct. 3. cap. 29.  almost all the prelate's of Ireland were chosen into the Clergy out of monasteries, not because that secular Priests were by any law debarred from marriage.  
For our monasteries in ancient time were the seminaries of the ministry: being as it were so many Colleges of learned divines, whereunto the people did usually resort for instruction, and from whence the Church was wont continually to be supplied with able ministers. The benefit whereof was not only contained within the limits of this Island, but did extend itself to foreign countries likewise. For this was it that drew 
i Ecgbertus cum Ceadda adolescente & ipse adolescens in Hiberniâ monasticam in orationibus & continentiâ & meditatione divinarum scripturarum vitam sedulus agebat. Bed. lib. 4. ●ist. cap. 3.  Egbert and Ceadda (for example) into Ireland; that they might there lead a monastical life in prayers and continency and meditation of the holy Scriptures: and hence were those famous monasteries planted in England by Aidan, Finan, Colman, and others; unto which 
k Sed & diebus Dominicis ad ecclesiam sive ad monasteria certatim, non reficiendi corporis, sed erudiendi sermonis Dei gratiá confluebant. Id. lib. 3. cap. 26.  the people flocked apace on the Lord's day; not for the feeding of their body, but for the learning of the word of God, as Beda witnesseth. Yea this was the principal means, whereby the knowledge both of the Scriptures and of all other good learning was preserved, in that inundation of babarisme, wherewith the whole West was in a manner overwhelmed. Hitherto (saith 
l Hactenus videri poterat actum esse cum sapientiae studiis; nisi semen Deus seruâsset in aliquo mundi angulo. In Scotis & Hibernis haeserat aliquid adhuc de doctrinâ cognitionis Dei & honestatis civilis, quòd nullus fuerit in ultimis illis mundi finibus armorum terror. etc. Et summam possumus ibi conspicere & adorare Dei bonitatem; quòd in Scotis, & locis, ubi nemo putâsset, tam numerosi coaluerint sub strictissimâ disciplinâ caetus jacob. Curio, lib. 2. rerum Chronologie.  Curio) it might seem that the studies of wisdom should quite have perished; unless God had reserved a seed in some corner of the world. Among the Scottish and the Irish something as yet remained of the doctrine of the knowledge of God and of civil honesty; because there was no terror of arms in those utmost ends of the world. And we may there behold and adore the great goodness of God; that among the Scots, and in those places where no man would have thought it, so many great companies should be gathered together under a most strict discipline.  
How strict their discipline was, may appear partly by the Rule & partly by the Daily penances of Monks; which are yet extant of Columbanus his writing. In the later of these, for the disobedience of Monks these penances are prescribed. 
m Si quis frater inobediens fuerit; duos dies uno paxmate & aquâ. Si quis dicit, Non faciam; tres dies uno paxmatio & aquâ. Si quis murmurat; duos dies, uno paxmatio & aquâ. Si quis veniam non p●tit, aut dicit excusationem; duos dies, uno paxmatio & aquâ. Columban. lib de quotidianis Poenitemijs monachor. cap. 10.  If any brother be disobedient; he shall fast two days, with one biscuit and water. If any say, I will not do it; three days, with one biscuit and water. If any murmur; two days, with one biscuit and water. If any do not ask leave, or tell an excuse; two days, with one biscuit and water. and so in other particulars. In his Rule, these good lessons doth he give unto his Monks, among many others. That 
n Quid prodest, si virgo corpore sit, & non sit virgo ment? Id. in Regulâ monachor. cap. 8.  it profited them little, if they were virgins in body, and were not virgins in mind. that they 
o Quotidie proficiendum est: sicut quotidie orandum, quot ●●ieque est legendum. Ibid. cap. 5.  should daily profit, as they did daily pray, and daily read. that 
p Bona vané laudata Pharisaei perierunt: & peccata publicani accusata evanuerunt Non exeat igitur verbum grande de ore Monachi: ne suus grandis pereat labour. Ibid. cap. 7.  the good things of the Pharisee being vainly praised were lost, and the sins of the Publican being accused vanished away: and therefore that a great word should not come out of the mouth of a Monk, lest his great labour should perish. They were not taught to vaunt of their state of perfection, and works of supererogation: or to argue from thence (as Celestius the Pelagian monk sometime did) that 
q Tantam nos habere per naturam liberi arbitrii non peccandi possibilitatem: ut plus etiam quam praeceptum est, faciamus: quoniam perpetua servatur á plerisque virginitas, quae praecepta non est; cum ad non peccandum praecepta implere sufficiat Augustin. de gestis Pelagij. cap. 13.  by the nature of their free will they had such a possibility of not sinning, that they were able also to do more than was commanded; because they did observe perpetual virginity which is not commanded, whereas for not sinning it is sufficient to fulfil the precepts. It was one of the points which Gallus (the scholar of Columbanus) delivered in his sermon preached at Constance; that our Saviour 
r Ipsis Apostolis & eorum sequacibus ita bonum virginitatis arripiendum persuasit: ut hoc scirent non humanae industriae, sed muneris esse divini S. Gallus, in serm. habit Constant.  did so persuade the Apostles and their followers to lay hold upon the good of virginity; that yet they should know, it was not of humane industry, but of divine gift. and it is a good observation which we read in Claudius: that 
s Non in solo rerum corporearum nitore, sed etiam in ipsis sordibus luctuosis esse posse jactantiam: & eo periculosiorem, quo sub nomine servitutis Dei decipit. Claud. lib. 1. in Matth.  not only in the splendour of bodily things, but also in mournful abasing of one's self, there may be boasting; and that so much the more dangerous, as it deceiveth under the name of the service of God.  
Our Monks were religious in deed, and not in name only; far from the hypocrisy, pride, idleness and uncleanness of those evil beasts and slothful bellies that afterward succeeded in their room. Under colour of forsaking all, they did not hook all unto themselves; nor under semblance of devotion did they devour widow's houses: they held begging to be no point of perfection; but 
t Act. 20.35.  remembered the words of our Lord jesus, how he said, It is a more blessed thing to give rather than to take. When King Sigebert made large offers unto Columbanus and his companions, to keep them within his dominions in France: he received such another answer from them, as 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Euseb l●b. 1. hist. cap. ult.  Thaddaeus in the Ecclesiastical history is said to have given unto Abgarus the governor of Edessa: 
x Qui nostra reliquimus, ut secundùm Evangelicam ●ussionem Dominum sequeremur, non debemus alienas amplecti divitias; ne fortè praevaricatores simus divini mandati. Walafrid. Strab. Vit. Galli, lib. 1. cap. 2.  We who have forsaken our own, that according to the commandment of the Gospel we might follow the Lord, ought not to embrace other men's riches; lest peradventure we should prove transgressors of the divine commandment. How then did these men live; will you say? Walafridus Strabus telleth us, that 
y Alii hortum laboraverunt, alii arbores pomiferas excoluerunt: B. veró Gallus texebat retia, etc. & de eodem labore assiduas populo benedictiones exhibuit. Ibid. cap. 6.  some of them wrought in the garden, others dressed the orchard; Gallus made nets and took fish, wherewith he not only relieved his own company, but was helpful also unto strangers. So Bede reporteth of Cuthbert, that when he retired himself unto an anchoretical life, he 
z Et primùm quidem permodieum ab eis panem, quo vesceretur accipiebat, ac suo bibebat é sonte: postmodùm veró proprio manuum labore juxta exempla patrum vivere magis apt● ducebat. Rogavit ergo afferri sibi instrumenta quibus terram exerceret, & triticum quod sereret. Bed Vit. Cuthbert. prof. cap. 19 Vid. lib. 4. hist. eccles. cap. 28.  first indeed received a little bread from his brethren to feed upon, and drank out of his own well; but afterwards he thought it more fit to live by the work of his own hands, after the example of the Fathers: and therefore entreated, that instruments might be brought him wherewith he might till the earth, and corn that he might sow. 

a Id. in Car●. de vis. Cuthbert. cap. 17.  Quique suis cupiens victum conquirere palmis;  
Incultam pertentat humum proscindere ferro,  
Et sator edomitis anni spem credere glebis.  The like doth he relate of 
b Id. lib. 3. hist. eccles. cap. 19  Furseus; and Bonifacius of 
c Bonifac. in Vitâ lavini, pag. 240.  Livinus; and Theodorus Campidonensis (or whosoever else wrote that book) of 
d Theod. Campid. Vit. Magni, lib. 1 cap. 5. edit. G●ldasti, 6. Canisijs.  Gallus, Magnoaldus, and the rest of the followers of Columbanus; that they got their living by the labour of their own hands. And the 
e 2. Thess. 3.12.  Apostles rule is generally laid down for all Monks, in the life of Furseus: 
f Qui in monasteriis degunt, cum silentio operantes, suum panem manducent. Vit. Fursei.  They which live in monasteries should work with silence, and eat their own bread.  
I pass by a like sentence, which we read in the life of S. Brendan; 
g Monachum oporter labore man●um suar● vesci & vestiri. Vit. Brendani.  A Monk ought to be fed and clothed with the labour of his own hands: that is more memorable, which others do write of the same Brendan; that he 
h Tribus monachorum (quam suis, sibi ipsi laboribus victum, manibus operando suppeditabant) millibus praefuisse creditur. Nicol. Harpifeld. histor. Ecclesiast. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 25.  governed three thousand Monks, who by their own labours and handiwork did earn their living. Such was the monastery of Magio, founded in this country by Bishop Colman for the entertainment of the English: where they 
i Ad exemplum venerabilium patrum, sub regulâ & abbate canonico, in magnâ continentiâ & sinceritate proprio labore man●um vivunt. Bed. li. 4. hist. ecclesiast. cap. 4.  did live, according to the example of the reverend Fathers (as Bede writeth) under a rule and a● canonical abbot, in great continency and sincerity, with the labour of their own hands. Such also was the monastery of Mailros planted by Bishop Aidan and his followers in Northumberland; where S. Cuthbert had his education: who affirmed, that 
k jure, inquit, est coenobitarum vita miranda, qui Abbatis per omnia subjiciuntur imperiis; ad ejus arbitrium cuncta vigilandi, orandi, jejunandi, atque operandi tempora moderantur. Bed. Vit Cuthbert. pros cap. 22.  the life of such monks was justly to be admired, which were in all things subject to the commands of their Abbot; and ordered all the times of their watching, praying, fasting, and working, according to his direction.  

l Id. Carm. cap. 20.  Excubiasque, famemque, preces, manuumque laborem  
Ad votum gaudent proni fraenare regentis.  
As for their fasting (for of their watching and praying there is no question made; and of their working we have already spoken sufficiently) by the rule of Columbanus, they were 
m Quotidic● jeiunandun est, sicut quotidie reficiendum est. Columban. Regul cap. 5.  every day to fast, and every day to eat: that by this means, 
n Quia haec est vera discretio, ut possibilitas spiritalis profectus cum abstinentiâ carnem macerante retentetur. Ibid.  the enabling of them for their spiritual proficiency might be retained, together with the abstinence that did macerate the flesh. He would therefore have them 
o Ideò quotidie edendum est, quia quotidie proficiendum est. Ibid.  every day to eat, because they were every day to profit; and because 
p Si enim modum abstinentia excesserit, vitium non virtus erit. Ibid.  abstinence, if it did exceed measure, would pro●e a vice and not a virtue. and he would have them to fast every day too, that is, not to eat any meat at all (for other fasts were not known in those days) until evening. Let the food of Monks (saith 
q Cibus sit vilis & vespertinus Monachorum, satietatem fugiens & potus ebrietatem; ut & sustineat, & non noceat. Ibid.  he) be mean, and taken at evening; flying satiety, and excess of drink: that it may both sustain them, and not hurt them. This was the daily fasting and feeding of them that lived according to Columbanus his rule. Such as followed the instructions of Bishop 
r Cuius exemplis informati, tempore illo, religiosi quique viri ac foeminae, consuetudinem fecerunt per totum annum, (exceptâ remissione quinquagesimae Paschalis) quartâ & sextá sabbati i●iunium ad nonam usque horam protelare. Bed. lib. 3. hist. eccles. cap. 5.  Aidan, observed this kind of fast on Wednesdays & Friday's only: upon which days they forbore eating of any meat until the ninth hour, that is to say, until three of the clock in the afternoon, according unto our account. So Bishop Cedd (who was brought up at Lindisfarne with Aidan and Finan) keeping a strict fast, upon a special occasion, in the time of Lent, did 
s Quibus diebus cunctis, exceptâ Dominicâ, i●iunium ad vesperam iuxta morem protelans; nec tunc nisi panis permodicum, & unum ovum gallinaceum, cum parvo lacte aquâ mixte percipiebat. Ibid. cap. 23.  every day, except the Lord's day, continue his fast, (as the manner was) until the evening; and then also did eat nothing but a small pittance of bread, & one egg, with a little milk mingled with water. Where by the way you may note, that in those day's eggs were eaten in Lent, and the Sundays excepted from fasting, even then when the abstinence was precisely and in more than an ordinary manner observed.  
But generally for this point of the difference of meals, it is well noted by Claudius out of S. Augustin, that 
t Ostendens evidenter, filios sapientiae intelligere, nec in abstinendo nec in manducando esse iustitiam; sed in aequanimitate tolerandi inopiam, & temperantiâ per abundantiam non se corrumpendi, atque opportuné sumendi vel non sumendi ea, quorum non usus sed concupiscentia reprehendenda est. Claud. lib. 2. in Matth.  the children of wisdom do understand, that neither in abstaining nor in eating is there any virtue; but in contentedness of bearing the want, and temperance of not corrupting a man's self by abundance, and of opportunely taking or not taking those things, of which not the use but the concupiscence is to be blamed. and in the life of Furseus, the hypocrisy of them is justly taxed, that being 
u Sunt nonnulli, qui spiritualibus vitiis impugnantur; sed his omissis, corpus in abstinentiâ affligunt. Vit. S. Fursei.  assaulted with spiritual vices, do yet omit the care of them, and afflict their body with abstinence: who 
x Multi enim cibis, quos Deus ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione creavit, abstinentes, haec nefanda quasi licita sumunt; hoc est, superbiam, avaritiam, invidiam, falsum testimonium, blasphemiam. Ibid.  abstaining from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving, fall to wicked things, as if they were lawful; namely to pride, covetousness, envy, false witnessing, backbiting. And so much for that matter.  
Now concerning the Catholic Church, our Doctors taught with S. Gregory; that God 
y Habet vinean, universam scilicèt Ecclesiam; quae ab Abel justo usque ad ultimum electum qui in fine mundi nasciturusest, quot sanctos protulit, quasi tot palmites misit, Claud. lib. 2. in Matth.  hath a vineyard, to wit, the universal Church, which from just Abel until the last of the elect that shall be borne in the end of the world, as many Saints as it hath brought forth▪ so many branches (as it were) hath it budded. that 
z Congregatio quippe iustorum, regnum coelorum dicitur; quod est Ecclesia iustorum. Id lib. 3. in Matt.  the congregation of the just is called the kingdom of heaven; which is the Church of the just. that 
a Ecclesiae filii sunt omnes ab institutione generis humani usque nunc, quotquot iusti et sancti esse potuerunt. Id▪ lib. 2. in Matth.  the sons of the Church be all such as from the beginning of mankind until now▪ have attained to be just and holy. that 
b His & caeteris instruimur, tam Apostolos omnesque credentes▪ quam ipsam quoque Ecclesiam, columnan in Scriptures appellari; & nihil interesse de corpore quid dicatur an membris, cum & corpus dividatur in membra, & membra sint corporis. Id. in Gal. 2. ex Hieronymo.  what is said of the body, may be said also of the members; and that in this respect, as well the Apostles and all believers, as the Church itself, have the title of a pillar given them in the Scriptures. that 
c Ecclesias vocat, quas posteà errore arguit depravatas. Ex quo noscendum, dupliciter Ecclesiam posse dici: & eam, quae non habeat maculam aut rugam, & veré corpus Christi sit; & eam, quae in Christi nomine absque plenis perfectisque virtutibus congregetur Id. in Galat. 1. ex eodem.  the Church may be considered two manner of ways: both that which neither hath spot nor wrinkle and is truly the body of Christ, and that which is gathered in the name of Christ without full and perfect virtues; which notwithstanding by the warrant of the Apostle, may have the name of the Church given unto it, although it be depraved with error. that 
d Ecclesiam non habituram maculam neque rugam dicitur, respectu futurae vitae Sedul. in Ephes. 1.  the Church is said not to have spot or wrinkle, in respect of the life to come. that when the Apostle saith; In a great house there are not only vessels of gold, etc. but some to honour and some to dishonour: (2. Tim. 2.20.) by this 
e Magnam domum non Ecclesiam dicit (ut quidam putant) quae non habet maculam neque rugam: sed mundum, in quo zizania sunt mixta tritico. Id. in 2. Tim. 2.  great house he doth not understand the Church (as some have thought) which hath not spot nor wrinkle: but the world, in which the tares are mingled with the wheat. that yet in 
f Sancta Ecclesia decem Virginibus similis denuntiatur: in quâ quia mali cum bonis & reprobi cum electis admixti sunt, recté similis virginibus prudentibus & fatuis esse perhibetur. Claud. lib. 3. in Matth.  the holy Church also, the evil are mingled with the good, and the reprobate with the elect: and that in this respect it is resembled unto the wise and foolish virgins; as also to 
g Per has Regis nuptias praesens Ecclesia designatur; in quâ cum bonis & mali conveniunt. Id. lib. eod.  the King's marriage, by which this present Church is designed, wherein the good and the bad do meet together. So that 
h In hâc ergo Ecclesiâ, nec mali esse sine bonis, nec boni esse sine malis possunt: quos tamen sancta Ecclesia & nunc indiscretê suscipit, & postmodùm in egressione discernit Id. ibid.  in this Church, neither the bad can be without the good, nor the good without the bad: whom the holy Church notwithstanding doth both now receive indifferently, and separate afterwards at their going from hence.  
They taught further, that 
i Nonnunquàm Ecclesia tantis gentilium pressuris, non solùm afflicta, sed & faedata est; ut, si fieri possit, redemptor ipsius eam prorsus deseruisse ad tempus videretur. Id. lib. 2. in Matt.  the Church sometimes is not only afflicted but also defiled with such oppressions of the gentiles; that if it were possible, her redeemer might seem for a time utterly to have forsaken her: and that, in the raging times of Antichrist, 
k Ecclesia non apparebit; impiis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus. Id. lib. 3. in Matth.  the Church shall not appear; by reason that the wicked persecutors shall then exercise their cruelty beyond all measure. that in those 
l Temporibus Antichristi non solùm tormenta crebriora & acerbiora, quam prius consueverant, ingerenda sunt fidelibus; sed (quod gravius est) signorum quoque operatio eos qui tormenta ingerunt, comitabitur: teste Apostolo, qui ait; Cuius est adventus secundùm operationem Satanae, in omni seductione, signis, & prodigiis mendacii. Id. lib. cod.  times of Antichrist, not only more often and more bitter torments shall be put upon the faithful, then before were wont to be; but (which is more grievous) the working of miracles also shall accompany those that inflict the torments: as the Apostle witnesseth, saying; Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all seduction, signs, and lying wonders. namely, 
m Praestigiosis sicut antè praedictum est; Dabunt signa, ita ut seducantur, si fieri poorest, etiam electi. per phantasticam virtutem: sicut jamnes & Mambres coram Pharaone fecerunt. Sedul. in 2. Thess. 2.  juggling ones: as it was foretold before; They shall show such signs that, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived by such a fantastical power, as jamnes and Mambres wrought withal before Pharaoh. 
n Quis ergo ad fidem convertitur incredulus? cuius iam credentis non pavet & concutitur fides? quando persecutor pietatis fit etiam operator virtutis: idemque ipse qui tormentis saevit ut Christus negetur, provocat miraculis ut Antichristo credatur. Claud. lib. 3. in Matth.  What unbeliever therefore (say they) will then be converted unto the faith? and who is he that already believeth, whose faith trembleth not and is not shaken? when the persecuter of piety is the worker of wonders: and the same man that exerciseth cruelty with torments, that Christ may be denied; provoketh by miracles, that Antichrist may be believed? And 
o quam ergo mundo & simplici oculo opus est, ut inveniatur via sapientiae, cui tantae malorum & perversorum hominum deceptiones erroresque obstrepunt? quas omnes necesse est evadere, hoc est, venire ad certissimam pacem, & immobilem stabilitatem sapientiae. Id. lib. 1. in Matth.  what a pure and a single eye is there need of, that the way of wisdom may be found; against which, so great deceive and errors of evil and perverse men, do make such a noise? all which notwithstanding men must pass through; and so come to most certain peace, and the unmoveable stability of wisdom.  
Hence, concerning Miracles, they give us these instructions. First, that 
p Nec si s● Angelus nobis ostendat ad seducendos nos subornatus fallaciis patris sui Diaboli, praevalere debebit adversum nos: neque si virtus ab aliquo facta sict, sicut dicitur á Simone Mago in aëre volâsse. Sedul. in Rom. 8.  neither if an Angel should show himself unto us to seduce us, being suborned with the deceits of his father the Devil, ought he to prevail against us; neither if a miracle should be done by any one, as it is said of Simon Magus that he did fly in the air: 
q Neque signa vos terreant, tanquam per Spiritum facta: quia hoc & Salvator praemonuit. Id. in 2 Thessal. 2.  neither that signs should terrify us, as done by the Spirit; because that our Saviour also hath given us warning of this before hand. (Matth. 24.24, 25.) Secondly, that 
r Hic ostenditur, crescente fide signa cessare: quando fidelium caussâ danda esse praedicantur. Id. in 1. Cor. 14.  the faith having increased, miracles were to cease; forasmuch as they are declared to have been given for their sakes that believe not. and therefore that 
s Vnde nunc cum fidelium numerositas excrevit, intra sanctam ecclesiam multi sunt qui vitam virtutum tenent & signa virtutum non habent: quia frustrà miraculum foris ostenditur, si deest quod intùs operetur. Nam iuxta Magistri gentium vocem: Li●guae in signum sunt, non fidelibus sed infidelibus. Claud. lib. 1. in Matth.  now when the number of the faithful is grown, there be many within the holy Church that retain the life of virtues, and yet have not those signs of virtues: because a miracle is to no purpose showed outwardly, if that be wanting which it should work inwardly. For according to the saying of the Master of the Gentiles; Languages are for a sign, not to the faithful but to infidels. (1. Cor. 14.22.) Thirdly, that the working of miracles is no good argument to prove the holiness of them that be the instruments thereof: and therefore 
t Qualia propter infideles cum fecerit Dominus, monuit tamen ne talibus decipiamur, arbitrantes ibi esse invisibilem sapientiam, ubi miraculum visibile viderimus. Adiungit ergo & dicit. Multi dicent mihi in illâ die, Domine, Domine: nónne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, & in tuo nomine daemonia ejecimus, & in tuo nomine virtutes multas fecimus? Id. lib. eod.  when the Lord doth such things for the convincing of infidels, he yet giveth us warning that we should not be deceived thereby, supposing invisible wisdom to be there, where we shall behold a visible miracle. For he saith: Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord; have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out Devils, and in thy name done many miracles? (Matth. 7.22.) Fourthly, that 
u Ille Deum tentat, qui iactantiae suae vitio, superfluam & inutilem vult ostentare virtutem. Quid enim utilitatis habet, quid commodi confert; si praeceps hinc in plana descendero? etc. Id lib. eod.  he tempteth God, who for his own vain glory will make show of a superfluous and unprofitable miracle. such as that (for example) was, whereunto the Devil tempted our Saviour, Matt. 4.6. to come down headlong from the pinnacle of the Temple unto the plain. 
x Inane est enim omne miraculum, quod utilitatem saluti non operatur humanae Ib. d.  every miracle being vain, which worketh not some profit unto man's salvation. Whereby we may easily discern, what to judge of that infinite number of idle miracles, wherewith the lives of our Saints are every where stuffed: many whereof we may justly censure (as 
y Amphiloch. in Iambi● ad Selencum.  Amphilochius doth the tales that the Poets tell of their Gods) for 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Fables, of laughter worthy, and of tears;  Yea some of them also we may rightly brand, as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Unseemly fables, and Devil's documents.  For what (for example) can be more unseemly, and tend further to the advancement of the doctrine of Devils, then that which Cogitosus relateth in the life of S. Brigid? that she, for saving the credit of a Nun that had been gotten with child, 
z Cogitos. Vit. Brigid. in exemplari MS. antiquiss. Bibliothec. Cottonianae.  blessed her faithfully forsooth (for so the author speaketh) and so caused her conception to vanish away, without any delivery and without any pain. which for the saving of S. Brigids own credit, either 
a Tom. 5. Antiqu. lection. in lacunâ, sub finem pag. 629.  Hen. Canisius or the friars of Aichstad (from whom he had his copy of Cogitosus) thought fit to scrape out, and rather to leave a blank in the book, then to suffer so lewd a tale to stand in it. But I will not stir this puddle any further: but proceed on, unto some better matter.  
And now are we come at last to the great point, that toucheth the Head and the foundation of the Church. Concerning which Sedulius observeth, that the title of 
b Fundamenta.] Christum, & Apostolos, & Prophetas. Sedul. in Hebr 11.  foundation is attributed both to Christ, and to the Apostles and Prophets. that where it is said, Esai. 28.16. Behold, I lay in Zion a stone etc. 
c Compertum est in petrâ vel lapide Christum esse significatum. Id. in Rom. 9  it is certain, that by the rock or stone Christ is signified. that, in Ephes. 2.20. 
d Apostoli fundamentum sunt, vel Christus fundamentum est Apostolorum. Christus est fundamentum, qui etiam lapis dicitur angularis, duos conjungens & continens parietes. Ideò hic fundamentum & summus est lapis; quia in ipso & fundatur, & consùmmatur Ecclesia. Id. in Ephes. 2.  the Apostles are the foundation, or Christ rather the foundation of the Apostles. For Christ (saith he) is the foundation, who is also called the corner stone, joining and holding together the two walls. Therefore is he the foundation and chief stone; because in him the Church is both founded, and finished. and we are to account the Apostles 
e Vt ministros Christi: non ut fundamentum▪ Id. in 1. Cor. 4.  as ministers of Christ, and not as the foundation. The famous place, Matth. 16.18. (whereupon our Romanists lay the main foundation of the Papacy) Claudius expoundeth in this sort. 
f Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id est super Dominum salva●orem, qui fideli suo cognitori, amatori, confessori, participium sui nominis donavi● ut scilicèt á petrâ Petrus vocaretur. Aedificatur Ecclesia: quia non nisi per fidem & dilectionem Christi, per susceptionem sacramentorum Christi, per observantiam mandatorum Christi, ad sortem electorum & aeternam pertingitur vitam Apostolo attestante qui ait; Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est, qui est Christus jesus. Claud. lib. 2. in Matth.  Upon this rock will I build my Church, that is to say, upon the Lord and Saviour, who granted unto his faithful knower, lover, and confessor the participation of his own name; that from petra (the rock) he should be called Peter. The Church is builded upon him: because only by the faith and love of Christ, by the receiving of the sacraments of Christ, by the observation of the commandments of Christ, we come to the inheritance of the elect and eternal life, as witnesseth the Apostle who saith; Other foundation can no man lay beside that which is laid, which is Christ jesus.  
Yet doth the same Claudius acknowledge, that 
g Petrum solum nominat, & sibi comparat: quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam: se quoque pari modo electum, ut primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis. Id. in Gal. 2.  S. Peter received a kind of primacy for the founding of the Church (in respect whereof he termeth him 
h Id in Gal. 5.  Ecclesiae principem and 
i Id. in Gal. 2.  Apostolorum principem, the prince of the Church and the prince or chief of the Apostles) but he addeth withal, that S. Paul also was chosen in the same manner, to have the primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles. and that he 
k Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum quod accepit á Deo, ut dignus esset habere primatum in praedicatione Gentium, sicut & habebat Petrus in praedicatione Circumcisionis. Id. in Gal. 2.  received this gift from God, that he should be worthy to have the primacy in preaching to the Gentiles, as Peter had it in the preaching of the Circumcision. and therefore that 
l Gratiam sibi soli primus vendicat concessam á Deo, sicut & soli Petro concessa est inter Apostolos, Id. ibid.  S. Paul challengeth this grace as granted by God to him alone, as it was granted to Peter alone among the Apostles▪ and that he esteemed himself 
m Non illi sum inferior; quia ab uno sumus ambo in unum ministerium ordinati. Id. ibid.  not to be inferior unto S. Peter, because both of them were by one ordained unto one and the same ministry. and that writing to the Galatians, 
n Apostolum se Christi titulo praenotavit, ut ex ipsâ lecturos nominis auctoritate terreret; iudicans omnes, qui in Christo crede rent, debere sibi esse subiectos. Id. in Gal. 1.  he did in the title name himself an Apostle of Christ, to the end that by the very authority of that name he might terrify his readers; judging, that all such as did believe in Christ, aught to be subject unto him.  
It is furthermore also observed by Claudius, that 
o Nam sicut interrogatis generaliter omnibus, Petrus respondit unus pro omnibus: ita quod Petro Dominus respondit, in Petro omnibus respondit Id. lib. 2. in Matth.  as when our Saviour propounded the question generally unto all the Apostles, Peter did answer as one for all; so what our Lord answered unto Peter, in Peter he did answer unto all. & therefore 
p Quae solvendi ac ligandi potestas, quamvis soli Petro data videatur á Domino; absque ullâ tamen dubietate noscendum est, quia & ceteris Apostolis datur: ipso teste, qui post passionis resurrectionisque suae triumphum apparens eis insufflavit, & dixit omnibus: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt Id. lib. cod.  howsoever the power of losing & binding might seem to be given by the Lord unto Peter alone, yet without all manner of doubt it is to be known, that it was given unto the rest of the Apostles also: as himself doth witness, who appearing unto them after the triumph of his passion and resurrection, breathed on them, and said unto them all; Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. Lastly, as Claudius noteth, that 
q Super ipsos Ecclesias sit positum fundamentum. Id. in Gal. 2.  the foundation of the Church was laid not only upon S. Peter, but also upon S. john: so in a certain Hymn supposed to be written by Secundinus (known in this country commonly by the name of S. Schachlin) in the year of our Lord CCCCXLVIII. S. Patrick also is thus commended. 
r Constans in Dei timore, et fide immobil●●, super quem aedificatur ut Petrum Ecclesia: cuiusque Apostolatum á Deo sortitus est, & inferni portae adversus cum non praevalebunt. Hymn. in land. S. Patric●.  He is constant in the fear of God, and unmoveable in the faith, upon whom the Church is builded as upon Peter; whose Apostleship also he hath obtained from God, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against him. yea 
s Christus illum sibi elegit in terris Vicarium. Ibid.  Christ is there said to have chosen him for his Vicar upon earth. and as for the titles of 
t Cogitos. in vit. Brigid. tom. 5. antiqu. lect. Henr. Canisijs. pag. 625. lin ult.  Summus Sacerdos and 
u Ibid. pag. 640. lin. 2.  Summus Pontifex, the highest Priest and the highest Bishop; we find them in Cogitosus attributed unto the Bishop of Kildare himself. those titles and prerogatives, which the Pope now peculiarly challengeth unto himself, as ensigns of his Monarchy, being then usually communicated unto other Bishops, when the universal Church was governed by an Aristocraty.  
Master Campion, I know, telleth us; that 
x Edm. Camp. History of Ireland, lib. 2. cap. 2.  when Ireland first received Christendom, they gave themselves into the jurisdiction both spiritual and temporal of the See of Rome: but therein he speaketh without book; of the spiritual jurisdiction untruly, of the temporal absurdly. For from the first legation of Palladius and Patricius, who were sent to plant the faith in this country, it cannot be showed out of any monument of antiquity, that the Bishop of Rome did ever send any of his Legates to exercise spiritual jurisdiction here (much less any of his Deputies to exercise jurisdiction temporal) before Gillebertus, quem aiunt primà functum legatione Apostolicae sedis per universam Hiberniam; saith one that lived in his own time, even Bernard himself in the life of Malachias. One or two instances peradventure may be alleged out of some obscure authors, whose names and times and authority no man can tell us news of: but unless that which is delivered by Bernard, as the tradition that was current in his time, can be controlled by some record that may appear to have been written before his days; we have small reason to detract any thing from the credit of so clear a testimony.  
This country was heretofore, for the number of holy men that lived in it, termed the 
y Sanctus pater Columbanus ex Hiberniâ insulâ Sanctorum cum sancto Gallo aliisque probatis discipulis venit in Burgundiam. Ma●ian. Scot Chronic. MS. add an. Dom. 589. secundùm Dionysium.  Island of Saints: of that innumerable company of Saints, whose memory was reverenced here; what one received any solemn canonisation from the Pope, before Malachias archbishop of Ardmagh and Laurence of Dublin? who lived, as it were, but the other day. We read of sundry Archbishops that have been in this land: betwixt the days of S. Patrick and of Malachias, what one of them can be named, that ever sought for a Pall from Rome? joceline indeed a late Monk of the abbey of Furnesse, writeth of S. Patrick; that the Bishop of Rome 
z Pallio decoravit, illique vices suas committens atque legatum suum constituens, quaecunque in Hiberniâ gesserat, constituerat, disposue rat, auctoritatis suae munimine confirmavit. jocelin. vit. Patric. cap. 166.  conferred the Pall upon him, together with the execution of legatine power in his room. But he is well known to be a most fabulous author: and for this particular, Bernard (who was his ancient) informeth us far otherwise; that 
a Metropoliticae sedi decrat adhuc, & defuerat ab initio pallii usus. Bernard. Vit. Malach.  from the very beginning until his time, the metropolitical see of Ardmagh wanted the use of the Pall. And therefore Giraldus Cambrensis, howsoever he acknowledgeth that S. Patrick did 
b Apud Ardmacham sibi sedem elegit; quam etiam quasi metropolim constituit & proprium totius Hiberniae primatiae locum. Girald. Cambr. Topograph. Hibern. distinct. 3. cap. 16.  choose Ardmagh for his seat, and did appoint it to be as it were a metropolitical see, and the proper place of the primacy of all Ireland; yet doth he affirm withal, that in very deed 
c Archiepiscopi veró in Hiberniâ nulli fuerant; sed tantùm se Episcopi invicem consecrabant: donec johannes Papyrio Romanae sedis legatus, non multis retró annis advenit. Hic quatuor pallia in Hiberniam portavit, etc. Ibid. cap. 17.  there were no Archbishops in Ireland, but that Bishops only did consecrate one another, until johannes Paparo the Pope's legate brought four palls thither, in the year of our Lord 1152. Gelasius was then arcbishop of Ardmagh, who died in the year 1174. at which, we find this note in our Annals. 
d Hic primus Archiepiscopus dicitur, qui primo pallio usus▪ est. Alii veró ante ipsum solo nomine Archiepiscopi & Primates vocabantur; ob reve●●ntiam & honorem Sancti Patricii, tanquam Apostoli illius gentis. Annal. Hib●●n. á Guil. Camdeno edit. & MS. abbatiae B. Mariae iuxta Dublin.  This man is said to be the first Archbishop, because he used the first Pall. But others before him were called Archbishops and Primates in name only; for the reverence and honour of S. Patrick, as the Apostle of that nation.  
The same time that the four Archbishoprics were established by johannes Paparo; our Bishoprics also were limited, & reduced unto a fewer number: whereas at the beginning they were very many (for we read in Nennius, that S, Patrick 
e Ecclesias eodem numero fundavit CCCLXV. Ordinavit Episcopos eodem numero CCCLXV Presbyteros autem usque ad tria millia ordinavit. Nenn. histor. Brit. MS.  founded here 365. Churches, and ordained 365. Bishops, beside 3000. Presbyters) and in process of time were daily 
f Mutabantur & multiplicabantur Episcopi pro libitu metropolitanis; ita ut unus Episcopatus uno non esset contentus, sed singulae pené Ecclesiae singulos haberent Episcopos▪ Bernard V●t. Malach.  multiplied according to the pleasure of the Metropolitan, so far that every Church almost had a several Bishop; whereof Bernard doth much complain in the life of Malachias. For in erecting of new Bishoprics the Pope was no more sought unto here, then in the nomination and confirmation of the Bishops themselves: all matters of this kind being done at home, without relation to any foreign authority. The ancient form of making a Bishop, is thus laid down by Bonifacius archbishop of Mentz, in the life of Livinus. 
g Illo defuncto, Rex Calomagnus, & eius Palatinorum chorus cum suis subaulicis, totiusque regionis illius confluentiâ, pari cordis affectu conclam●verunt, sanctum Sacerdotem Livinum in honorem hu●us ordinis dignissimé sublimandun fore. His Rex omnibus devotior consentiens, ter quaterque beatum virum in cathedrâ Archiepiscopatus debito honore, Domino jubente, collocavit. Bonifac. Vit. Livin.  When Menalchus the Archbishop was dead, Calomagnus the King of Scots, and the troop of his Officers with the under-courtiers, and the concourse of all that country, with the same affection of heart cried out, that the holy Priest Livinus was most worthily to be advanced unto the honour of this order. The King (more devoute than all of them) consenting thereunto, three or four times placed the blessed man in the chair of the Archbishopric with due honour, according to the will of the Lord. In like manner also did 
h Rex Ecgfridus episcopum fecit ordinari Lindisfarnensium ecclesiae virum sanctum et venerabilem Cudbertum. Bed. lib. 4. hist. cap. 27. & Vit. Cuthbert. cap. 24  king Ecgfrid cause our Cuthbert to be ordained Bishop of the Church of Lindisfarne; and king Pipin 
i Episcopatum Salzburgensem, pro debito regiae magnificentiae, sancto concessit Virgilio. Vit. Epis●. Salisburgens. tom. 2. Antiqu. lect. Henr. Canis. pag. 259. & ●●m. 6. pag. 1174.  granted the Bishopric of Salzburg to our Virgilius: & Duke Gunzo would have 
k Walafrid. Strab. Vit. Gall. lib. 1. cap. 16.17.19.20.  conferred the Bishopric of Constance upon our Gallus; but that he refused it, and 
l Theodor. Campidonens. vel quicunque author fuit vitae Magni, lib. 1. cap. 8. edit. Goldasti, 10. Canisijs.  caused another upon his recommendation to be preferred thereunto.  
As the Pope intermeddled not with the making of our Bishops: so neither can we find by any approved record of antiquity, that any Visitations of the clergy were held here in his name; much less that any Indulgences were sought for by our people at his hands. For as for the 
m Charta S. Patricii. in Guilielmi Malmesburiensi● libello, de Antiquitate Glastoniensis ecclesiae. MS.  Charter of S. Patrick (by some entitled, De antiquitate Avalonicâ) wherein 
n In scriptis recentioribus inveni, quòd sancti Phaganus & Deruvianus perquisierant ab Eleutherio papâ, qui eos miserat, X. (al. XXX.) annos indulgentiae. Et ego frater Patricius á pi● memoriae Celestino Papâ XII. annos tempore meo acquisivi. Ibid.  Phaganus and Deruvianus are said to have purchased ten or thirty years of Indulgences from Pope Eleutherius; and S. Patrick himself to have procured twelve years in his time from Pope Celestinus: it might easily be demonstrated (if this were a place for it) that it is a mere figment, devised by the Monks of Glastenbury. Neither do I well know, what credit is to be given unto that straggling sentence, which I find ascribed unto the same author (for I will still deal fairly, and conceal nothing that I meet withal in any hidden part of antiquity, that may tend to the true discovery of the state of former times; whether it may seem to make for me, or against me.) 
o Patricius ait. Si quae quaestiones in hâc Insulâ oriantur, ad sedem Apostolicam referantur Vet. Collect. Canonum, Biblioth●ca Co●tonian●.  If any questions do arise in this Island, let them be referred to the See Apostolic. Only this I will say, that as it is most likely, that S. Patrick had a special regard unto the Church of Rome, from whence he was sent for the conversion of this Island: so if I myself had lived in his days, for the resolution of a doubtful question I should as willingly have listened to the judgement of the Church of Rome, as to the determination of any Church in the whole world; so reverend an estimation have I of the integrity of that Church, as it stood in those good days. But that S. Patrick was of opinion, that the Church of Rome was sure ever afterward to continue in that good estate, and that there was a perpetual privilege annexed unto that See, that it should never err in judgement, or that the Pope's sentences were always to be held as infallible Oracles; that will I never believe: sure I am, that my countrymen after him were of a far other belief; who were so far from submitting themselves in this sort to whatsoever should proceed from the See of Rome, that they oftentimes stood out against it, when they had little cause so to do. For proof whereof I need to seek no further, then to those very allegations which have been lately urged for maintenance of the supremacy of the Pope and Church of Rome.  
First Mr. Coppinger cometh upon us, with this wise question. 
p Copping. Mn●m●synum to the Catholics of Ireland, lib. 2. cap. 3.  Was not Ireland among other countries absolved from the Pelagian heresy by the Church of Rome, as Cesar Baronius writeth? then he setteth down the copy of S. Gregory's 
q Gregor. lib. 2. epist. 36. judict. 10.  epistle, in answer unto the Irish Bishops that submitted themselves unto him and concludeth in the end (according to his skill) that the Bishops of Ireland being infected with the Pelagian error, sought absolution first of Pelagius the Pope: but the same was not effectually done, until S. Gregory did it. But in all this, the silly man doth nothing else but bewray his own extreme ignorance. For neither can he show it in Cesar Baronius or in any other author whatsoever, that the Irish Bishops did ever seek absolution from Pope Pelagius; or that the one had to deal in any business at all with the other. Neither yet can he show that ever they had to do with S. Gregory in any matter that did concern the Pelagian heresy. for these be dreams of Coppingers own idle head. The epistle of S. Gregory dealeth only with the controversy of the three chapter●, which were condemned by the fifth general Council; whereof Baronius writeth thus. 
r Ardentissimo studio pro trium capitulorum defension, junctis animis, omnes qui in Hiberniâ erant Episcopi, insurrexere Addiderunt & illud nefas, ut cum percepissent Romanam Ecclesiam aequé suscepisse Trium damnationem capitulorum, atque suo consensu Quintam Synodum roborâsse: ab eâdem pariter resilierint, atque reliquis qui vel in Italiâ vel in Africâ aliisve regionibus erant▪ schismaticis inhaeserint; fiduciâ illâ vanâ erecti, quòd pro fide Catholicâ starent, cum quae essent in Concilio Chalcedonensi statuta defenderent. Baron. Annal. tom. 7. ann▪ 566. number. 21.  All the Bishops that were in Ireland, with most earnest study, rose up jointly for the defence of the Three Chapters. And when they perceived that the Church of Rome did both receive the condemnation of the Three chapters, and strengthen the fifth Synod with her consent: they departed from her, and clavae to the rest of the schismatics, that were either in Italy or in afric or in other countries; animated with that vain confidence, that they did stand for the Catholic faith, while they defended those things that were concluded in the Council of Chalcedon. 
s Sed eo fixiùs inhaerent errori, cum quaecunque Italia passa sit bellorum motibus, fame, vel pestilentiâ, eâ ex caussâ illi cuncta infausta accidisse putarent, quòd pro Quintâ Synodo adversus Chalcedonense Concilium praelium suscepisset. Ibid.  And so much the more fixedly (saith he) did they cleave to their error, because whatsoever Italy did suffer by commotions of war, by famine or pestilence, all these unhappy things they thought did therefore befall unto it, because it had undertaken to fight for the fifth Synod against the Council of Chalcedon.  
Thus far Baronius: out of whose narration this may be collected, that the Bishops of Ireland did not take all the resolutions of the Church of Rome for undoubted oracles; but when they thought that they had better reason on their sides, they preferred the judgement of other Churches before it. Wherein how peremptory they were, when they wrote unto S. Gregory of the matter; may easily be perceived by these parcels of the answer, which he returned unto their letters. 
t Prima itaque epistolae vestrae frons, gravem vos pati persecutionem innotuit. Quae quidem persecutio dum non rationabiliter sustinetur, nequaquam proficit ad salutem. Gregor. Regest. lib. 2. epist. 36.  The first entry of your epistle hath notified, that you suffer a grievous persecution: which persecution indeed, when it is not sustained for a reasonable cause, doth profit nothing unto salvation. and 
u Dum igitur ita sit, incongruum nimis est de eâ vos, quam dicitis, persecutione gloriari, per quam vos constat ad aeterna praemia minimé provehi. Ibid.  therefore it is very unfit, that you should glory of that persecution, as you call it, by which it is certain you cannot be promoted to everlasting rewards. 
x Quod autem scribitis, quia ex illo tempore inter alias provincias maxime flagelletur Italia; non hoc ad e●us debetis intorquere opprobrium: quoniam scriptum est; Quem diligit Dominus, castigat, flagellat autem omnem filium quem recipit Ibid.  And whereas you write, that since that time among other provinces Italy hath been most afflicted; you ought not to object that unto it as a reproach: because it is written; Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son that he receiveth. Then having spoken of the book that Pope Pelagius did write of this controversy (which indeed was penned by Gregory himself) he addeth. 
y Porro autem si post hujus libri lectionem in eâ, quâ estis, volueritis deliberatione persistere; sine dubio non rarioni operam, sed obstinationi vos dare monstratis. Ibid.  If after the reading of this book, you will persist in that deliberation, wherein now you are; without doubt you show, that you give yourselves to be ruled not by reason, but by obstinacy. By all which you may see, what credit is to be given unto the man, who would bear us in hand, that this epistle of S. Gregory was sent as an answer unto the Bishops of Ireland, that did submit themselves unto him: whereas the least argument of any submission of theirs doth not appear in any part of that epistle; but the whole course of it doth clearly manifest the flat contrary.  
In the next place steppeth forth Osullevan Bear, a wild Bear indeed rather than a Christian man; who in his Catholic History of Ireland (for so he styleth his traitorous and barbarous Collections) lately published, would have us take knowledge of this, that 
z Quando veró Doctores Ibernici de gravibus fidei quaestionibus minimé consentiebant, v● aliquid novi dogmatis peregrè allati audiebant; soliti erant Romanum Pontificem veritatis Oraculum consulere. Philip. Osullevan. Bearr. Histor. Catholic. Ibern. tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 6.  when the Irish Doctors did not agree together upon great questions of faith, or did hear of any new doctrine brought from abroad, they were wont to consult with the Bishop of Rome the Oracle of truth. That they consulted with the Bishop of Rome, when difficult questions did arise, we easily grant: but that they thought they were bound in conscience to stand to his judgement, whatsoever it should be, and to entertain all his resolutions as certain Oracles of truth; is the point that we would fain see proved. For this he telleth us, that 
a Namque de tempore agendi Paschatis solemnia (de quo aliae quoque Catholicae gentes saepè ambegerunt) & de Pelagianâ haeresi ubi fuit in quaestionem disputationemque deducta; Doctores Iberni ad Sedem Apostolicam retulerunt. Ac ita miseri Pelagii error nullum in Iberniá patronum vel assertorem invenisse fertur; vel insulae aditu interclusus, vel ab eâ protinùs explosus, ubi contagiosam faciem aperuit, seseque cognoscendum praebuit: & ratio communis & ab Ecclesiâ usitata celebrandi redivivi Domini festum ab Australibus Ibernis fuit semper observata; & á Septentrionalibus quoque & Pictis & Britonibus, qui Doctoribus Ibernis fidem acceperunt, amplexa, ubi Ecclesiae Romanae ritum cognoverunt. Quod ex Apostolicarum literarum duplici capite á Bedâ relato non obscuré constat. Ibid.  when questions and disputations did arise here concerning the time of E●ster and the Pelagian heresy; the Doctors of Ireland referred the matter unto the See Apostolic. Whereupon, the error of Pelagius is reported to have found no patron or maintainer in Ireland: and the common course of celebrating Easter was embraced both by the Northern Irish, and by the picts and Britons, as soon as they understood the rite of the Roman Church. Which (saith he) doth not obscurely appear by the two heads of the Apostolic letters, related by Bede, lib. 2. cap. 19  
But that those Apostolic letters (as he calleth them) had that success which he talketh of, appeareth neither plainly nor obscurely by Bede, or any other authority whatsoever. The error of Pelagius, saith he, is reported to have found no patron or maintainer in Ireland. But who is he that reporteth so, beside Philip Osullevan? a worthy author to ground a report of antiquity upon: who in relating the matters that fell out in his own time, discovereth himself to be as egregious a liar, as any (I verily think) that this day breatheth in Christendom. The Apostolic letters he speaketh of, were written (as before hath been touched) in the year of our Lord DCXXXIX. during the vacancy of the Roman See, upon the death of Severinus. Our countryman Kilianus repaired to Rome 47. years after that, and was ordained Bishop there by Pope Conon in the year DCLXXXVI. The reason of his coming thither, is thus laid down by Egilwardus or who ever else was the author of his life. 
b Hibernia siquidem olim Pelagianâ faedata fuerat haeresi, Apostolicaque censurâ damnata, quae nisi Romano judicio solvi non poterat. Author antiqu. Vit. Kilian.  For Ireland had been of old defiled with the Pelagian heresy, and condemned by the Apostolical censure, which could not be loosed but by the Roman judgement. If this be true: then that is false which Osullevan reporteth of the effect of his Apostolical Epistle, that it did so presently quassh the Pelagian heresy, as it durst not once peep up within this Island.  
The difference betwixt the Romans and the Irish in the celebration o● Easter, consisted in this. The Romans kept the memorial of our Lord's resurrection upon that Sunday, which fell betwixt the XV. and the XXI. day of the Moon (both terms included) next after the XXI. day of March; which they accounted to be the seat of the Vernal aequinoctium, that is to say, that time of the Spring wherein the day and the night were of equal length. and in reckoning the age of the Moon they followed the Alexandrian cycle of XIX. years (whence our golden number had his original) as it was explained unto them by Dionysius Exiguus: which is the account that is still observed, not only in the Church of England, but also among all the Christians of Greece, Russia, Asia, Egypt, and AEthiopia; and was (since the time that I myself was borne) generally received in all Christendom, until the late change of the Calendar was made by Pope Gregory the XIIIth. The Northern Irish and Scottish, together with the picts, observed the custom of the Britons: 
c Non enim Paschae diem Dominicum suo tempore, sed á decima▪ quartâ usque ad vicesimam Lunam observabant Quae computatio 84. annorum circulo continetur Bed. lib. 2. hist. cap. 2.  keeping their Easter upon the Sunday that fell betwixt the XIIII. and the XX. day of the Moon; and following in their account thereof, not so much the XIX. years' computation of Anatolius, 
d Porrò isti secundùm de cennem novennemque Anatolii computatum, aut potius juxta Sulpicii Severini regulam, qui LXXXIV, anno rum cursum descripsit, XIV. Luná cum Iudaeis Paschale sacramentum celebrant: cum neutrum Ecclesiae Romanae Pontifices ad perfectam calculi rationem sequantur. Aldelm. epist. ad Geruntium regem & Demnonie●: inter epistolas Bonifacq, num. 44.  as Sulpicius Severus his circle of LXXXIIII. years. for howsoever they extolled Anatolius 
e Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 3. & 25.  for appointing the bounds of Easter betwixt the XIIII. and the XX. day of the Moon; yet Wilfride in the Synod of Strenshalch chargeth them utterly to have rejected his cycle of XIX. years: from which therefore Cummianus draweth an argument against them; that 
f Ad veram Pascha● rationem nunquam pervenire eos, qui cyclum LXXXIIII annorum observant, Cummian. epist. ad Segien● abbot. de Dispu●atione Lunae. MS. in Bibliothec. Cottonian.  they can never come to the true account of Easter, who observe the cycle of LXXXIIII. years.  
To reduce the Irish unto conformity with the Church of Rome in this point, Pope Honorius (the first of that name) directed his letters unto them: 
g Exhortans, ne paucitatem suam in extremis terrae finibus constitutan, sapientiorem antiquis sive modernis, qu● per Orbem terrae erant, Christi ecclesiis aestimarent: néve contra Paschales computos, & decreta synodalium totius Orbis Pontificum aliud Pascha celebrarent. Bed. lib. 2. cap. 19  Exhorting them, that they would not esteem their own paucity, seated in the utmost borders of the earth, more wife than the ancient or modern Churches of Christ through the whole world; and that they would not celebrate another Easter contrary to the Paschall computations, and the Synodall decrees of the Bishops of the whole world. and shortly after, the clergy of Rome (as we have said) upon the death of Severinus, wrote other letters unto them to the same effect. Now where Osullevan (pardon me, if I honour the rakehell too much, in naming him so often) avoucheth, that the common custome● said by the Church in celebrating the feast of the Lords resurrection was always observed by the Southern Irish; and now embraced also by the Northern, together with the picts and Britons (who received the faith from Irish Doctors) when they had knowledge given them of the rite of the Church of Rome: in all this (according to his common wont) he speaketh never a true word. For neither did the Southern Irish always observe the celebration of Easter commonly received abroad: neither did the Northern Irish, nor the picts, nor the Britons, many years after this admonition given by the Church of Rome, admit that observation among them. to speak nothing of his folly in saying, that the Britons received the faith from the Irish: when the contrary is so well known, that the Irish received the same from the Britons.  
That the common custom of celebrating the time of Easter was not always observed by the Southern Irish, may appear by those words of Bede, in the third book of his history and the third chapter. Porrò gentes Scottorum, quae in australibus Hiberniae insulae partibus morabantur, jamdudum ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis antistitis Pascha canonico ritu observare didicerunt. For if (as this place clearly proveth) the nations of the Scots, that dwelled in the Southern parts of Ireland, did learn to observe Easter after the canonical manner, upon the admonition of the Bishop of Rome: it is evident, that before that admonition they did observe it after another manner. The word jamdudum, which Bede here useth, is taken among authors oftentimes in contrary senses: either to signify a great while since, or else, but lately or erewhile. In the former sense it must be here taken, if it have relation to the time wherein Bede did write his book: and in the latter also it may be taken, if it be referred to the time whereof he treateth, (which is the more likely opinion) namely to the coming of Bishop Aidan into England; which fell out within a year or little more, after that Honorius had sent his admonitory letters to the Irish. who, as he was the first Bishop of Rome we can read of, that admonished them to reform their rite of keeping the time of Easter: so that the Irish also much about the same time conformed themselves herein to the Roman usage, may thus be manifested.  
When Bishop Aidan came into England from the island Hylas, now called Y-Columkille; 
h Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 5.  the college of monks there was governed by Segenius, who in the 
i Id. lib. 2. cap. 19  inscription of the epistle of the clergy of Rome sent unto the Irish, is called Segianus. Now there is yet extant in Sir Robert Cottons worthy library, an epistle of Cummianus directed to this Segienus (for so is his name there written) abbot of Y-Columkille: wherein he plainly declareth, that the great cycle of DXXXII. years, and the Roman use of celebrating the time of Easter according to the same; was then newly brought in into this country. 
k Ego enim primo anno quo cyclus DXXXII anno. rum á nostris celebrari orsus est; non suscepi, sed silui, nec laudare nec vituperare ausus. Cummian. epist. ad Segienum.  For the first year (saith he) wherein the cycle of DXXXII years began to be observed by our men; I received it not, but held my peace, daring neither to commend it nor to dispraise it. That year being past, he saith he consulted with his ancients; who were the successors of Bishop Ailbeus, Queranus Coloniensis, Brendinus, Nessanus and L●●gidus. who being gathered together in Campo-lene, concluded to celebrate Easter the year following together with the universal Church. 
l Se● non post multum fuirexit quidam pa●ies de albatus, traditionem seniorum servare s● simulans; qui utraque non fecit unum sed divisit, & ir●itum ex parte fecit quod promissum est: quem Dominus, ut spero, percutiet quoquo modo voluerit. Ibid.  But not long after (saith he) there arose up a certain whited wall, pretending to keep the tradition of the Elders; which did not make both one, but divided them, and made void in part that which was promised: whom the Lord (as I hope) will smite, in whatsoever manner he pleaseth.  
To this argument drawn from the tradition of the elders, he maketh answer: that 
m Seniores veró, quos in velamine repulsionis habetis, quod optimum in diebus suis esse noverunt simpliciter & fideliter sine culpa contradictionis ullius & animositatis observaverunt, & suis posteris sic mandaverunt Ibid.  they did simply and faithfully observe that which they knew to be best in their days, without the fault of any contradiction or animosity, and did so recommend it to their posterity. and opposeth thereunto 
n Vniver●alis Ecclesiae Catholicae unanimem regulam. Ibid.  the unanimous rule of the Universal Catholic Church: deeming this to be a very harsh conclusion. 
o Roma errat, Hierosolyma errat, Alexandria errat, Antiochia errat, totus mundus errat; soli tantùm Scoti & Britoneses rectum sapiunt. Ibid.  Rome erreth, jerusalem erreth, Alexandria erreth, Antioch erreth, the whole world erreth: the Scottish only and the Britons do alone hold the right. but especially he urgeth the authority of the first of these patriarchical Sees, which now (since the advancement thereof by the Emperor Phocas) began to be admired by the inhabitants of the earth, as the place which God had chosen; whereunto, if greater causes did arise, recourse was to be had, according to the Synodical decree, as unto the head of cities and therefore he saith, that they sent some unto Rome: who returning back in the third year, informed them, that they met there with a Grecian, and an Hebrew, and a Scythian, and an Egyptian in one lodging, and that they all, and the whole world too, did keep their Easter at the same time, when the Irish were disjoined from them by the space of a whole 
* This seemeth to have fallen out, either in the year 634. or●4● ●4●. wherein Easter was solemnised at Rome the 24. day of April, and it appeareth by our Annals, that Segenius was abbot of Y-Columkille from the year 624. until 652.  month. 
p Vidimus oculis nostris puellam coecam omnino ad has reliquias oculos aperientem, & paralyticum ambulantem, & multa daemonia eiecta. Cummian.  And we have proved (saith Cummianus) that the virtue of God was in the relics of the holy martyrs and the scriptures which they brought with them. For we saw with our eyes, a maid altogether blind opening her eyes at these relics, and a man sick of the palsy walking, and many devils cast out. Thus far he.  
The Northern Irish and Albanian Scottish on the other side, made little reckoning of the authority, either of the Bishop or of the Church of Rome. And therefore Bede, speaking of Oswy king of Northumberland, saith that▪ 
q Intellexerat enim veraciter Oswi, quamvis educatus á Scotis, quia Romana esset Catholica & Apostolica ecclesia, Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 29.  notwithstanding he was brought up by the Scottish, yet he understood that the Roman was the Catholic and Apostolic Church (or, that the Roman Church was Catholic and Apostolic) intimating thereby, that the Scottish, among whom he received his education, were of another mind. And long before that, Laurentius, Mellitus and justus (who were sent into England by Pope Gregory to assist Augustin) in a letter which they sent unto the Scots that did inhabit Ireland (so Bede writeth) complained of the distaste given unto them by their countrymen, in this manner. 
r Sed cognoscentes Britoneses, Scottos meliores putavimus. Scottos veró per Dagamum episcopum in hanc insulam, & Columbanun abbatem in Galliis venientem, nihil discrepare a Britonibus in eorum conversatione didicimus Nam Dagamus episcopus ad nos veniens, non solùm cibum nobiscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio quo vescebamur, sumere voluit. Laurent epist. apud Bed. lib. 2. cap 4.  When we knew the Britons, we thought that the Scots were better than they. But we learned by Bishop Daganus coming into this Island, and abbot Columbanus coming into France; that the Scots did differ nothing from the Britons in their conversation. For Daganus the Bishop coming unto us, would not take meat with us, no not so much as in the same lodging wherein we did eat.  
And as for miracles, we find them as rife among them that were opposite to the Roman tradition, as upon the other side. If you doubt it, read what Bede hath written of Bishop Aidan (
s Qui cujus meriti fuerit, etiam miraculorum signis internus arbiter edocuit. Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 15. item 16. & 17.  who of what merit he was, the inward judge hath taught, even by the tokens of miracles; saith he) and Adamnanus of the life of S. Colme or Columkille. Whereupon Bishop Colman in the Synod at Strenshalch frameth this conclusion. 
t Nunquid reverendissimum patrem nostrum Columbam, & successores ejus, viros Deo dilectos, qui eodem modo Pascha fecerunt, divinis paginis contraria sapuisse vel egisse credendum est? cum plurimi fuerint in eyes, quorum sanctitati coelesti signa & virtutum quae fecerunt miracula, testimonium praebuerunt: quos ut ipse sanctos esse non dubitans semper eorum vitam, mores & disciplinam sequi non desisto. Colman. apud Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 25.  Is it to be believed, that Colme our most reverend father, and his successors, men beloved of God, which observed Easter in the same manner that we do, did hold or do that which was contrary to the holy Scriptures? seeing there were very many among them, to whose heavenly holiness the signs and miracles which they did, bare testimony: whom nothing doubting to be Saints, I desist not to follow evermore their life, manners, and discipline. What Wilfride replied to this, may be seen in Bede: that which I much wonder at, among the many wonderful things related of S. Colme by Adamnanus, is this. that where he saith, that this Saint, during the time of his abode in the abbey of Clone (now called Clonmacnosh) did 
u Revelante Spiritu Sancto prophetavit de illâ quae post dies multos ob diversitatem Paschalis festi orta est inter Scotiae Ecclesias discordiâ. Adamnan. Vit. Columb. lib. 1. cap. 3.  by the revelation of the holy Ghost prophesy of that discord, which after many days arose among the Churches of Scotland (or Ireland) for the diversity of the feast of Easter: yet he telleth us not, that the holy Ghost revealed unto him, that he himself (whose example animated his followers to stand more stiffly herein against the Roman rite) was in the wrong, and aught to conform his judgement to the tradition of the Churches abroad▪ as if the holy Ghost did not much care, whether of both sides should carry the matter away in this controversy: for which (if you please) you shall hear a very pretty tale out of an old Legend, concerning this same discord whereof S. Colme is said to have prophesied.  

x Quodam tempore erat magnum Concilium populorum Hiberniae in Campo albo: inter quos erat contentio circa ordinem Paschae. Las●eanus enim abbas monasterii Leighlinne, cui suberant mille quingenti monachi, novum ordinem defendebat qui nuper de Româ venit: alii veró veterem defendebant. Vit. S. Munn● abbatis MS.  Upon a certain time (saith my Author) there was a great Council of the people of Ireland in the White field: among whom there was contention about the order of Easter. For Lasreanus, the Abbot of the monastery of Leighlin, unto whom there were subject a thousand and five hundred monks, defended the new order that lately came from Rome: but others defended the old. This Lasreanus or Lazerianus is the man, who in other Legends (of no greater credit than this we now have in hand) is reported to have been the Bishop of Rome's legate in Ireland; and is commonly accounted to have been the first Bishop of the Church of Leighlin. His principal antagonist at this meeting was one Munna, founder of the monastery which from him was called Teach-munna, that is, the house of Munna (in the Bishopric of Meath:) who would needs bring this question to the same kind of trial here, that Augustin is said to have done in England. In defence of the Roman order, Bede telleth us that Augustin made this motion to the British Bishops, for a final conclusion of the business. 
y Obsecremus Deum, qui habitare facit unanimes in domo patris sui, ut ipse nobis insinuare coelestibus signis dignetur, quae sequenda traditio, quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum. Adducatur aliquis aeger; & per cuius preces fuerit curatus, huius fides & operatio Deo devota atque omnibus sequenda credatur. Bed. lib. 2. hist. cap. 2.  Let us beseech God, which maketh men to dwell of one mind together in their father's house; that he will vouchsafe by some heavenly signs to make known unto us, what tradition is to be followed, & by what way we may hasten to the entry of his kingdom. Let some sick man be brought hither; and by whose prayers he shall be cured, let his faith and working be believed to be acceptable unto God, and to be followed by all men.  
Now Munna, who stood in defence of the order formerly used by the British and Irish, maketh a more liberal proffer in this kind, and leaveth Lasreanus to his choice. 
z Breviter disputemus: sed in nomine Domini agamus judicium. Tres optiones dantur tibi, Lasreane. Duo libri in ignem mittentur, liber veteris ordinis & novi; ut videamus, quis eorum de igne liberabitur▪ Velure duo monachi, unus meus alter tuus, in unam domum recludantur, & domus comburatur: & videbimus, quis ex eis evadat intactus igne. Aut eamus ad sepulcrum mortui iusti monachi, & resuscitemus eum; & indicet nobis, quo ordine debemus hoc anno Pascha celebrare Vit. S. Munnu.  Let us dispute briefly, (saith he) but in the name of God let us give judgement. Three things are given to thy choice, Lasreanus. Two books shall be cast into the fire, a book of the old order and of the new; that we may see whether of them both shall be freed from the fire. Or let two Monks, one of mine and another of thine, be shut up into one house: and let the house be burnt, and we shall see which of them will escape untouched of the fire. Or let us go unto the grave of a just Monk that is dead, and raise him up again: and let him tell us, after what order we ought to celebrate Easter this year. But Lasreanus being wiser than so, refused to put so great a matter to that hazard: and therefore returned this grave answer unto Munna; if all be true that is in the Legend. 
a Non ibimus ad judicium tuum quoniam scimus quòd, pro magnitudine laboris tui & sanctitatis, si diceres ut mons Marge commutaretur in locum Campi albi & Campus albus in locum montis Mairge▪ hoc propter te Deus statim faceret. Ibid.  We will not go unto thy judgement: because we know that, for the greatness of thy labour and holiness, if thou shouldest bid that mount Marge should be changed into the place of the White field, and the White field into the place of mount Marge; God would presently do this for thy sake. So prodigal do some make God to be of miracles, and in a manner careless how they should fall; as if in the dispensing of them, he did respect the gracing of persons rather than of causes.  
In what year this Council of the White field was held, is not certainly known: nor yet whether S. Munna be that whited wall, of whom we heard Cummianus complain. The Synod of Strenshalch (before mentioned) was assembled long after, at Whitby (called by the Saxons Streanesheale) in Yorkshire, the 
b Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 26.  year of our Lord DCLXIIII. for the decision of the same question. Concerning which, in the life of Wilfrid (written at the commandment of Acca, who in the time of Bede was Bishop of Hangustald or Hexham, in Northumberland) we read thus. 
c Quodam tempore in diebus Colmanni Eboracae civitatis episcopi metropolitanis, regnantibus Oswi & Alhfrido filio eius, Abbates & Presbyteri omnesque Ecclesiasticae disciplinae gradus simul in unum convenientes, in coenobio quae Streaneshel dicitur; praesente sanctimoniale matre piissimâ Hilde, praesentibus quoque Regibus & duobus Colmanno & Aegelberhto Episcopis, de Paschali ratione conquirebant, quid esset rectissimum, utrum more Bryttonum & Scottorum omnisque aqui●●nalis partis á XIIII. Lunâ Dominicâ die veniente usque ad XXII. (leg. XX.) Pascha agendum; an melius sit ratione Sedis Apostolicae, á XV. Lunâ usque XXI Paschalem Dominicam celebrandam. Tempus datum est Colmanno episcopo primum, ut dignum erat, audientibus cunctis reddere rationem. Ille autem intrepidâ ment respondens, dixit. Patres nostri & antecessores eorum manifesté Spiritu sancto inspirati, ut erat Columcille, XIIII. Lunâ die Dominicâ Pascha celebrandum sanxerunt: exemplum tenentes Iohannis Apostoli & Evangelistae, qui supra pectus Domini in Coenâ recubuit, & amator Domini dicebatur. Ille XIIII. Lunâ Pascha celebravit; & nos, sicut discipuli eius Polycarpus & alii, celebramus: nec hoc audemus pro patribus (fort. partibus) nostris, nec volumus mutare. Vit. Wilfrid. cap. 10. MS. in Bibliothecâ Cottonianà.  Upon a certain time in the days of Colman metropolitan Bishop of the city of York, Oswi and Alhfrid his son being Kings; the Abbots and Priests and all the degrees of Ecclesiastical orders meeting together at the monastery which is called Streaneshel, in the presence of Hilde the most godly mother of that abbey, in presence also of the Kings and the two Bishops Colman & Aegelberht, inquiry was made touching the observation of Easter, what was most right to be held: whether Easter should be kept according to the custom of the Britons and the Scots and all the Northern part, upon the Lord's day that came from the XIIII. day of the Moon until the XX. or whether it were better, that Easter Sunday should be celebrated from the XV. day of the Moon until the XXI. after the manner of the See Apostolic. Time was given unto Bishop Colman in the first place, as it was fit, to deliver his reason in the audience of all. Who with an undaunted mind made his answer, and said. Our fathers and their predecessors, who were manifestly inspired by the holy Ghost, as Columkille was, did ordain that Easter should be celebrated upon the Lord's day that fell upon the XIIII. Moon; following the example of john the Apostle and Evangelist, who leaned upon the breast of our Lord at his last Supper, and was called the lover of the Lord. He celebrated Easter upon the XIIII. day of the Moon: and we with the same confidence celebrate the same, as his disciples Polycarpus and others did; neither dare we for our parts, neither will we change this.  
Bede relateth his speech thus. 
d Pascha hoc quod agere soleo, á majoribus meis accepi, qui me huc Episcopum miserunt: quod omnes patres nostri viri Deo dilecti eodem modo celebrâsse noscuntur. Quod ne cui contemnendun & reprobandum esse videatur: ipsum est quod beatus Evangelista joannes, discipulus specialiter Domino dilectus, cum omnibus quibus praeerat Ecclesiis, celebrâsse legitur. Colman. apud Bedam, lib. 3. hist. cap. 25.  This Easter which I use to observe, I received from my elders, who did send me Bishop hither: which all our fathers, men beloved of God, are known to have celebrated after the same manner. Which that it may not seem unto any to be contemned and rejected: it is the same which the blessed Evangelist john, the disciple specially beloved by our Lord, with all the Churches which he did oversee, is read to have celebrated. Fridegodus (who wrote the life of Wilfride at the command of Odo archbishop of Canterbury) expresseth the same in verse, after this manner. 

e Fridegod. Vit. Wilfrid. MS. in Bibliothec. Cottonian.  Nos seriem patriam non frivola scripta tenemus,  
Discipulo 
* i. Sancti vel Beati.  eusebij Polycarpo dante johannis.  
Ille etenim bis septenae sub tempore Phaebae  
Sanctum praefixit nobis fore Pascha colendum,  
Atque nefas dixit, si quis contraria sentit.  On the contrary side Wilfride objected unto Colman and his clerks of Ireland; that they with their complices, the picts and the Britons, 
f Cum quibus de duabus ultimis Ocea●i insulis, his non totis, contra totum Orbem stulto labore pugnant. Wilfrid. apud Bed● lib. 3. cap. 25.  out of the two utmost Isles, and those not whole neither, did with a foolish labour fight against the whole world. 
g Et si sanctus erat ac potens virtutibus ille Columba vester, imo & noster si Christi erat: num praeferri potuit beatissimo Apostolorum principi? cui Dominus ait: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam & portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam; Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum. Ibid.  And if that Columb of yours (saith he) yea and ours also if he were Christ's, was holy and powerful in virtues: could he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the Apostles? unto whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Which last words wrought much upon the simplicity of King Oswy; who feared, that 
h Ne fortè me adveniente ad feres regni coelorum, nen sit qui reseret, averso illo qui claves tenere probatur. Ibid.  when he should come to the doors of the kingdom of heaven, there would be none to open, if he were displeased who was proved to keep the keys: but prevailed nothing with Bishop Colman; who 
i Tonsuram & Paschae rationem propter timorem patriae suae contempsit. Vit. Wilfrid. cap. 10  for the fear of his country (as the ancient author of the life of Wilfride writeth) contemned the tonsure and the observation of Easter used by the Romans; and 
k Colman videns spretam suam doctrinam, sectamque esse despectan; assumptis his qui se sequi voluerunt, id est, qui Pascha catholicum & tonsuran coronae (nam & de hoc quaestio non 〈◊〉 erat) recipere ●olebant, in Scotian regressus est. Bed. li. 3. hist. cap. 26. Vide etiam lib. 4. cap. 4.  taking with him such as would follow him, that is to say, such as would not receive the catholic Easter and the tonsure of the crown (for of that also there was then no small question) returned back again into Scotland.  
In his room was Wilfride chosen archbishop of York: who had learned at Rome from archdeacon Boniface, 
l Paschalem rationem, quam schismatici Brittanniae & Hiberniae non cognoverunt; & alias multas Ecclesiasticae disciplinae regulas Bonifacius archidiaconal quasi proprio filio suo diligenter dictavit Vit. Wilfrid. cap 5. See also Bede, lib. 5. cap. 20.  the course of Easter, which the schismatics of Britain and Ireland did not know (so go the words of the ancient writer of his life:) and afterward did brag, 
m Se primum fuisse, qui verum Pascha in Northanimbriâ Scotis eiectis docuerit, qui cantus Ecclesiasticos antiphonatim instituerit, qui sanctissimi Benedicti regulam á monachis observari jusserit. Guili●lm. Malmesbur lib. 3. de gest. Pontific. Angl.  that he was the first which did teach the true Easter in Northumberland (having cast out the Scots,) which did ordain the Ecclesiastical songs to be parted on sides, and which did command S. Benetts' rule to be observed by Monks. But when he was named to the Archbishopric, 
n Sed perstitit ille negare; ne ab Episcopis Scotts, vel ab iis quos Scotti ordinaverant, consecrationem susciperet, quorum communionem sedes aspernaretur Apostolica. Id ibid.  he refused it at the first (as William of Malmesbury relateth) lest he should receive his consecration from the Scottish Bishops, or from such as the Scots had ordained, whose communion the Apostolic See had rejected. The speech which he used to this purpose, unto the Kings that had chosen him, is thus laid down by the writer of his life. 
o O Domini venerabiles Reges; omnibus modis nobis necessarium est providè considerare, quomodo cum electione vestrâ, sine accusatione catholicorum virorum, ad gradum Episcopalem cum Dei adiutorio venire valeam. Sunt enim hîc in Brytanniá multi Episcopi, quorum nullum meum est accus●re, quamvis veraciter sciam, quòd aut quatuordecim anni sunt, ut Brytones & Scotti ab illis sunt ordinati, quos nec Apostolica sedes in communionem recepit, neque eos qui schismaticis consentiunt. Et ideò in meâ humilitate á vobis posco, ut me mittatis cum vestro praesidio ●ans mare ad Galliarum regionem, ubi catholici Episcopi multi habentur: ut sine controversiâ Apostolicae sedis, licèt indignus, gradum Episcopalem merear accipere. Vit. Wilfrid. cap. 12.  O my honourable Lords the Kings; it is necessary for us by all means providently to consider, how with your election I may (by the help of God) come to the degree of a Bishop, without the accusation of catholic men. For there be many Bishops here in Britain, none of whom it is my part to accuse, ordained within these fourteen years by the Britons and Scots, whom neither the See Apostolic hath received into her communion, nor yet such as consent with the schismatics. And therefore in my humility I request of you, that you would send me with your warrant beyond the Sea, into the country of France, where many Catholic Bishops are to be had; that without any controversy of the Apostolic See I may be counted meet, though unworthy, to receive the degree of a Bishop.  
While 
p Quo ultra mare moras nectente, Oswius rex, praeventus consiliis Quartadecimanorum (qui vocabantur ita, quia Pascha in quartadecima Lunâ cum Iudaeis celebrabant) Ceddam virum sanctissimum, tamen contra regulas, intrusit tribunali Eboracensi. Guilielm. Malmesbur. lib. 3. de gest. Pontif. Angl.  Wilfride protracted time beyond the Seas, King Oswy led by the advice of the Quartadecimans (so they injuriously nicknamed the British and Irish, that did celebrate Easter from the fourteenth to the twentieth day of the moon) appointed 
q Ordinantes servum Dei religiosissimum & admirabilem Doctorem, de Hiberniâ insulâ venientem nomine Coeodda, adhuc eo ignorant, in sedem episcopalem Euroicae civitatis indocté contra canones constituerunt. Vit. Wilfrid. cap 14.  a most religious servant of God and an admirable Doctor that came from Ireland, named Ceadda, to be ordained Bishop of York in his room. 
Constituunt etenim perverso canon Coeddam,  
Moribus acclinem, doctrinae robore fortem,  
Praesulis eximij servare cubilia: sicque  
Audacter vivo sponsam rapuere marito,  saith Fridegodus. This Ceadda, being the scholar of Bishop Aidan, was far otherwise affected to the British and Irish then Wilfride was: and therefore was content to receive his ordination from 
r Ab illo est consecratus antistes, assumptis in societatem ordinationis duobus de Britonum gente Episcopis, qui Dominicum Paschae diem secus morem canonicum á XIIII. usque ad XXI. Lunam celebrant. Non enim erat tunc ullus, excepto illo Wini, in totâ Britanniá canonicé ordinatus episcopus. Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 28.  Wini Bishop of the Westsaxons and two other British Bishops that were of the Quartadeciman party. For at that time (as Bede noteth) there was not in all Britain any Bishop canonically ordained (that is to say, by such as were of the communion of the Church of Rome) except that Wini only.  
But shortly after, the opposition betwixt these two sides grew to be so great, that our Cuthbert (Bishop of Lindisfarne) upon his death bed required his followers; that they should 
s Cum illis autem qui ab unitate catholicae pacis, vel Pascha non suo tempore celebrando, vel perverse vivendo aberrant, vobis sit nulla communio: etc. Id. in V●●. Cuthbert. cap. 39  hold no communion with them which did swerve from the unity of the catholic peace, either by not celebrating Easte● in his due time, or by living perversely: and that they should rather take up his bones and remove their place of habitation, than any way condescend to submit their necks unto the yoke of schismatics. And among the decrees made by some of the Saxon Bishops (which were to be seen in the library of Sir Thomas Knevet in Norfolk, and are still, I suppose, preserved there by his heir) this is laid down for one. 
t Qui ordinati sunt á Scottorum vel Brittanorum Episcop●●, qui in Paschâ vel Tonsurâ Catholicae non sunt adunati Ecclesiae; iterùm á Catholico Episcopo manus impositione confirmentur. Similiter & Ecclesiae quae ab illis Episcopis ordinantur, aquâ exorcizatâ aspergantur, & aliquâ collectione confirmentur. Licentiam quoque non habemus eis poscentibus Chrismam vel Eucharistiam dare, ni antè confessi fuerint velle se nobiscum esse in unitate Ecclesiae. Et qui ex horum similiter gente, vel quacunque, de baptismo suo dubitaverint, baptizentur. Decret. Pontific. MS. cap. 9 De communicatione Scottorun & Brittonun, qui in Paschâ & tonsurâ catholici non sunt.  Such as have received ordination from the Bishops of the Scots or britains, who in the matter of Easter and Tonsure are not united unto the Catholic Church, let them be again by imposition of hands confirmed by a Catholic Bishop. In like manner also let the Churches that have been ordered by those Bishops, be sprinkled with exorcized water, & confirmed with some service. We have no licence also to give unto them Chrism or the Eucharist, when they require it; unless they do first profess, that they will remain with us in the unity of the Church. And such likewise as either of their nation, or of any other, shall doubt of their baptism, let them be baptised. Thus did they. On the other side, how averse the British and the Irish were from having any communion with those of the Roman party; the 
u Bed. l●b. 2. hist. cap 4.  complaint of Laurentius, Mellitus and justus before specified, doth sufficiently manifest. But above all others, the British Priests that dwelled in West-wales abhorred their communion beyond all measure: as Aldhelme abbot of Malmesbury declareth at large in his Epistle sent to Geruntius king of Cornwall. where among many other particulars he showeth, that 
x Si quilibet de nostris, id est, Catholicis ad eos habitandi gratiâ perrexerint, non prius ad consortium sodalitatis suae adsciscere dignantur, quam quadraginta dierum spatia in poenitendo peragere compellantur. Aldhelm. epist. ad Domnoni●s.  if any of the Catholics (for so he calleth those of his own side) did go to dwell among them; they would not vouchsafe to admit them unto their company and society, before they first put them to forty days penance. Yea 
y Quip cum usque hodie moris sit Britonum, fidem religionemque Anglorum pro nihilo habere, neque in aliquo eis magis communicare quam paganis. Bed. lib. 2. hist. cap. 20.  even to this day (saith Bede, who wrote his history in the year DCCXXXI.) it is the manner of the Britons, to hold the faith and the religion of the English in no account at all, nor to communicate with them in any thing more than with Pagans. Whereunto those verses of Taliessyn (honoured by the Britain's with the title of Ben Beirdh, that is, the chief of the Bards or wisemen) may be added: which evidently show, that he wrote after the coming of Austin the monk into England, and not 50. or 60. years before, as others have imagined. 
Gwae'r offeiriad bid  
Nys angreifftia gwyd  
Ac ny phregetha:  
Gwaeny chèidw ey gail  
Ac of yn vigail,  
Ac nys areilia:  
Gwae ny cheidw ey dheuaid  
Rhac bleidhie, Rhufeniaid  
A'i ffon gnwppa.  which Humphrey Lhoyd doth thus English.  
Woe be to that priest yborn,  
That will not cleanly weed his corn  
And preach his charge among:  
Woe be to that shepherd (I say)  
That will not watch his fold always,  
As to his office doth belong:  
Woe be to him that doth not keep  
From Romish wolves his sheep  
With staff and weapon strong.  
By all that hath been said, the vanity of Osullevan may be seen, who feigneth the Northern Irish, together with the picts and the Britons, to have been so obsequious unto the Bishop of Rome; that they reform the celebration of Easter by them formerly used, as soon as they understood what the rite of the Roman Church was. Whereas it is known, that after the declaration thereof made by Pope Honorius and the clergy of Rome; the Northern Irish were nothing moved therewith, but continued still their own tradition. And therefore Bede findeth no other excuse for Bishop Aidan herein; but that 
z Quòd autem Pascha non suo tempore observabat, vel canonicum eius tempus ignorans, vel suae gentis auctoritate, ne agnitum sequeretur, devictus; non approbo nec laudo▪ Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.  either he was ignorant of the canonical time, or if he knew it, that he was so overcome with the authority of his own nation, that he did not follow it: that he did it, 
a More suae gentis. Ibid. cap. 3.  after the manner of his own nation; and that 
b Pascha contra morem eorum qui ipsum miserant, facere non potuit. Ibid. cap. 25.  he could not keep Easter contrary to the custom of them which had sent him. His successor Finan 
c Id. ibid.  contended more fiercely in the business with Ronan his countryman, and declared himself an open adversary to the Roman rite. Colman that succeeded him, did tread just in his steps so far, that being put down in the Synod of Streanshal, yet for fear of his country (as before we have heard out of the ancient writer of the life of Wilfride) he refused to conform himself; and chose rather to forgo his archbishopric, then to submit himself unto the Roman laws. 
Colmanusque suas inglorius abjicit arces,  
Malens Ausonias victui dissolvere leges:  saith Fridegodus. Neither did he go away alone: but 
d Colmanus qui de Scotiâ erat episcopus, relinquens Britanniam, tulit secum omnes quos in Lindisfarorum insulâ congregaverat Scotos. Bed. lib. 4. cap. 4.  took with him all his countrymen that he had gathered together in Lindisfarne or Holy Island: the Scottish monks also that were at Rippon (in Yorkshire) 
e Optione datâ, maluerunt loco cedere, quam Pascha catholicum, caeterosque ritus canonicos juxta Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae consuetudinem recipere. Id. lib. 5. cap. 20. See also lib. 3. cap. 25. where Humpun seemeth to be put for Hrippun.  making choice rather to quit their place, then to admit the observation of Easter and the rest of the rites according to the custom of the Church of Rome. And so did the matter rest among the Irish about forty years after that: until their own countryman 
f Ibid. cap. 16. & 22.  Adamnanus persuaded most of them to yield to the custom received herein by all the Churches abroad.  
The picts did the like not long after, under king Naitan: who 
g Nec mora, quae dixerat, regiâ autoritate perfecit. Statim nanque jussu publico mittebantur ad transcribendun, discendum, observandum per universas Pictorum provincias circuli Paschae decennovennales; obliteratis per omnia erroneis octoginta & quatuor annorum circulis. Attondebantur omnes in coronam ministri altaris ac monachi. etc. Ibid. cap. 22.  by his regal authority commanded Easter to be observed throughout all his provinces according to the cycle of XIX. years (abolishing the erroneous period of LXXXIIII. years which before they used) and caused all Priests and Monks to be shorn croune-wise, after the Roman manner. The monks also of the Island of Hylas or Y-Columkille, 
h Id. lib. 3. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap. 23.  by the persuasion of Ecgbert (an English Priest, that had been bred in Ireland) in the year of our Lord DCCXVI. forsook the observation of Easter & the tonsure which they had received from Columkille a hundred and fifty years before, and followed the Roman rite; about LXXX. years after the time of Pope Honorius, and the sending of Bishop Aidan from thence into England. The Britons in the time of 
i Id. lib. 5. cap. 23. & 24.  Bede retained still their old usage: until 
k See the History of Wales; after the year▪ 755. and 808.  Elbodus (who was the chief Bishop of North-wales, and died in the year of our Lord DCCCIX.) brought in the Roman observation of Easter. which is the cause, why 
l Ego Nennius sancti Elbodi discipulus, aliqua excerpta scribere curavi. Nen●. MS. in publicâ Cantabrig. academ. Bibliothecâ ubi alia exemplaria haben●: Ego Nennius (vel Ninnius) Elvodugi discipulus.  his disciple Nennius, designeth the time wherein he wrote his history, by the character of the 
m Ab adventu Patricii in jam dictam insulam (Hiberniams●.) usque ad cyclun decennovennalem in quo sumus, 22. sunt cycli, id est, 421 & sunt duo anni in Ogdoa▪ de usque in hunc annum. id.  XIX. years' cycle, and not of the other of LXXXIV. But howsoever North-wales did; it is very probable that West-wales (which of all the other parts was most eagerly bend against the traditions of the Roman Church) stood out yet longer. For we find in the Greek writers of the life of Chrysostome, that certain clergy men which dwelled in the Isles of the Ocean, repaired from the utmost borders of the habitable world unto Constantinople, in the days of Methodius (who was Patriarch there, from the year DCCCXLII. to the year DCCCXLVII.) to inquire of 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 8. Chrysost. edit. Henr. Savil. pag. 321.6. & in Notis▪ col. 966.5▪  certain Ecclesiastical traditions, and the perfect and exact computation of Easter. Whereby it appeareth, that these questions were kept still a foot in these Lands; and that the resolution of the Bishop of Constantinople was sought for from hence, as well as the determination of the Bishop of Rome, who is now made the only Oracle of the world.  
Neither is it here to be omitted, that whatsoever broils did pass betwixt our Irish that were not subject to the See of Rome, and those others that were of the Roman communion: in the succeeding ages, they of the one side were esteemed to be Saints, as well as they of the other; Aidan for example and Finan, who were counted ringleaders of the Quartadeciman party, as well as Wilfride and Cuthbert, who were so violent against it. Yet now a day's men are made to believe, that out of the communion of the Church of Rome nothing but Hell can be looked for; and that subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as to the visible Head of the Universal Church, is required as a matter necessary to salvation. Which if it may go currant for good Divinity: the case is like to go hard, not only with the 
o Bed. lib. ●hist. cap 2.  twelve hundred British Monks of Bangor, who were martyred in one day by Edelfride king of Northumberland (whom our Annals style by the name of 
p An. Dom. 612 (vel 613.) Bellum Cairelegion, ubi Sancti occisi sunt. Anual. Vlton. MS.  the Saints;) but also with S. Aidan and S. Finan, who deserve to be honoured by the English nation with as venerable a remembrance, as (I do not say, Wilfride and Cuthbert, but) Austin the monk and his followers. For by the ministry of 
q Bed. lib. 3. hist. cap. 3. & 6.  Aidan was the kingdom of Northumberland recovered from paganism: (whereunto belonged then, beside the shire of Northumberland and the lands beyond it unto Edenborrow Frith, Cumberland also and Westmoreland, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the Bishopric of Durham:) and by the means of 
r Ibid. cap. 21.22.24.  Finan, not only Essex and Middlesex regained, but also the large kingdom of Mercia converted first unto Christianity; which comprehended under it, Glocestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Rutlandshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Huntingtonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Darbyshire, Shropshire, Nottinghamshire, Chesshire, and half Hertfordshire.  
The Scottish that professed no subjection to the Church of Rome, were they, that sent preachers for the conversion of these countries; and ordained Bishops to govern them: namely 
s Ibid. cap 3.5.17.25.26.  Aidan, Finan and Colman successively for the kingdom of Northumberland; 
t Ibid. cap. 22.25.  for the Eastsaxons, Cedd brother to Ceadda the Bishop of York before mentioned; 
u Ibid cap. 21.24.  for the Middle-Angles and the Mercians, Diuma (for 
x Paucitas enim Sacerdotum cogebat unum antistitem duobus populis praefici. Ibid. cap. ●1.  the paucity of Priests, saith Bede, constrained one Bishop to be appointed over two people) and after him Cellach and Trumhere. And these with their followers, notwithstanding their division from the See of Rome, were for 
y Ibid. cap. 3.4.5.17.26.  their extraordinary sanctity of life and painfulness in preaching the Gospel (wherein they went far beyond those of the other side, that afterward thrust them out and entered in upon their labours) exceedingly reverenced by all that knew them: Aidan especially, who 
z Etsi Pascha contra morem eorum qui ipsum miserant, facere non potuit; opera tamen fidei, pietatis & dilectionis, juxta morem omnibus sanctis consuetum diligenter exequi curavit. Vnde ab omnibus, etiam his qui de Pascha aliter sentiebant, meritò diligebatur: nec ●olùm á mediocribus, verùm ab ipsis quoque episcopis, Honorio Cantuariorun & Felice Orientalium Anglorum, venerationi habitus est Ibid. cap. 25.  although he could not keep Easter (saith Bede) contrary to the manner of them which had sent him; yet he was careful diligently to perform the works of faith and godliness and love, according to the manner used by all holy men. Whereupon he was worthily beloved of all, even of them also who thought otherwise of Easter than he did: and was had in reverence not only by them that were of meaner rank, but also by the Bishops themselves, Honorius of Canterbury, and Felix of the East-Angles. Neither did Honorius and Felix any other way carry themselves herein, than their predecessors Laurentius, Mellitus and justus had done before them: who writing unto the Bishops of Ireland, that dissented from the Church of Rome in the celebration of Easter and many other things; made no scruple to prefix this loving & respectful superscription to their letters. 
a Dominis charissimis fratribus, Episcopis vel abbatibus per universam Scotiam; Laurentius, Mellitus & justus episcopi, servi servorum Dei. Id. lib. 2. cap. 4.  To our Lords and most dear brethren, the Bishops or Abbots throughout all Scotland; Laurentius, Mellitus and justus Bishops, the servants of the servants of God. For howsoever Ireland at that time 
b Gens quanquam absque reliquarum gentium legibus; tamen in Christiani vigoris dogmate florins, omnium vicinarum gentium fidem praepollet. Io●● it. Columban. cap. 1.  received not the same laws wherewith other nations were governed: yet it so flourished in the vigour of Christian doctrine, (as Abbot jonas testifieth) that it exceeded the faith of all the neighbour nations; & in that respect was generally had in honour by them.  
It now remaineth that in the last place we should consider the Pope's power in disposing the temporal state of this kingdom: which either directly or indirectly, by hook or by crook, this grand Usurper would draw unto himself. First therefore Cardinal Allen would have us to know, that 
c Allen. Answer to the Execution of justice in England. pag. 140.  the Sea Apostolic hath an old claim unto the sovereignty of the country of Ireland; and that before the covenants passed between king john and the same Sea. Which challenges (saith he) Princess commonly yield not up, by what ground so ever they come. What Princes use to yield or not yield, I leave to the scanning of those, unto whom Princes matters do belong: for the Cardinal's Prince I dare be bold to say, that if it be not his use to play fast and loose with other Princes, the matter is not now to do; whatsoever right he could pretend to the temporal state of Ireland▪ he hath transferred it (more than once) unto the Kings of England. and when the ground of his claim shall be looked into; it will be found so frivolous and so ridiculous, that we need not care three chips, whether he yield it up or keep it to himself. For whatsoever become of his idle challenges: the Crown of England hath otherwise obtained an undoubted right unto the sovereignty of this country; partly by Conquest, prosecuted at first upon occasion of a Sociall war, partly by the several submissions of the chieftains of the land made afterwards. For 
d cum juri suo renuntiare liberum sit cuilibet (quanquam subjectionis cujuslibet hactenus immunes) his tamen hodie nostris diebus, Anglorum Regi Henrico secundo omnes Hiberniae principes firmis fidei sacramentique vin●ulis se sponte submiserunt. G●rald. Cambrens Hibern exp●gnat. lib. 2. cap. 7.  whereas it is free for all men, although they have been formerly quit from all subjection, to renounce their own right: yet now in these our days (saith Giraldus Cambrensis, in his history of the Conquest of Ireland) all the Princes of Ireland did voluntarily submit, and bind themselves with firm bonds of faith and oath, unto Henry the second King of England. The like might be said of the general submissions made in the days of King Richard the second and King Henry the eighth: to speak nothing of the prescription of divers hundreds of years possession; which was the plea that 
e judg. 11.26.  jephte used to the Ammonites, and is indeed the best evidence that the Bishop, of Rome's own 
f Genebrard. Chronograph. lib. 3. in Sylvest. I. Bellarmin. de Roman. Pontis. li. 5. cap. 9 in fine.  proctor's do produce for their Master's right to Rome itself.  
For the Pope's direct dominion over Ireland; two titles are brought forth; beside those covenants of King john (mentioned by Allen) which he that hath any understanding in our state, knoweth to be clearly void and worth nothing. The one is taken from a special grant supposed to be made by the inhabitants of the country, at the time of their first conversion unto Christianity: the other from a right which 
g Insulas omnes sibi speciali quodam jure vendicat. Girald. Cambrens. Hibern. expugnat. lib. 2. cap. 7.  the Pope challengeth unto himself over all Lands in general. The former of these was devised of late by an Italian, in the reign of King Henry the eighth; the later was found out in the days of King Henry the second: before whose time not one footsteppe doth appear in all antiquity of any claim that the Bishop of Rome should make to the dominion of Ireland; no not in the Pope's own records, which have been curiously searched by Nicolaus Arragonius, and other ministers of his, who have purposely written of the particulars of his temporal estate. The Italian of whom I spoke, is Polydore Vergil; he that composed the book De inventoribus rerum, of the first Inventors of things: among whom he himself may challenge a place for this invention; if the Inventors of lies be admitted to have any room in that company. This man being sent over by the Pope into England 
h Nos hanc olim quaesturam aliquot per annos gessimus; eiusque muneris obeundi caussâ, primùm in Angliam venimus. Polydor. Vergil Anglic. histor lib. ●  for the collecting of his Peter-pences, undertook the writing of the History of that nation; wherein he forgot not by the way to do the best service he could to his Lord that had employed him thither. There he telleth an idle tale; how the Irish being moved to accept Henry the second for their King, 
i Id Hiberni posse fieri, nisi autoritate Romani Pontificis negabant; quòd iam inde ab initio, post Christianam religionem acceptam, sese ac omnia sua in eius ditionem dedidissent: atque constanter affirmabant, non alium habere se Dominum, praeter ipsum Pontificem; id quod etiam nunc jactitant Id. lib. 13. eiusd. histor.  did deny that this could be done otherwise then by the Bishop of Rome's authority: because (forsooth) that from the very beginning, after they had accepted Christian religion, they had yielded themselves and all that they had into his power. and they did constantly affirm (saith this fabler) that they had no other Lord, beside the Pope: of which also they yet do brag.  
The Italian is followed herein by two Englishmen, that wished the Pope's advancement as much as he; Edmund Campian and Nicholas Sanders. the one whereof writeth, that 
k Camp. History of Ireland. lib. 2. cap. 1.  immediately after Christianity planted here, the whole Island with one consent gave themselves no● only into the spiritual, but also into the temporal jurisdiction of the See of Rome. the other in Polydores own words (though he name him not) that 
l Hiberni initio statim post Christianam religionem acceptam, se suaque omnia in Pontificis Romani ditionem dederant; nec quenquam alium supremum Hiberniae Principem ad illud usque tempus praeter unum Romanum Pontificem agnoverunt. Saunder. de schism. Anglican. lib. 1. ad an. 1542.  the Irish from the beginning, presently after they had received Christian religion, gave up themselves and all that they had into the power of the Bishop of Rome; and that until the time of King Henry the second, they did acknowledge no other supreme Prince of Ireland, beside the Bishop of Rome alone. For confutation of which dream, we need not have recourse to our own Chronicles: the Bull of Adrian the fourth, wherein he giveth liberty to King Henry the second to enter upon Ireland, sufficiently discovereth the vanity thereof. For he there showing what right the Church of Rome pretended unto Ireland, maketh no mention at all of this (which had been the fairest and clearest title that could be alleged, if any such had been then existent in rerum natura) but is fain to fly unto a far fetched interest which he saith the Church of Rome hath unto all Christian Lands. 
m Sané omnes Insulas, quibus Sol justitiae Christus illuxit▪ & quae documenta fidei Christianae susceperunt, ad jus S Petri & sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae (quod tua etiam Nobilitas recognoscit) non est dubium pertinere. Bull. Adrian. IV. ad Henr. l l. Angl. reg.  Truly (saith he to the King) there is no doubt, but that all Lands unto which Christ the Sun of righteousness hath shined, and which have received the instructions of the Christian faith, do pertain to the right of Saint Peter and the holy Church of Rome: which your Nobleness also doth acknowledge.  
If you would further understand the ground of this strange claim, whereby all Christian Lands at a clap are challenged to be parcel of S. Peter's patrimony: you shall have it from johannes Sarisburiensis, who was most inward with Pope Adrian, and obtained from him this very grant whereof now we are speaking. 
n Ad preces meas illustri Regi Anglorun Henrico secundo concessit & dedit Hiberniam iure haereditario possidendan: sicut literae ipsius testantur in hodiernum diem. Nam omnes insulae, de iure antiquo, ex donatione Constantini, qui eam fundavit & dotavit, dicuntur ad Romanam Ecclesiam pertinere. johann. Saruburiens. Metalogic. lib. 4. cap. 42.  At my request (saith he) he granted Ireland to the illustrious King of England Henry the second, and gave it to be possessed by right of inheritance: as his own letters do testify unto this day. For all Lands, of ancient right, are said to belong to the Church of Rom●, by the donation of Constantine, who founded and endowed the same. But will you see, what a goodly title here is, in the mean time? First, the Donation of Constantine hath been long since discovered to be a notorious forgery, and is rejected by all men of judgement as a senseless fiction. Secondly, in the whole context of this forged Donation I find mention made of Lands in one place only: 
o Per nostram Imperialem iussionem sacram, tam in Oriente qu●m in Occidente, vel etiam septentrionali & meridianâ plagâ, videlicèt in judaeâ, Graeciâ, Asiâ, Thraciâ, Aphricâ & Italiam, vel diversis Insulis nostrâ largitate eis libertatem concessimus: eâ prorsus ratione, ut per manus beatissimi patris nostri Sylvestri Pontificis successorumque eius omnia disponantur. Edict. Constantin  where no more power is given to the Church of Rome over them, then in general over the whole Continent (by East and by West, by North and by South) and in particular over judaea, Graecia, Asia, Thracia, and Aphrica; which use not to pass in the account of S. Peter's temporal patrimony. Thirdly, it doth not appear, that Constantine himself had any interest in the kingdom of Ireland: how then could he confer it upon another? Some words there be in an oration of 
p Vltra Oceanum veró quid erat praeter Britanniam? Quae á vobis ita recuperata est ut illae quoque nationes terminis eiusdem insulae cohaerentes vestris nutibus obsequantur. Eumen. Panegyric. ad Constant.  Eumenius the Rhetorician, by which peradventure it may be collected, that his father Constantius bore some stroke here: but that the Island was ever possessed by the Romans, or accounted a parcel of the Empire, cannot be proved by any sufficient testimony of antiquity. Fourthly, the late writers that are of another mind, as Pomponius Laetus, Cuspinian & others, do yet affirm withal, 
q Pomp. Lat. in Roman. histor. Compend. Io. Cuspinian. in Caesarib. Seb. Munster. in lib. 2 Cosmograph.  that in the division of the Empire after Constantine's death, Ireland was assigned unto Constantinus the eldest son: which will hardly stand with this donation of the Lands supposed to be formerly made unto the Bishop of Rome and his successors. Pope Adrian therefore, and john of Salisbury his solicitor, had need seek some better warrant for the title of Ireland, than the Donation of Constantine.  
john Harding in his Chronicle saith, that the Kings of England have right 

r Harding. Chronic. cap. 241.  To Ireland also, by king Henry (le fitz  
Of Maude, daughter of first King Henry)  
That conquered it, for their great heresy.  which in another place he expresseth more at large, in this manner. 

s Ibi●. cap. 1ST.  The King Henry then, conquered all Ireland  
By Papal doom, there of his royalty  
The profits and revenues of the land  
The domination, and the sovereignty  
For error which again the spiritualtee  
They held full long, and would not been correct  
Of heresies, with which they were infect.  Philip Osullevan on the other side, doth not only deny 
t Osullevan. Histor. Catholic. Iberniae, tom. 2. lib. 1. cap 7.  that Ireland was infected with any heresy: but would also have us believe, 
u Ibid. cap. 4.5.9. & lib 2. cap. 3.  that the Pope never intended to confer the Lordship of Ireland upon the Kings of England. For where it is said in Pope Adrians' Bull; 
x Illius terrae populus te recipiat, & sicut Dominum veneretur. Bull Adrian. IV.  Let the people of that land receive thee, and reverence thee as a Lord: the meaning thereof is, saith this Glozer, 
y Sicut Dominum veneretur, id est, ut Principem dignum magno honore; non Dominum Iberniae, sed praefectum caussâ colligendi tributi Ecclesiastici. Osullevan. Histor. Ibern. fol. 59 ●. in mangine.  Let them reverence thee, as a Prince worthy of great honour; not as Lord of Ireland, but as a Deputy appointed for the collecting of the Ecclesiastical tribute. It is true indeed that King Henry the second, to the end he might the more easily obtain the Pope's good will for his entering upon Ireland, did voluntarily offer unto him the payment of a yearly pension of one penny out of every house in the country: which (for aught that I can learn) was the first Ecclesiastical tribute that ever came unto the Pope's coffers out of Ireland. But that King Henry got nothing else by the bargain but the bare office of collecting the Pope's Smoke-silver (for so we called it here, when we paid it) is so dull a conceit; that I do somewhat wonder how Osullevan himself could be such a blockhead, as not to discern the senselessness of it.  
What the King sought for and obtained, is sufficiently declared by them that writ the history of his reign. 
z Robert. de Monte. Matth. Paris. & Nico●. Trivett. in Chronic. an 1155.  In the year of our Lord MCLU. the first Bull was sent unto him by Pope Adrian: the sum whereof is thus laid down in a second Bull, directed unto him by Alexander the third, the immediate successor of the other. 
a Venerabilis Adriani Papae vestigiis inhaerentes, vestrique desiderii fructum attendentes; concessionem●eiusdem super Hibernici regni domini vobis indulto (saluâ Beato Petro & sacrosanctae Ecclesiae Romanae, sicut in Angliâ sic in Hiberniá, de singulis domibus annuâ unius denarii pensione) ratam habemus & confirmamus. Bull. Alevandri I ll. apud Giraldum Cambrens. lib. 2. Histor. Hibern. expugnat. cap. 6. in codicibus. MS. (in edito enim caput hoc mancum est) & Io. Rossum Warvicensem, in tract. De terris Çoronae Angliae annexis.  Following the steps of reverend Pope Adrian, and attending the fruit of your desire; we ratify and confirm his grant concerning the dominion of the KINGDOM of Ireland conferred upon you: reserving unto S. Peter and the holy Church of Rome, as in England so in Ireland, the yearly pension of one penny out of every house. In this sort did Pope Adrian, as much as lay in him, give Ireland unto King Henry, haereditario jure possidendam, to be possessed by right of inheritance; and withal 
b Annulum quoque per me transmisit aureum, smaragdo optimo decoratum, quo fieret investitura iuris in gerenda Hibernia: idemque adhuc annulus in curiali archîo publico custodiri jussus est. Io. Sarisbur. Metalogic. lib. 4. cap▪ 42. de quo consulendus etiam est Giraldus Ca●hrens. lib. 2. Hibern. expugnat. cap. 6.  sent unto him a ring of gold, set with a fair Emerald, for his investiture in the right thereof: as johannes Sarisburiensis, who was the principal agent betwixt them both in this business, doth expressly testify. After this, in the year MCLXXI. the King himself came hither in person: where the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland 
c In Regem & Dominum receperunt. Matth Paris. in Historiâ maiori. an. 1171. Roger. Hoveden▪ in posteriore parte Annalium. johan. Brampton in Historiâ joralanensi. MS.  received him for their KING and Lord. The King (saith john Brampton) 
d Recepit ab unoquoque Archiepiscopo & Episcopo literas, cum sigillis suis in modum Chartae pendentibus; regnum Hiberniae sibi & haeredibus suis confirmantes, & testimonium perhibentes ipsos in Hiberniâ eum & haeredes suos sibi in Reges & Dominos in perpetuum constituisse. Io. Brampton ibid.  received letters from every Archbishop and Bishop, with their seals hanging upon them in the manner of an Indenture; confirming the KINGDOM of Ireland unto him and his heirs, and bearing witness that they in Ireland had ordained him and his heirs to be their KINGS and Lords for ever. At Waterford (saith Roger Hoveden) 
e Venerunt ibidem ad regem Angliae omnes Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates totius Hiberniae, & receperunt eum in Regem & Dominum Hiberniae; iurantes ei & haeredibus suis fidelitatem, & regnandi super eos potestatem in perpetuum: & inde dederunt ei chartas suas. Exemplo autem clericorum, praedicti Reges & principes Hiberniae, receperunt simili modo Henricum regem Angliae in Dominum & Regem Hiberniae; & homines sui devenerunt, & ei & haeredibus suis fidelitatem iuraverunt contra omnes homines Rog Hoveden. ad an. 1171.  all the Archbishops, Bishops, & Abbots of Ireland came unto the King of England, and received him for KING and Lord of Ireland; swearing fealty to him and to his heirs, and power to reign over them for ever: and hereof they gave him their Instruments. The Kings also and Princes of Ireland, by the example of the clergy, did in like manner receive Henry King of England for Lord and KING of Ireland; and became his men (or, did him homage) and swore fealty to him and his heirs against all men.  
These things were presently after confirmed in the national Synod held at Casshell: the Acts whereof in Giraldus Cambrensis are thus concluded. 
f Dignum etenim & iustissimum est, ut sicut Dominum & Regem ex Angliâ sortita est divinitùs Hibernia; sic etiam exinde vivendi formam accipiant meliorem. Girald. Cambrens. Hibern. Expugnat lib. 1. cap. 34.  For it is fit and most meet, that as Ireland by God's appointment hath gotten a Lord and a KING from England; so also they should from thence receive a better form of living. King Henry also at the same time 
g Rex Angliae misit transscriptum Chartarum universorum Archiepiscoporum & Episcoporum Hiberniae, ad Alexandrum Papam: & ipse authoritate Apostolicâ confirmavit illi & haeredibus suis regnum Hiberniae, secundùm formam Chartarum Archiepiscoporum & Episcoporum Hiberniae. Rog. Hoveden.  sent a transcript of the Instruments of all the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, unto Pope Alexander: who by his Apostolical authority (for so was it in those days of darkness esteemed to be) did confirm the KINGDOM of Ireland unto him and his heirs, (according to the form of the Instruments of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland) 
h Nam summus Pontifex regnum illud sibi & haeredibus suis auctoritate Apostolicâ confirmavit; & in perpetuum eos constituit inde Reges. Io. Brampton.  and made them KINGS thereof for ever. The King also 
i Perquisierat ab Alexandro▪ summo Pontifice, quòd liceret ei filium suum quem v●●let Regem Hiberniae facere, & similiter coronare; ac Reges & potentes eiusdem terrae, qui subiectionem ei facere nollent, debellare. Id. add an. 1177.  obtained further from Pope Alexander, that it might be lawful for him to make which of his sons he pleased, KING of Ireland, and to crown him accordingly; and to subdue the Kings and great ones of that land, which would not subject themselves unto him. Whereupon, in a grand Council held at Oxford in the year of our Lord MCLXXVII. 
k johannem filium suum coram Episcopis & regni sui principibus Regem Hiberniae constituit. Id. ibid. & Gualterus Co●entrensis, in eiusdem anni historic.  before the Bishops and Peers of the kingdom he constituted his son john KING of Ireland; 
l Constituit johannem filium suum Regem in Hiberniâ, concessione & confirmatione Alexandri summi Pontificis. Rog. Hoveden Annal part. 2 a● an 1177.  according to that grant and confirmation of Pope Alexander. And to make the matter yet more sure, in the year MCLXXXVI. he obtained a new licence from Pope Vrban the third; 
m Ab co imp●travit; quòd unus quem vellet de filiis suis coronaretur de regno Hiberniae. & hoc confirmavit ei Dominus P●pa Bullâ suâ: & in argumentum voluntatis et confirmationis suae, misit ei coronam de pennâ pavonis auro contextam▪ Id. add an. 1185.  that one of his sons, whom he himself would, should be crowned for the KINGDOM of Ireland. And this the Pope did not only confirm by his Bull: but also the year following purposely sent over Cardinal Octavian and Hugo de Nunant (or Novant) 
n Quibus ipse commisit legatiam in Hiberniam, ad coronandum ibi johannem filium Regis. Sed Dominus Rex coronationem illam distulit. Id. add an. 1187.  his legates into Ireland, to crown john the King's son there.  
By all this we may see, how far King Henry the second proceeded in this business: which I do not so much note, to convince the stolidity of Osullevan, who would fain persuade fools, that he was preferred only to be collector of the Pope's Peter-p●nce; as to show, that Ireland at that time was esteemed a Kingdom, and the Kings of England accounted no less than Kings thereof. And therefore Paul the fourth needed not make all that noise, and trouble 
o Ad Dei omnipotentis laudem & gloriam, ac gloriosissimae eius genitricis Virginis Mariae, totiusque Curiae coelestis honorem, & fidei Catholicae exaltationem, Philippo Rege & Mariâ Reginâ nobis super hoc humiliter supplicantibus, de fratrum nostrorum consilio & Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, Apostolicâ authoritate Regnum Hiberniae perpetuò erigimus; ac titulo, dignitate, honore, facultatibus, iuribus, insigniis, pr●rogativis, antelationibus, praeeminentiis regiis, ac quibus alia Christi fidelium Regna utuntur, potiuntur, & gaudent, ac uti, potiri, & gaudere poterunt, in futurum insignimus & decoramus. Bulla Pauli IV. in Rotu●o Patentium, ann. ● & 3. Philippi & Mariae, in Cancellariâ Hiberniae.  the whole Court of heaven with the matter: when in the year MDLV. he took upon him by his Apostolical authority (such I am sure, as none of the Apostles of Christ did ever assume unto themselves) to erect Ireland unto the title and dignity of a Kingdom. Whereas he might have found, even in his own Roman Provincial, that Ireland was reckoned among the Kingdoms of Christendom, before he was borne. Insomuch, that in the year MCCCCXVII. when the legates of the King of England and the French Kings ambassadors fell at variance in the Council of Constance for precedency; the English Orators, among other arguments, alleged this also for themselves. 
p Satis constat, secundùm Albertum Magnun & Bartholomaeum de proprietatibus rerum, quòd toto Mundo in tres partes diviso (videlicèt Asiam, Africam & Europam) Europa in quatuor dividitur regna: primum videlicèt Romanum, secundum Constantinopolitanum, tertium regnum Hiberniae quod iam translatum est in Anglicos, & quartum regnum Hispaniae. Ex quo patet, quòd rex Angliae & regnum suum sunt de eminentioribus antiquioribus Regibus & Regnis totius Europae: quam praerogativam regnum Franciae non fertur obtinere. Act. Concil. Constant. Sess. 28. MS. in Bibliothecâ Regiâ jacobaeâ.  It is well known, that according to Albertus Magnus and Bartholomaeus in his book de proprietatibus rerum, the whole world being divided into three parts (to wit, Asia, afric and Europe) Europe is divided into four Kingdoms: namely, the Roman for the first, the Constantinopolitan for the second, the third the kingdom of Ireland which is now translated unto the English, and the fourth the kingdom of Spain. Whereby it appeareth, that the king of England and his kingdom are of the more eminent ancient Kings and Kingdoms of all Europe: which prerogative the kingdom of France is not said to obtain. And this have I here inserted the more willingly, because it maketh something for the honour of my country (to which, I confess, I am very much devoted) and in the printed Acts of the Council it is not commonly to be had.  
But now cometh forth Osullevan again, and like a little fury flieth upon 
q Cuius mali maxima culpa in aliquot Angloibernos Sacerdotes iure transferenda est; qui tartareum dogma ab Orco in Catholicorun per niciem emissun non ●●egabant, licere Catholicis contra Catholicos & svam patriam pro Haereticis gerere arm● & dimicare, Philip. Osullevan. Hist. Catholic. Iberniae, tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. ●. fol. 263. edit. Vlyssipon. an. 1621.  the English-Irish Priests of his own religion, which in the late rebellion of the Earl of Tirone did not deny that Hellish doctrine, fetched out of Hell for the destruction of Catholics, that it is lawful for Catholics to bear arms and fight for Heretics against Catholics and their country. or rather (if you will have it in plainer terms) that it is lawful for them of the Romish religion, to bear arms and fight for their Sovereign and fellow subjects that are of another profession, against those of their own religion that traitorously rebel against their Prince and country. and to show, 
r Haec est Academiarum censura; quâ liquidó constat, quantâ ignoratione & caligi ne erraverint illi Iberni, qui in hoc bello▪ Protestantibus opem tulerunt, & Catholicos oppugnârunt: quamque insanam & venenosam doctrinam attulerint nonnulli doctiores vulgò habiti, qui saeculares homines ad Reginae partes sequendas exhortati, á fide tuendâ averterunt. Id. tom. 3. lib. 8. cap. 7. fol. 204.  how mad and how venomous a doctrine they did bring (these be the caitiffs own terms) that exhorted the laity to follow the Queen's side: he setteth down the Censure of the Doctors of the University of Salamanca and Vallodilid, published in the year MDCIII. for the justification of that Rebellion, and the declaration of Pope Clement the eights letters touching the same; wherein he signifieth that 
s cum enim Pontifex dicat Anglos adversus Catholicam Religionem pugnare, eosque non minus ac Turcas oppugnari debere; eisdemque gratiis eos oppugnantes prosequatur, quibus contra Turcas pugnantes prosequitur: quis dubitet, bellum ab Anglis adversus exercitum Catholicum omninò iniquum geri? Censur. Doct. Salmantic. et Vallisolet. de Hibernia bello.  the English ought to be set upon no less than the Turks, and imparteth the same favours unto such as set upon them, that he doth unto such as fight against the Turks. Such wholesome directions doth the Bishop of Rome give unto those that will be ruled by him: far different (I wisse) from that holy doctrine, wherewith the Church of Rome was at first seasoned by the Apostles. 
t Rom. 13.1.  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: was the lesson that S. Paul taught to the ancient Romans. Where if it be demanded; 
u Quid, & illa potestas, quae servos Dei persequitur, fidem impugnat, religionem subver●it, á Deo est? Ad quod respondendum, quòd etiam talis potestas á Deo data est, ad vindictam quidem malorum, laudem veró bonorum. Sedul. in Rom. 13.  whether that power also, which persecuteth the servants of God, impugneth the faith, and subverteth religion, be of God? our countryman Sedulius will teach us to answer with Origen; that even such a power as that, is given of God, for the revenge of the evil, and the praise of the good. although he were as wicked, as either Nero among the Romans or Herod among the jews: the one whereof most cruelly persecuted the Christians, the other Christ himself.  
And yet when the one of them swayed the sceptre, S. Paul told the Christian Romans; that they 
x Rom. 13.5.  must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake: and of the causeless fear of the other, these verses of Sedulius are solemnly sung in the Church of Rome, even unto this day. 

y Sedul in Hymno acrostich. de Vi●â Christi.  Herodes hostis impie,  
Christum venire quid times?  
Non abripit mortalia,  
Qui regna dat coelestia.  
Why, wicked Herod, dost thou fear  
And at Christ's coming frown?  
The mortal he takes not away,  
That gives the heavenly crown.  a better paraphrase whereof you ca●not have, than this which Claudius hath inserted into his Collections upon S. Matthew. 
z Rex iste qui natus est, non venit Reges pugnando superare, sed moriendo mirabiliter subiugare: neque ideo natus est ut tibi succedat, sed ut in eum mu●dus fideliter credat Venit enim, non ut regnet viva●, sed ut triumphet occisus: nec ut sibi de aliis gentibus auro exercitum quaerat; sed ut pro salvandis gentibus preti osum sanguinem fundat. Inaniter invidendo timuisti successorem, quem credendo debuisti quaerere salvatorem: quia si in eum crederes, cum eo regnares; & sicut ab illo accepisti temporale regnum, acciperes etiam sempiternum. Hujus enim pueri regnum non est de hoc mundo; sed per ipsum regnatur in hoc mundo. Ipse est etiam Sapientia Dei, quae dicit in Proverbiis: Per me Reges regnant. Puer iste Verbum Dei est, puer iste Virtus & Sapientia Dei est. Si pot●s, contra Dei sapientiam cogita: in tuam perniciem versaris, & nescis. Tu enim regnum nullatenus habuisses, nisi ab isto puero qui nunc natus est accepisses. Claud. lib. 1. in Matth.  That King which is borne, doth not come to overcome Kings by fight, but to subdue them after a wonderful manner by dying: neither is he borne to the end that he may succeed thee, but that the world may faithfully believe in him. For he is come, not that he may fight being alive, but that he may triumph being slain: nor that he may with gold get an army unto himself out of other nations, but that he may shed his precious blood for the saving of the nations. Vainly didst thou by envying fear him to be thy successor, whom by believing thou oughtest to seek as thy Saviour: because if thou didst believe in him, thou shouldest reign with him; and as thou hast received a temporal kingdom from him, thou shouldest also receive from him an everlasting. For the kingdom of this Child is not of this world; but by him it is that men do reign in this world. He is the Wisdom of God, which saith in the Proverbes: By me Kings reign. This Child is the Word of God: this Child is the Power and Wisdom of God. If thou canst, think against the Wisdom of God▪ thou workest thine own destruction, and dost not know it. For thou by no means shouldest have had thy kingdom, unless thou hadst received it from that Child which now is borne.  
As for the Censure of the Doctors of Salamanca and Vallodilid: our Nobility and Gentry, by the faithful service which at that time they performed unto the Crown of England, did make a real confutation of it. Of whose fidelity in this kind I am so well persuaded, that I do assure myself, that neither the names of Franciscus Zumel and Alphonsus Curiel (how great Schoolmen soever they were) nor of the Fathers of the Society (johannes de Ziguenza, Emanuel de Roias, and Gaspar de Mena) nor of the Pope himself, upon whose sentence they wholly ground their Resolution; either than was or hereafter will be of any force, to remove them one whit from the allegiance and duty which they do owe unto their King and Country. Nay I am in good hope, that their joyall minds will so far distaste that evil lesson, which those great Rabbis of theirs would have them learn; that it will teach them to unlearn another bad lesson, wherewith they have been most miserably deluded: namely, that 
a In doctrinâ religionis non quid dicatur, sed quis loquatur attendendum esse. Tho. Stapleton. De●ens. Ecclesiastic. a●thoritat. lib. 3. cap. 7. & Demonstrat. Principior. Doctrinal. lib. 10. cap. 5.  in the doctrine of Religion we are to attend, not what the thing is that is said, but what the person is that speaketh it. But how dangerous a thing it is, to have the faith of our Lord jesus Christ in respect of persons; and to give entertainment to the truth, not so much for itself as for the regard that is had to the deliverer of it: I wish men would learn otherwise, then by woeful experience in themselves. 
b Veritas propter seipsam diligenda est, non propter hominem, aut propter Angelum, per quem adnunciatur. Qui enim propter adnuntiatores eam diligit, potest & mendacia diligere, si qua fortè ipsi sua protulerint. Claud. in Galat. 1.  The truth (saith Claudius) is to be loved for itself, not for the Man, or for the Angel, by whom it is preached. For he that doth love it in respect of the preachers of it, may love lies also, if they peradventure shall deliver any. as here, without all peradventure, the Pope and his Doctors have done: unless the teaching of flat Rebellion and high Treason may pass in the account of Catholic verities. The Lord of his mercy open their eyes, that they may see the light and give them grace to receive the love of the truth, that they may be saved. The Lord likewise grant (if it be his blessed will) that Truth and Peace may meet together in our days, that we may be all gathered into 
c joh. 10.16.  one fold under one shepherd, and that 
d Psal. 72.19.  the whole earth may be filled with his glory. Amen, Amen.  
FINIS.