IF this bee true, that man is not to pollute Act. 10 15 what God hath sanctified; and If Sa­turday (so called) were san­ctified by God, I appeale to the consciences of Gods people for iudgement, whether Man can make Sa­turday common, without warrant from God himselfe. If not; then Saturday is made common, either in regard of some Ceremonie, or by God himselfe, for some other speciall cause: As hee permitted a man vncleane, Numb. 9, 10, 11. or in a long iourney, to make common the Passeouer (which o­therwise was to be kept) in the first mo­neth. [Page 6] That there was no Ceremony in the Iewes Sabbath to bee abrogated by the comming of Christ, I haue proued in another Discourse, which with sundrie points concerning the Sabbath, I am desi­rous to publish hereafter, if God will. In the meane while, I desire the Reader to consider these briefe notes. 1. That the Sabbath was made Mark. 2, 27. Deut. 5. 14, 15. for man, yea so, that great care is had of seruants their rest: which is no ceremoniall respect. 2. That the Learned do so disagree about the sup­posed Ceremony, that one affirmeth Rest, and denieth The seuenth day; another af­firmeth the seuenth day, and denieth Rest to be the Ceremony. 3. That the fourth Commandement (which by cōsequence gaue confirmation to Saturday before Christ his death, as now to Sonday) and euery word thereof, was Exod. 34. 1. & twise written by the finger of God in tables of stone: To shew, 19, 11. & 20, 1. Deut. 4, 12, 13. 14. Gen. 17, 9, 10, 22, 23. That the Decalogue, as it was preached to the Church immediately by God himselfe, (before it was written by God, and deliuered to Moses on the Mount) so it is eternall as God himselfe; As the Gospell preached by Christ him­selfe, [Page 7] who was God as well as Man, is e­ternall. Gal. 3. 19. Heb. 12. 27. 28. & 21. &c. & 8. 2. Whereas Circumcision, and the ceremoniall Law, brought from God to the Church by Abraham and Moses, was temporall. 4. That none of the other nine Commandements (except the second by Papists) is said to be in any part ceremo­niall. 5. That Saturday of it selfe without the consideration of Rest, or the number Seuen, (both which are also liable to Son­day) cannot signifie any thing to come. 6. That it was sanctified Gen. 2. 3. in Paradise (though not expressely named) and ther­fore not instituted at the first, to signifie Christ to come, and therefore no more a Ceremonie, to be abrogated by the com­ming of Christ, than Marriage which Gen. 2. 23. 24. was also instituted in Paradise, and is fi­guratiuely applied to signifie Ephes. 5. 25. &c. the spiri­tuall coniunction betweene Christ and his Church.

But let it be supposed, that Saturday was ceremoniall. What other thing is thereupon to be inferred, but, that there­fore it ceaseth to be Gods Holy day? But can we imagine, that God would take no order, that another day should be esta­blished [Page 8] for his owne worship? Did hee sanctifie a Sabbath in the time of inno­cency, and when there were none to keep it but Adam and Eue? And would he not appoint a Sabbath in the time Mat. 19, 28. of Rege­neration, & when his people were Isa. 2, 2, 3. mul­tiplied, his Sonne Psal. 110. 1, 2, 3. King in Sion, and the power of his rod such, that (as it was pro­phecied) His people should come willingly at the time of assembling his army in holy beau­tie? Did he himselfe, not only institute a Seuenth day in Paradise to our first Pa­rents, but cōfirmed it also Exod. 20, 1, 8. to the Iewes? And will he leaue Christians ( 1. Pet. 2, 9. Achosen generation, and Royall Priest-hood) with­out a Sabbath sanctified by his Diuine authoritie; considering the Sabbath Exod. 31, 13, 17. is a signe that wee may know that hee is the Lord, who doth sanctifie vs to be his peo­ple? And to what other end, than Ezech. 46, 1, 2, 3. to worship him our Sanctifier? Lastly, when the Passeouer was not kept in the first mo­neth, because of vncleannesse, or a long iourney, did God suffer it either to be o­mitted, or translated, as it seemed good to the Israelites? Nay, he himselfe Num. 19, 10, 11. nomi­nated the fourteenth day of the second [Page 9] moneth to be kept for the Passeouer in those cases. Was God so zealous for the Passeouer, a ceremoniall Sabbath, & there­fore temporall? And would hee neglect The seuenth day, a morall Sabbath, and therefore eternall? Sith in the fourth pre­cept he commandeth A seuenth day to be holy for euer. For as hee commaundeth Worship vpon the Sabbath, prescribing neither Iewish, nor Christian; so he com­mandeth A seuenth day to be the Sabbath, prescribing neither Saturday, nor Sonday. So that the fourth Commandement and euery word thereof (without any alterati­on) doth belong to Christians, as well as to Iewes. If so, then I conclude, that (whe­ther Saturday were made common, be­cause of a ceremony, or for some other re­spect) some other day in place thereof was sanctified to holy worship, by diuine authoritie.

If it be obiected, that whereas by God himselfe, the institution of the Iewes their Sabbath, was commanded vnto Adam, and the cōfirmation therof promulgated to the Israelites, with the rest of the De­calogue: It is strange, that it should cease [Page 10] (not of it selfe, as being ceremoniall, but) for some other speciall cause; and another day appointed in the place thereof, and that by God, and yet it is not knowne, whether immediately, or by whom, God made this alteration; I answere; that as God, at the last day, will iudge the world Act. 17. 31 by the man whom he hath appointed; so in the meane time he doth gouerne the Church by his Sonne, Psal. 2. 6. Joh. 5. 22. Col. 3. 1. & 2. 20. whom hee hath placed King in Sion. So that whatsoeuer the Sonne doth is authenticall, and of Di­uine authoritie. Not only because hee is God Rom. 9. 5. 1. Tim. 6. 14. 15. 16. blessed for euer, but also in that he is that great Prophet Deut. 18. 18. 19. Act. 3. 20. 22. like vnto Mo­ses, whom we are to heare; For he doth nothing of himselfe Ioh. 3. 32. 33. & 8. 28. but as his Father taught him. But that Christ the Sonne of the liuing God sanctified that other Sab­bath day, I thus proue.

If the Sonne bee as faithfull in all his owne house, in things concerning the worship of God, Heb. 3. 2. 5. 6. as Moses the ser­uant; If Christ bee the Messias, Ioh. 4. 19. 20. 25. 26. who should teach vs all things: If Moses pre­scribed euery thing belonging to the Tabernacle Exod. 25. 9. 38. euen to a paire of snuffers; [Page 11]If the things belonging to the house of God, befew in cōparison of those which belonged to the Tabernacle of Moses, because the houre is come, when Ioh. 4. 23. wee must worship the Father in Spirit and Truth, that is, spiritually, Gal. 3. 3. without the intolerable Act. 15. 10 Gal. 4. 3. yoke of carnall Heb. 9. 1. 10. rites; If a Sabbath be as necessarie vnto the edifica­tion of Christ his house, as a paire of snuf­fers to the seruice of Moses his Taberna­cle: then (without doubt) Saturday being made common, Christ appointed some other day to be a Sabbath vnto his peo­ple, as the Leuiticall Priest-hood being ceased, Heb. 7. 11. 12. Ephes. 4. 8. 11. 12. he sanctified another Ministery vnder the Gospell.

Againe, whereas Christ came Mat. 5. 17. not to breake, but to fulfill the Law, and the Law doth command one day of seuen to be a Sabbath, as is said; Therefore Christ did either cōfirme Saturday, or sanctifie some other day of the weeke: but that he con­firmed Saturday none will affirme, there­fore, he sanctified some other day of the weeke: Which to be Sonday, I thus proue.

We see that Sonday is generally kept holy in all the Churches of Christ; And [Page 12] there is nothing to the contrarie, but that it hath been sanctified In, and since the A­postles time. If then God, by Christ, hath sanctified a Sabbath vnto Christians, it must necessarily follow, that either the Church hath neuer regarded, but negle­cted the ordinance of GOD, for many hundred yeeres; or else, that Sonday was sanctified by Christ. But the former is not easily to bee admitted, considering the Church 1. Tim. 3, 15. is the Pillar of truth, therefore the later more willingly to be receaued.

Againe, if the Sonne Ioh. 5, 19, 21. doth whatsoe­uer the Father doth; and if the Father hath committed all iudgement to the Sonne, Exo. 22, 23 that all men should honor the Sonne, as they honor the Father; then, as the Father sanctified A seuenth day; Gen. 2, 2, 3 as on which he finished his works of Creation, and Rom. 1, 19. 20. was declared mightily to be the liuing God, Exod. 31, 13, 17. to his owne honor, (and therfore Isa. 58, 13. did call it mine holy day) For it was not a sha­dow of Sanctification (as some dreaming of a ceremony, do imagine) but A Signe to Gods people of their Sanctifier, that is, A tokē, or memorial that they may know that the Creator is the Lord, who doth [Page 13] sanctifie them to bee his people: So the Sonne sanctified that day, 1. Cor. 15, 16, 17, 57. Rom. 8, 34. & whereon he consummated, and sealed his workes of Redemption, and was declared mightilie, 1, 4. to be the Sonne of God, to his owne ho­nor. Which was Sonday, called for that re­spect, Reuel. 1, 10. The Lords day, as shall bee de­clared hereafter. For Leuit. 23, 15, 16. Matth. 28, 1, 5, 6. vpon that day Rom. 4, 25 Christ rose againe for our Iustification, and manifested himselfe to be Act. 1, 6, 7, 8, & 2. 1. the spiri­tuall King of his Church, by miraculous giuing the power of the Holy Ghost vnto his Apostles. So that, Sonday is a signe, or memoriall vnto Christians, that they may know, that the Redeemer is the Lord, who doth sanctifie them.

If it bee demaunded why Christians should so honor the Sonne, that they neg­lect the Father; and so celebrate the me­moriall of the Redeemer, that they neglect the memoriall of the Creator? Seeing it is written, Ioh. 4, 23. The houre is come, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth; & by the light of nature Act. 14, 15, & 17, 23, 24 God is glorified, as hee is Creator; I answere: That it is not so; for A seuēth day, (though not Saturday) is still sanctified. Which to [Page 14] be sufficient to celebrate the Creator, the fourth Commandement prescribeth nei­ther this, nor that seuenth day, but one of seuen, doth euidētly proue. So that wher­as Sonday is The Lords day, and withall A seuenth day, we may obserue, that Christi­ans Ioh. 14. 13. glorifie the Father in the Sonne, and celebrate the Creator with the Redeemer. By whom a New creation (though spiri­tuall) was performed Isa. 65. 17. & 66. 21. 22 according to the prophecy of Isaiah.

Lastly; If it may appeare by the word, that Sonday was confirmed by the Apo­stles practise, and preceptiue execution, then Sonday hath authoritie, not from the Church, but from Christ. But it appeareth by the word, that Sonday was so confir­med; therfore it hath authority not from the Church, but from Christ.

That the sequele of the Maior may better appeare, I will manifest the Minor, by these three places of holy writ: viz. Act. 20, 6, 7. and 1. Cor. 16, 2. and Reuel. 1, 10. For, in the first place three things are to be obserued. 1. That Paul abode at Troas seuen daies. 2. That it is not said; The Disciples were called of purpose to [Page 15] his preaching, but Being come together to breake bread, that is, to be partakers of the Lords Supper. And 3. That, ready to de­part on the morow, he cōtinued his prea­ching, till midnight; Then it will appeare, that Sonday (there called The first day of the weeke, in respect of the Iewes their ac­count, to whom Saturday was the seuēth, that is, the last day of the weeke) was san­ctified to holy meetings, and exercises. And that Paul waited (as at Philippi Act. 16. 12. 13. for the Sabbath of the Iewes, so) at Troas for the Christians their Lords day. Which he would not haue done, being an Apostle, and hauing such hast of departure, if Son­day had not been sanctified, by greater authority than the ordinary authority of the Elders and Brethren.

If it be obiected, that (according to the originall) the words bee One of the Sab­bathes, in the two former places, and ther­fore it is vncertaine, whether Sonday bee meant in those places, rather than Satur­day, I answere; That, by the same reason, it is vncertaine whether our blessed Saui­our did arise againe the third day 1. Cor. 15. 4. ac­cording to the Scriptures: For all the E­uangelists [Page 16] Mat. 28. 1 Mark. 16. 2. Luke 24. 1. Ioh. 20. 1. vse the same words, when they report, That Mary Magdalen went to seeke Christ, when he was risen.

But more fully to confute this Argu­ment, three things are to be noted. 1. That in the originall the numerall ( One) is put for the ordinall ( First.) For Marke hauing said in the second verse of his 16. chapter, One of the Sabbathes, speaking of Mary Magdalen her seeking of Christ, chaun­geth the words in the 9. verse, and saith; The First day; shewing that Christ was ri­sen. And that Sabbathes is put for Weekes. As in Leuit. 25. 8. it is written; Thou shalt number 7. Sabbathes (that is weekes) of yeeres. Secondly it is to be obserued, That in both places only Christians are said to haue these meetings: For they, who came together, are called Disciples & Churches, and are said To breake bread, that is, To re­ceiue the Communion 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. which none but Christians may do. And therefore in both places the Spirit of God, in two sundry wri­ters Luke and Paul vseth these words; The first day of the weeke, rather than, The Sab­bath day, more distinctly to expresse that day, which was sanctified by Christians. [Page 17] Whereas at Philippi, where no Disciples were as yet, Paul is said Act. 16. 12. 18. to go on The Sabbath, to the place, where the Iewes were wont to pray, after he had bin there certaine daies. For what neede had the Christians being none but themselues, to neglect the Lords day, for the Iewes Sab­bath? Thirdly, note that it is said; Euery first day. 1. Cor. 16. 2. and consider whe­ther there be any probability, that the A­postle would haue them come together euery Saturday. If not, it followeth neces­sarily, that by The first day of the weeke Sonday is vnderstood.

In 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. we are yet further to consider, that the Apostle saith; As I haue ordained in the Churches of Galatia, which argueth Generality, and Euery first day, which argueth Perpetuity. So that by this place, holy assemblies vpon Sonday may seeme, as generall in those times, so con­firmed for euer, by a preceptiue exhorta­tion. For as in this speech 2. Tim. 2. 19. Let euery one, that calleth on the name of Christ, depart from iniquitie, a preceptiue exhortation to call on the name of Christ, is implied, howsoeuer only departing from iniquity [Page 18] bee expressely commaunded. So in this speech deliuered by an Apostle, Euery first day of the weeke let euery one of you put aside, is implied a preceptiue exhortation, to come together vpon the first day of the weeke, howsoeuer only putting aside be expresly commanded.

If it be obiected, That these meetings were only to gather for the Saints, I deny it. For it is said, Act. 20. 7. That the Disci­ples came together to break bread, which importeth other holy exercises. Againe, If no more were vnderstood than expres­sed, then Christians cōfirmed in the faith, were lesse religious vpon their setled and sanctified holy day, than they were ordi­narily, if not euery day, at their first ente­rance into their holy profession. For then they mette together Act. 2. 42. 46. not only to breake bread, but vnto doctrine also, and pray­ers. Lastly, The Apostle, who was so zea­lous to sanctifie the Lords day at Troas, would (no doubt) reproue in this place so great neglect of The Lords day, if such a matter were then to be supposed.

As for Reuel. 1. 10. if nothing else were vrged, but the consideration of the two [Page 19] former places, it doth sufficiētly appeare, that by The Lords day is meant The first day of the weeke (now called Sonday) accor­ding to the iudgement of all the learned. Against which streame to striue, by ma­king a doubt without reason (at least pro­bable) is to bewray a proud conceipt of a priuate opinion. But howsoeuer this be sufficient, yet for the godly their sake, I will say somewhat more than inough.

It is the iudgement of the learned (and I see nothing to the contrarie) That as Paul praying in the Temple Act. 22. 17 fell into a traunce; so Iohn sanctifying the Lords day, was rauished in spirit. If so, how can we imagine, That Iohn banished Reuel. 1. 9 in the isle Patmos, hauing no cause to cōstraine him, nor occasion to induce him, should rather sanctifie the Iewes Sabbath, than the Christians holy day? Againe, If we find these titles, Our Lord, or The Lord, so at­tributed to the Sonne, that he is called 1. Tim. 6. 14. 15. The Lord of Lords, and by the title Lord 1. Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6. Ephes. 4. 4. 5. 6. distinguished from the Father, and the Holy Ghost, so that in few (if any) places of the new Testamēt it is applied distinct­ly, by way of title, to any but to the Sonne, [Page 20] will any who saith Iesus is the Lord (spea­king by the Spirit of God) make any doubt that by The Lords day is meant that day, which was especially sanctified to the ho­nor of Christ? And will any Christian con­sidering that which is said, be yet doubt­ful, whether that were Sonday, or no? Last­ly Beza in his note vpon 1. Cor. 16. 2. re­porteth, That, in one Greeke copy, these very words, The Lords, be added to Euery first day. Which sheweth manifestly, That not the Iewes Sabbath, but The first day of the weeke was called The Lords day.

If then in 3. places of holy Scriptures written by 3. holy men inspired by the Holy Ghost (of whom Luke was an Euan­gelist, Paul and Iohn Apostles) we finde, The first day of the weeke (according to the computation of the Iewes) now called Sonday, sanctified to the worship of God, yea so, That Paul waited for it at Troas, and doth preceptiuely exhort the same (though by implication) to be sanctified euery weeke amongst the Corinthians, as in other places; and it obtained the name of The Lords day, as being specially san­ctified to the honor of our Sauiour, wee [Page 21] may conclude, That it appeareth by the Word, That the Lords day called Sonday, was confirmed by the Apostles practise, and preceptiue exhortation.

Now the Minor, or assumption of the former syllogisme is manifested, I am to confirme the sequele of the Maior, or pro­position. Wherein two things are to bee proued. 1. That The Lords day was not established by the ordinarie authoritie of the Church. And 2. That it was established by the Diuine authoritie of our Sauiour Christ. The reason of both is; because it was established by the Apostles.

The former (though euident by that which is said) will yet further appeare; If we grant, That the Primitiue Church at­tributed as much to the Apostles, who first 1. Cor. 3. 6. 10. planted the same, and (for the per­formance of that worke of God) were Act. 2. 4. indued with extraordinary gifts, inspi­red by the Holy Ghost, & instructed & 1. 3. by Christ 40. daies after his resurrection, as Israel did to Moses their Law-giuer. But while Moses liued the Israelites tooke all their directions from him; yea so, That not only in difficult cases Leuit. 24. 11. 12. Num. 15. 32. 33. & 27. 1. 2. of blasphemy, [Page 22] Prophaning the Sabbath, and Daughters inheritance, not formerly ruled by Moses, they came to him to know the minde of the Lord; but also in all things about the Tabernacle Exod. 31. 3. 6. & 39. 37. 42. & 25. 38. 40. euen to a paire of snuffers, the worke-men, though miraculously in­spired with cunning, were altogether di­rected by him, who had his instructions immediately from GOD. Can we then thinke That the Disciples came together euery first day of the week of themselues, though by generall consent, without the authoritie of the Apostles so directing them? If they had attempted such a thing, how could they haue answered this que­stion, 1. Cor. 14. 36. 37. Came the word of God out from you? A question made by the Apostle in a sup­position, that the Corinthians misliking Pauls directiōs touching silēcing tongues without interpretation, and women in the Churches, would happily say, That they were of another opinion. So that it im­porteth this reply. But I pray you consider, that the Apostles are the first teachers of the Church, hauing receiued their instructi­ons, either immediatly frō Christ his mouth, or by reuelation, therefore the Church is to [Page 23] be ordered by them. If then worke-men, cunning by inspiration, could not make a paire of snuffers without Moses his dire­ction, nor the Church in Corinth, by it owne authority, permit the manifestation of the extraordinary gift of the spirit to be in their publique assemblies without interpretatiō, could The Lords day (a mat­ter of so great regard) bee established without the authoritie of the Apostles?

Againe, Whereas the Apostle hauing reproued certaine male vsages amongst the Corinthians, and taken some order for reformatiō of y ^e abuse of Loue feasts, which were of good vse at the first, but tending, at last, to the prophaning of the Lords Supper, cōcludeth thus, 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things wil I set in order, when I come: Is it not euident, that y ^e Church could do litle, or nothing, much lesse establish Sonday to bee the Lords day, without Apostolique autho­ritie? Lastly; If Titus an Euangelist Tit. 1. 5. could not reforme Creta, nor ordaine Elders, but as he was appointed by Paul, I see not but that all things in the Church were orde­red and ordained by the Apostles. If by the Apostles, then by Christ. Which is the [Page 24] second point in the Maior now to be pro­ued.

If we receiue the writings of the Apo­stles, as the Word of God, why not their constitutions accordingly? I meane not vnwritten verities, or rather the very lies of Antichristian Papists, but such ordi­nances, as are mentioned and commen­ded in the Word. For the Apostles were Act. 1. 2. 8. & 22. 15. chosen, and faithfull witnesses of those things, which they haue heard and seene; and (no doubt) as faithfull 1. Cor. 7. 25 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. in all the house of God, as Moses was about the Tabernacle, and in gouerning Israel: But Moses did not direct the worke-men to make any thing, no not a paire of snuf­fers, but according to the patterne, which he saw in the mount, and in the said cases of Leuit. 24. 12. 13. Num. 15. 34 35. & 27. 5 6. Blasphemy, Prophaning the Sabbath, and Daughters inheritance answered not of himself, but consulted with God. Ther­fore the Apostles did not prescribe ordi­nances, but with such authority, that Paul (and so all) might say, 1. Cor. 11. 25. I haue receiued of the Lord (to wit Christ) that which I haue also deliuered vnto you. But what neede these inferences? Doth not the Apostle [Page 25] charge & 14. 37. Euery man that thinketh himselfe to be a Prophet, or spirituall, to acknowledge that the things hee writeth to them, are the Commandements of the Lord? If the things which he then writ, viz. Directions about Prophecy, Speaking with strange tongues, and Silence of women in the Church, were the Commandements of the Lord, can we thinke him to be a true Prophet, and spirituall indeed, who perceiuing The Lords day to haue been established by the Apostles, will not acknowledge it to be a Commandement of the Lord?

If it bee demaunded, when our Lord commanded his Holy day: I answere; The faithfulnes and credit of the holy Apo­stles, are sufficient to perswade an humble Christian to receiue it as the Lords ordi­nance; though it be not certainly knowne when Christ did ordaine it. But it is pro­bable that he gaue commandement con­cerning the same, within those 40. daies after his resurrection. When (as it is writ­ten Act. 1. 2. 3 in expresse words) he gaue, through the Holy Ghost, Commandements vnto the Apostles, whom he had chosen, and spake of those things which appertaine to the King­dome [Page 26] of God. Now doth it not especially appertaine to the kingdome of God, that Christians should sanctifie their Lords day, wherein 1. Cor. 1. 23. 24. Christ crucified, 1. Tim. 3. 16. The mystery of godlines, and Mat. 1. 21. Sauiour of the world should be Act. 10. 42. 43. preached, as well as the Iewes had their Sabbath, on which Moses, A schoole master Gal. 3. 24 to Christ, and A minister of the Letter 2. Cor. 3. 6. which killeth was Act. 15. 21. preached?

Againe, If in those 40. daies Christ Eph 4. 8. 10. 11. appointed what Ministers should teach his Church for euer; how can it be, but that thē also he appointed some Sabbath, wheron they should ordinarily performe the worke of their ministerie, as hee was wont Luk. 4. 16. to do himselfe? Seeing it is pro­phecied, Psal. 110. 2. 3. That y ^e power of his rod should be such, that His people should come willing­ly at the time of assembling his army in ho­ly beauty. Seeing his Father (whose works Ioh. 5. 19. he imitateth) appointed Leuit. 16. 2. 29. as an high Priest, so a time, when (once in a yeere) he should enter into the Most holy place; and as other Priests, Exod. 29. 44. 38. so morning and eue­ning sacrifices; and considering it is writ­ten Eccles. 3. 1. To euery purpose vnder heauen there [Page 27] is an appointed time.

Lastly; If the Sonne be like his Father, as in teaching his Apostles 40. daies (for so long Exod. 24. 12. 18. & 39. 42. was Moses with the Father vp­on the mount) so in speaking those things which appertaine to the kingdome of God, as his Father taught Moses al things belonging to the furnishing of the Ta­bernacle; and If the Sonne be like his Fa­ther in sanctifying a day to his owne ho­nor, as hath been declared, Why may not Christians beleeue, that Christ sanctified The Lords day within those 40. daies, as the Father Deut. 9. 9 confirmed The seuenth day in those 40. daies, that Moses was with him on the mount? And the rather, be­cause it is te be obserued, That the Disci­ples Ioh. 20. 19. 26. assembled the two first daies of the two weeks immediatly following Christ his resurrection; and that our Lord, not only of purpose sanctified both those as­semblies with his holy and miraculous presence, but also (immediatly before his Ascension) commanded his Apostles Act. 1. 4. 5. 7. 9. to wait, a few daies, for the promise of the Father; Which (by his prouidence, in whose power bee times, and seasons, as [Page 28] Christ affirmed euen in this case) was ful­filled Mark. 16. 1. 2. Leuit. 23. 15. 16. Act. 2. 1. 4. 14. vpon a Sonday; and at the same time the Apostles first began the executi­on of their ministery, and preached Christ publiquely: But publique preaching Num. 10. 7. 8. Isa. 58. 1. Ezech. 44. 23. 24. Act. 23. 14. 42. is a speciall worke of the Sabbath day. It may therefore bee gathered, That Christ appointed his Apostles to sanctifie Son­day, whereon he would manifest himselfe & 1. 6. 7. 8 to be King of Israel, as his Father insti­tuted A seuenth day, as on which, he was manifested to bee GOD of heauen and earth.

To conclude, If Saturday were made common, not by man, but by God him­selfe, and that not for a Ceremony, but for some other cause; If God sanctified a Sabbath as well to Christians, as to Iewes; If euery ordinance of Christ were an ordi­nance of God; If Christ were as faithfull in all his owne house, as Moses about the Tabernacle; If Christ came to fulfill the fourth Commandement, which prescri­beth one day of seuen; If the Church of God bee not easily to bee condemned as neglecting the ordinance of God in san­ctifying Sonday for many hūdred yeeres; [Page 29] If Christ were like his Father in sanctify­ing that day to his owne honor, whereon he was declared to be the Sonne of God, and King of Israel, to wit Sonday; If the day be so appointed, that the Creator is glorified with the Redeemer; If it appeare by the Word, that the first day of the week was confirmed by the Apostles practise, and preceptiue exhortation; If by the first day of the week be meant that day wher­on Christ did rise againe, and that was Sonday; If in the Word Sonday be called The Lords day to the honour of Christ our Lord; If the warrant of Sonday consisteth not in the ordinarie authoritie of the Church, because it was established by the Apostles; If euery spirituall man be to ac­knowledge the ordinances of the Apo­stles, to bee the ordinances of the Lord; and If the Apostles were informed by Christ touching the Lords day within those 40. daies after his resurrection: I may safely hold this my Position; The Lords day, commonly called Sonday, is an or­dinance of God.

1 THe Church is said to be Ca­tholike, in regard of the v­niuersality thereof; for this word Catholike signifieth Vniuerfall. The Vniuersali­tie thereof consisteth in Times, Persons and Places. For there is no age of the world, no nation on the earth, and no sort of people, that can be exempted from the same. And therefore it is called The ce­lestial Hierusalem, and said to be the con­gregation Heb. 12. 22. 23. of the first borne, which are written in heauen. So that we are to be­leeue, That as there hath been euer an head (to wit Christ) so there hath been [Page 31] also a body (to wit the Church) some where, or other, but the Church of Rome is a particular Church, confined within a certaine compasse, and hath not been a C [...] but since Christ his comming in t [...] [...] therfore it is not the Catholique C [...]

2 The Catholique Church is an obiect of faith, according to the Apostles Creed, and therefore inuisible, howsoeuer the members thereof (called by Peter, Liuely 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 11. 1. stones) be visible, as they be men: For faith is the euidence of things not seene: But the Church of Rome is visible, therefore not the Catholique Church.

3 I grant, that as one man, so one par­ticular Church may be called Catholike, but it is only in regard of the Catholique faith, (as being one, & the same through­out the Catholique Church) which that one man, or that one Church professeth: But the Church of Rome professeth not (indeed) the Catholike faith (as shal be in part shewed hereafter) therefore (in no sense) it can be truly called Catholique. But suppose it held the Catholique faith, yet were it not, for that cause, an obiect of [Page 32] faith according to the Apostles Creed, more than a particular man, or any other particular Church holding the faith. Here it is to be vnderstood, that howsoeuer we may say: This man, or that Church is Ca­tholique, yet we may not say, and speake properly, This is the Catholique man, or That is the Catholique Church.

4 That y ^e Church of Rome holdeth not the Catholike faith, neither yet hath done for many yeeres, may be demonstrated in sundry fundamentall points. Let it be suf­ficient to produce though but one, yet that most fundamental, sith it is called by an excellency, The Word of faith, preached Rom. 10. 6 8. by all the Apostles. And the rather that One, because it is the principall argument of that worthy Epistle, which Paul wrote Cap. 1. 8. to the Romans, whose faith was then pub­lished throughout the whole world. So that, if the Church of Rome swarue from this truth, it is manifest that it is the of­spring, not of the true members of the Primitiue Church of Rome, but of the troublers of that Church, of whom Paul thus writeth: Now I beseech you brethren, Cap. 16. 17. 18. marke them diligently which cause diuision, [Page 33] and auoid them: For they that are such serue not the Lord Iesus, but their owne bellies, and with faire speech and flattering deceiue the hearts of the simple. But what is that most fundamentall point? Euen that same, which Paul, after a large and learned di­sputatiō, setteth downe as his perempto­ry iudgement in these words; Therefore Rom. 3. 28. we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law. But the Church of Rome, that now is, holdeth, and for many yeeres hath held, That a man is iustified both by faith, and works, contrary to the conclusion; therefore the Church of Rome is not Catholique, but Antichristian.

5 I say Antichristiā, because it may be proued such, by many reasons, and that because it erreth in this point; but I only propound to wise and religious conside­ration this deduction: That Antichristian Apostasy, or Antichrist, is called, The My­stery 2. Thess. 2. 7 of iniquitie, that is, a mysticall iniqui­ty, that is, an iniquity which is indeed ini­quity, but not perceiued, as Christ is cal­led The Mystery of godlinesse, that is, a 1. Tim. 3. 16. mystical godlinesse, that is, godlinesse in­deed, [Page 34] but not perceiued. But wherefore is Antichrist a mysticall iniquitie? Because his Righteousnesse, though glorious in shew, is iniquity indeed, because he attri­buteth Gal. 5. 4. Rom. 3. 27. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Rom. 1. 16. 17. & 4. 5. Iustification thereunto. Now this is a mysterie to flesh and blood (which would faine reioyce in it selfe) that Righ­teousnes should be Iniquitie. Euen so is the Gospell a mysterie, for by it the Righ­teousnes of God is reueiled, which other­wise could not be perceiued of flesh and blood. For is it not a mysticall paradox to carnall reason, to say; God iustifieth the vngodly? which yet is cleere to him, who, vnderstanding the Scriptures, doth not only abhorre his foule iniquitie, but also Phil. 3. 9. Esa. 64. 6. disclaimeth his owne defiled righteous­nes, and by faith layeth hold on the righ­teousnes of God, which is only by Christ, or Who trusteth not to his righteousnes inherent, which tasteth of the caske, but to righteousnes imputed, which maketh vs blessed. These things well considered; It may appeare, that as Christ is the mystery of godlines, not only because he is very God, though in the shape of a seruant, but also because the Word of Christ, viz. [Page 35] the Gospell, teacheth a mystical righte­ousteousnes; So y ^e Pope is Antichrist, not only because he is an aduersarie in exal­ting himself aboue all that is called God, though he pretend to be the seruant of seruants, but also because his doctrine is a mysticall iniquitie. Heere it is to be re­membred, that on the forehead of the Reuel. 17. 5. 9. 18. Whore of Babylon (to wit Rome) was written this word, A mysterie; and it is al­so to bee vnderstood, that on the Popes Mitre is the same word set with precious stones. If then for the doctrine of Iustifi­cation and merit by workes, the Church of Rome bee Antichristian, it followeth, that it is not Catholique, and therefore hath not continued an apparant member of the Catholique Church, euer since the Apostles time.

6 The later point inferred, may be the rather admitted, if wee marke well that Paul saith, That the Mystery of iniquitie 2. Thess. 2. 7 was working in his time. So that it is like­ly, that those troublers (of whom mētion is made in the 4. section) ouergrew (as weeds) the good corne in time, and pre­uailed still, vntill that mysterie of iniquity [Page 36] was reuealed, and consumed by the Spirit of God in the mouth of Luther, and other the seruants of Christ Iesus.

7 For the better manifestation of this point, let vs seriously consider, that how­soeuer the Church of Rome were now an apparant member of the Catholique Church (which indeed is not to bee ima­gined) yet sith it is not the Catholique and inuisible Church, but a visible and particular Church, and hath not any spe­ciall promise, that it should continue the same from the first constitution, how can we be assured, but that, in so many hun­dreds of yeeres, there haue been some al­terations and innouations, as well as in the Church of God among the Israelites, Rom. 9. 4. to whom pertained the adoption, glory, couenants, giuing of the Law, seruice of God, and the promises? And yet it is writ­ten 2. Chro. 15. 3 of the Church: Now for a long season, Israel hath been without the true God, and without Priest to teach, and without Law.

8 As for that promise of Christ, Thou Mat. 16. 18. art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shal not [Page 37] ouercome it, it appertaineth to the Catho­lique Church, as builded vpon Christ the 1. Cor. 3. 11. only foundation of his Church, and not to the Church of Rome, more than to the Churches of Asia, which are ouercome, or any other particular Church which may be ouercome; & yet that promise remai­neth Gen. 9. 13. inuiolable, as the couenant, whereof the Raine-bow is a signe, is inuiolable, notwithstanding sundrie particular coun­tries be ouerflowen.

9 Indeed Augustine did once take that Rocke to bee Peter the Apostle, and his successors the Bishops of Rome; but hee after altered that his opinion, and vnder­stood Rocke to signifie Christ, by Peter confessed: For that Christ did not say to Peter, I will build me vpon thee, But his words were (so Augustine conceiued them) as if hee had said, I will build thee vpon me, and not me vpon thee His mea­ning Col. 1. 24. is: It is absurd, that the Church which is Christs bodie (and is therefore called 1. Cor. 12. 12. Christ; because it cannot consist without the head therof which is Christ himselfe) should be builded vpon Peter, who is but a member of the body. It is therfore con­uenient, [Page 38] that Peter being but a member, should be builded vpon the body, consi­dered together with the head.

10 Surely Augustine had reason to fly 1. Pet. 2. 6. to the true Rocke of saluation. For how­soeuer the succession of the Bishops of Rome till his time, was an excellent testi­mony to the truth, because they succes­siuely maintained the faith touching the fundamentall points therof; yet he might well consider that Personall succession, without succession in faith, is not a suffici­ent confirmation, or authenticall note of a true Church. For at Cōstantinople there hath bin an interrupted succession of Bi­shops til this day. And yet the Papists wil deny that to bee any part of Christ his Church, because it reteineth not the true faith of Christ.

11 But because there is such adoe a­bout the succeeding of Peter, and it is made a matter of so great importance, it is necessary to bee proued, that the Bi­shops of Rome bee Peters successors. Which how possibly Papists can per­forme, I cannot see; sith there is such a disagreement about his supposed imme­diate [Page 49] successor; the Decrees affirming Cle­ment, and writers of good regard, (as Ire­neus and other) placing Linus next after Peter.

12 That this doubt whether the Bi­shops of Rome be Peters successors, may be put out of all doubt, the Papists must necessarily proue foure things. 1. That Pe­ter was at Rome. 2. That he sate Bishop there 25. yeeres. 3. That he was vniuersal Bishop. And 4. That his vniuersal autho­ritie was sufficiently conueyed ouer to all that should lawfully succeed him in that See. In any of which if they faile, the Popes authority falleth to the ground. For if Peter were neuer at Rome, how could he be Bishop there? If not Bishop at all, how vniuersall Bishop? If he had no such authority himselfe, how could it be conueyed ouer to his pretended succes­sors? And if there were not sufficient con­ueyance, how frustrate is the Popes claime? But that there be such doubts in euery of these points, as the Papists can­not cleerely resolue, consider well the foure next articles.

13 None doth simply deny, but that [Page 40] Peter might haue been at Rome, as a pas­senger; or for some short abode, although so much be not manifest: But that he sate Bishop there, and that so many yeeres, is altogether vnlikely. For it not very likely, that Paul saluting so many by name, as he doth in his Epistle to the Romans, but that hee would make some honorable mention of Peter? And wheras sixe of his Epistles were dated at Rome, Is it not lik­ly, but that in some of them hee would speake of Peter, if he had been there so long, and in such authority, as he doth of Timothy, whose authoritie was lesse, that thereby his exhortations, and reprouings might better preuaile? To say nothing that the Scriptures doe not in any place, signify that Peter was at Rome: Which (in likelihood) should haue bin done, if God had seene succession of Bishops at Rome from Peter, to be a matter of so great im­portance, as now it is made.

14 But say that he was at Rome, it will helpe the Papists nothing, except they can proue, that hee was also Bishop of Rome. Whereof there is small likelihood, if wee take this word Bishop, not in the [Page 41] large sense, which comprehendeth Apo­stles, and all Ministers hauing authoritie; but in the strict sense, which signifieth a Minister intituled to a certaine place. For is it likely that Peter descended from the highest degree in the Church (of which al Apostles were) next to Christ the head, to the inferiour degree of a Bishop? or Is Matth. 18. 18. & 28. 18. 19. 20. it likely that hee who had authoritie throughout the whole world, as hee was an Apostle, was tied to a particular charge, as he was Bishop?

15 But they say, He was Vniuersall Bi­shop, and therefore his authority was not restreined. They must needs say so, for else his supposed being Bishop at Rome will stand them in no stead. But was his authoritie inlarged hereby? If no, (for how could hee haue a larger iurisdiction, thā Apostolical authority throughout the world?) what reason then can they giue, why he should enioy that Vniuersall au­thoritie, rather by the name of a Bishop, and that of a particular place, than by the name of an Apostle? Againe, Is it not strange, that they cannot by any Scrip­ture proue this point, sith it is of such [Page 42] consequence with them, as that it bindeth their consciences to the See of Rome? Nay rather the Scriptures shew the con­trarie. For it is recorded in holy Writ, That the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. 8. (that is, of the Iewes) was committed to Peter, and the Apostleship of the vncir­cumcision (that is, of the Gentiles, such were the Romans) was committed to Paul. Againe, Is it likely, that Paul who Rom. 15. 20. inforced himselfe to preach the Gospell, not where Christ was named, lest hee should haue built on another mans foun­dation, would so intrude himselfe into Peters office, as to meddle with the af­faires of so many Churches as he doth, (and that with all authoritie) in his Epi­stle to the Romans, and other his Epistles from Rome, and al this, without any men­tion of Peter, if Peter had been at Rome, and had such an Vniuersal authoritie? Sith Paul (as is said) ioyned with himselfe (for the more authorie of some of his Epistles) Timothy one of lesse authority than Peter, and writeth to the Philippians, That he Phil. 2. 20. had none like minded to Timothy, that would faithfully care for their matters. [Page 43] Lastly, It is vtterly vnlikely, That Paul Gal. 2. 11. &c. would haue reproued Peter to his face, and that openly, for withdrawing him­selfe from the Gentiles, if Peter had had such authoritie, as the Papists dreame of.

16 But suppose that Peter was at Rome, and had such authoritie, what is the Pope better for it, if it were not made ouer to Peters successors, by sufficient conueyance? But in this poynt, which chiefely concernes the Pope, the Papists seeme vtterly to faile. For Gregorie the first, reprooued Iohn Bishop of Constan­tinople for indeuouring to obtaine the title of Vniuersall Bishop, and to haue his Church called the head of all Chur­ches, telling him that none of the Bishops of Rome durst take such a title, though the Emperours began in Rome, were wont to abide there only, and did then intitle themselues Emperours of Rome. Nay he told him yet more plainely, That whosoeuer aspired to bee Vniuersall Bi­shop, was a fore-runner of Antichrist. Whereby it is euident that in Gregories time, there was no knowledge of any conueyance of Peters supposed authority [Page 44] made ouer to the Bishops of Rome. But for al this peremptory iudgement of Gre­gory (surnamed The Great) within few yeeres after (about anno 607.) Boniface 3. obtained that title, with much suite and bribery, of Phocas an adulterer, and mur­therer of his master (that Christian Empe­rour Mauritius) with his wife and chil­dren. But succeeding Popes for the credit of that dignitie (being belike ashamed of such an institution) pretended to hold the same by y ^e Donation of Constantine the first Christian Emperour. So that al this while, there was no cōueyance of that authority from Peter that yet came to light. At last, the Pope (being come to the height of his pride) thought it a scorne to be beholden to Constantine, or any of them all, and therefore laid hold vpon those words of Christ, Thou art Peter, &c. But what hold he hath by them is partly shewed before, and is further to be considered, In that the Popes champion (father Bellarmine, made a Cardinall for his deserts) doth confesse, that this Vniuersal Bishopricke is descen­ded to the Pope by a conueyance indeed, but not of the word, but of tradition. [Page 45] Thus you may discouer the sūdry groūds of an article of the Popish creed, viz. That the Pope hath Apostolicall authoritie o­uer the whole Church, as he is Peters suc­cessor.

17 Leauing these doubts touching the pretended successors of Peter, and commending them to the aduised exa­mination of the Reader, I proceed brief­ly to proue (in more speciall manner) the Church of Rome not to haue been an ap­parant member of the Catholike Church, euer since the Apostles time. I say Briefe­ly. For if I should demonstrate (as I could) the many, & grosse errors of the Church, both in doctrine and discipline (vnder which word I vnderstand the administra­tion of the Sacraments, and the Liturgie) and if withall, I should paint out the bloo­die tyrannie thereof, in persecuting the children of God, it would appeare more than manifest that it is, and hath bin long an apparant member, not of the Catho­lique, but of the malignant Church: But then I should be longer than I may, by reason of necessary busines, or need, con­sidering so many bookes are written of [Page 46] those Arguments. I will therefore only propound some few things of many con­cerning the Pope, whom the Papists make the head of the Catholike Church. So that as a member of a mans body, is but dead if it receiue no life from the na­turall head, so a particular Church is (in their opinion) no apparant member of the Catholique Church, which is not vn­der the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: From hence it followeth, That if the head be dead, the body must needs be dead: and, if the Pope be not, the Church of Rome cannot be an apparant member of the Catholique Church: But the Pope is not. Ergo.

18 The Pope is Antichrist, and hath been so long, therefore the Church of Rome is not, and for a long time hath not been an apparant member of the Catho­lique Church: For as his See is the seat of Reuel. 17. 9. 18. the whore of Babylon, to wit the Citie builded vpon 7. hilles, namely Rome, so he hath the properties of Antichrist: For he sitteth in the Temple as God, In char­ging 2. Thess. 2. 4 the conscience as strictly with his decrees, and traditions, as with the Word [Page 47] of God, from whence the other haue no warrant, and In auouching himselfe to be free from error, which is proper to God. 2. He exalteth himselfe aboue all that is Rom. 13. 4. 2. Thess. 2. 4. called God, In esteeming himselfe as far aboue the Emperour (who must hold his stirrup, & on whose necke he must tread) as the Sunne is aboue the Moone, and Rom. 13. 1. therefore hee will not bee subiect to any Magistrate, contrary to the expresse word of God. 3. He is an aduersary to Christ, 2. Thess. 2. 4. howsoeuer he pretend to be his Vicar; but 1. Ioh. 2. 22. therefore Antichrist in deed, seeing this word Antichrist signifieth For Christ, and yet Against Christ. I say an aduersary, not only In teaching Iustification by workes, to the preiudice of Christs death, for if Gal. 2. 21. Righteousnes be by the Law, Christ died in vaine, but also, In teaching that by Christ we are freed from the guiltines of sinne, but not from the punishment ther­of; and yet the Popes pardons, and the breaden God of his owne creation, can do as much good to soules frying in Pur­gatory, as to all, that pay well for them 1. Tim. 4. 1. 3. while they liue on the earth. 4. He teach­eth doctrines of diuels, forbidding to [Page 48] marry, and commāding to abstaine from meates, which God hath created to be re­ceiued with thankes-giuing, of thē which beleeue and know the truth. And 5. Hee 1. Ioh. 4. 3. denieth Christ to be come in the flesh, In affirming Christ his body to be, by tran­substātiation, in so many places, as where Masse is said. As the Anabaptists likewise deny Christ to be come in the flesh, In af­firming Christ to haue brought his flesh from heauen.

19 Againe; Sith the Pope (as suppo­sed head) is of the essence and forme of the Church of Rome, it must necessarily follow, that the Church of Rome hath not been alwaies an apparant member of the Catholike Church (according to the sense of the Papists themselues) if it can be pro­ued, that often, & somtimes many yeeres together, there hath been no apparant Pope: But that is not impossible to bee proued: For first it is to be noted with a memorandum, That by the speciall proui­dence of God, Pope Ioan was deliuered of a child as she was going solemnly on procession in the middest of the open street, and in the presence of the people. [Page 49] As if God had said from heauen, Behold the Whore of Babylon. Secondly, It is worthy the obseruation, That Stephen 6. and Sergius the third proceeded against Formosus, as against an vnlawfull Pope, both taking him out of the graue, spite­fully disgraded him. The former summo­ning a Councel, attired him with the pon­tificall robes, plucked them off againe, put on Lay-mans apparell, cut off the two fingers of his right hand, cast them into Tiber, buried him in Lay-mens buri­all, and disanulled his decrees. The other set him in the Popes chaire; drew him thence againe, cut off his head, and the o­ther three fingers; hurled body and al in­to the riuer, & recondemned all his actes, so that it was needful to admit them new to orders, whom hee had made Priests. Thirdly, It is not to be neglected as not worth the reading, That sixe Popes (viz. Clement 5. Iohn 23. Benedict 12. Clement 6. Innocent 6. and Vrban 5.) their See was 70. yeers together at Auignion in France. Where Popes were elected, liued, and di­ed, so that some of them neuer saw Rome. This I say is not to bee neglected. For if [Page 50] Iohn the Patriarch of Constātinople clai­med the title of Vniuersal Bishop, because the Emperours had then their seat there, howsoeuer they then bare the title of Em­perours of Rome. If Peter were therefore the Bishop of Rome, because he had his feat there, and there died, as Papists doe suppose, and If by the holy daies for Pe­ters chaire at Antioch, and Rome, Papists shew their iudgement to be, That it is of the essence of a Bishop to sit in the See, whereof hee hath the title, for otherwise they need not make such adoe, to proue that Peter was at Rome, seeing it were sufficient to proue (if they could) that he accepted the title, then those 6. Popes, howsoeuer they were in title Bishops of Rome, yet in truth they were Bishops of Auignion, and therefore no apparant suc­cessors of Peter, and therefore no appa­rant heads of the Church, and therefore for 70. yeeres the Church of Rome was not an apparant member of the Catho­like Church, according to the sense of the Papists themselues. Fourthly, Onuphrius (a Popish writer) telleth of 30. Schismes in the Church of Rome. Of which the 29. [Page 51] lasted 50. yeeres together. Wherin there were sometimes two Popes together, and sometimes three. All which three were re­moued by the Councel of Constance. Can any say, that all this while there was an apparant head? If not, it must necessarily follow, That the Church of Rome hath not been euer since the Apostles time an apparant member of the Catholique Church, according to the sense of the Pa­pists themselues.

20 Lastly, As when the eye is darke, Matth. 6. 23 the whole body must needs be darke: So, if the head, viz. the Pope, be so corrupt, as that it cannot be perceiued to be an ap­parāt member of the Catholike Church, how can the Church of Rome, whose be­ing is altogether in that head, be an appa­rant member? But most of the Popes haue been such: Ergo. For howsoeuer that can­not be verified of al the Popes, which was said of Boniface 8. commonly called A di­uell incarnat, That he entered like a Fox, raigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog, yet some of them entered by Coniurati­on; or the diuels helpe, as Siluester 2. and Gregory 7. first called Hildebrand, or The [Page 52] brand of Hell. Some by harlots, as Chri­stopher 1. and Iohn 11. Some by poyso­ning their predecessors, as Damasus, who also did drinke of the same cup; and the said Hildebrand, who (besides his Coniu­ration) made way to the Popedome by poysoning sixe of his predecessors; and many by Simony or Violence. Were they apparant members of the Catholique Church, when they were Popes? Nay sun­dry of them were heretiques. As Liberius was an Arrian: Honorius 1. a Monothelite: Anastasius a Nestorian: Iohn 2 2. denied the Life to come, and the resurrection of the body, and this was laid to his charge when he was deposed by the Councell of Constance: and Eugenius 4. was condem­ned and deposed as an heretique in the Councell of Basil. As for their Liues, In re­spect of all, it is no lesse truly, than com­monly said of Gregory 1. That he was the worst Bishop, but best Pope of Rome. But some of them Platina (no Protestant) cal­led Beasts, and Monsters, and of Iohn 12. Cardinall Turrecremata writeth thus: Be­cause the life of this Pope was detestable, therefore Christ himself gaue out the sen­tence [Page 53] of condemnation. For while he was abusing a certaine mans wife, the diuell stroke him sodainly, and so he died with­out repentance. To set downe in particu­lar the monstrous offēces of most Popes, is too large and too filthy a field for me to walke in; I will therefore shut vp with the words of Genebrard (a Popish Chroni­cler) who writeth thus: For the space al­most of seuen-score yeeres, and ten, from Iohn 8. to Leo 9. about fiftie Popes did reuolt wholy frō the vertue of their aun­cestors, and were Apostaticall rather than Apostolicall. Yea some did get into the See, by force or bribery; Wherefore it is no maruell, if they were monstrous, sith they entered in, not by the dore, but by a posterne gate.

To conclude, If the Church of Rome be not the Catholique Church, because it is confined, visible, & faileth in the faith, without which faith, personall succession is of no validitie; If it haue no promise of perpetuity, the words of Christ to Peter not seruing the turne; and therefore may be ouercome as well as the Church of Is­rael, whereunto the promises did apper­taine. [Page 54] If Papists cannot proue, that Peter was at Rome, nor that hee was Bishop there, nor that he was Vniuersall Bishop, nor that his authority was sufficiently cō ­ueyed ouer to the Bishops of Rome, vpon which succession standeth the being of that Church. If the Pope (vpon whom as their head the Church of Rome depen­deth) be Antichrist, and sundry times, yea many yeeres together, there hath bin no apparant Pope at all, and most Popes haue been no apparant members of the Catholike Church, because of their here­sies or monstrous liues, it followeth eui­dently, that the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church, neither hath bin an apparant member of the same, euer since the Apostles time. And therefore it is to be wondered that any Christian man or woman, should bee so simple, as to hang their saluation vpon such a Synagogue, as out of which, God from heauen biddeth his people to depart: Re­uel. 18. 4.

IT is not to bee denied, that Priests are executed for af­firming the Popes Primacie, and reconciling to the pre­tended Church of Rome, &c. which are points of their supposed re­ligion: But yet they are not executed for these (or like) points or parts as they be religious, but as they bee trayterous, or dangerous to the State, in ciuill conside­ration.

1 For, if Priests were executed for these, or like poynts, as they be religious, then the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiasticall maner, before the secular power execute ciuill punishment. As against Anabaptistes, and other in this [Page 56] Queenes raigne, hath bene performed. So that Priests their case differeth from Hac­kets only Secundum magis & minus, the one being more dangerous in ciuil consi­deration then the other.

2 Secondly, they should be executed as wel for affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling, &c. (as Story for his mis­demeanure, though) beyond seas. For such affirming the primacie and reconci­ling, &c. are as damnable in religious consideration on one side of the seas, as on the other, but not so dangerous to our state in ciuill consideration.

3 Thirdly, they should be executed as well for other points of popery: as giuing the glory of the Creator (to wit prayer and praise) to creatures, Angels, Saints, stockes, and stones, &c. being no lesse damnable then such affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling, &c. in religious consideration, but not so dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration. As may appeare by a like case propounded.

If Anabaptistes, denying magistracy, and that Christ tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary, should swarme in England, and if [Page 57] Magistrates should punish in a more ciuil manner of proceeding, not the latter (though no lesse damnable, as it is religi­ous) but the former, being more dange­rous to the state in ciuill consideration, who would say, that Anabaptistes did suffer for religion, and not for treason or felony?

4 That affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling, &c. may appeare direct­ly to be dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration, and therefore trayterous; it is to be knowne & considered, that Pope Pius Quintus (by his bull declaratory) pronounced our gracious and Christian Queene an hereticke, and excommunica­ted all such as yeeld obedience to her. If then the Popes authority be perswaded as a matter of conscience, & if by reconci­liation her Maiesties subiects become vo­wed members of such an head as is her capitall enemy, we may be assured that so many as are so perswaded and recon­ciled, are prepared to obey the Pope, and disobey the Prince. Is not then such affir­ming the Popes primacy and reconci­ling, &c. dangerous to the state, in ciuill [Page 58] consideration, and therefore trayterous?

5 In that I say (prepared) it is yet fur­ther to be knowne and considered: that whereas the Northerne Earles had ill suc­cesse in executing the said Bull, other de­uises were frustrated, and the hope of Pa­pists their present preuailing much failed Parsons and Campian (English Priests) being to come into England to vrge the sayd Bull, and doubting that (in the ri­gour thereof) it would not be readily obeyed, did craue and obtaine of Pope Gregory the thirteenth, this exposition more plausible to Papists, but more dan­gerous to the state: That the said Bull may alway bind the Queene and heretiques: but Catholikes (that is Papists) in no sort, things standing as they do, but then only, when there may be publike execution thereof.

6 Philopater a louer of his country (as he pretendeth by that fained name) no Englishman (if ye will beleeue him) yet descended of the English nation (as he saith himselfe) in a poysonfull and trayte­rous booke, often printed in diuers pla­ces beyond the seas (such liking find such books with such subiects as Papists be) [Page 59] graunteth that Priests are sent, with au­thority Sect. 3. from the Pope, to pardon, excom­municate, reconcile, and teach (according to the Bull expounded) that subiects are not to obey the Queene in spiritual mat­ters, but in ciuill, and that for the present state of things.

7 What is implied in this last clause, Philopater himselfe discouereth when he saith, that it is agreed among diuers Lawyers and schoolemen, that if a Prince Sect. 3. faile from the Romane faith, and ende­uour to withdraw other, subiects may and ought oppose themselues, & depose their Princes, if they haue force. Which prouiso, he inculcateth and vrgeth with this rea­son: Last religion should be indamaged, and aduanced, attempts not preuailing.

8 The same Philopater doth peremp­torily pronounce as tyrannicall, this que­stion moued to Priests, fugitiues, recu­sants, and such like: If the Pope, or other in his behalfe and cause of religion, should in­uade the land, what part would you take, the Popes or the Princes? His reason of mislike is, because a right Papist cannot answere freely thereunto, without offence to God or [Page 60] Caesar. As if God were offended, if Caesar defended against the Pope.

By which exposition of the bull, do­ctrine of the Priests, and mislike of a que­stion so necessary, it doth clearely appeare that the end of affirming the Popes pri­macy and reconciling, &c. is to prepare her Maiesties subiects to be ready (vpon paine of excommunication) to ioyne with such forces as shall be imploied a­gainst our Queene and state, in a preten­ded cause of religion. Is not this dange­rous to the state in ciuill cōsideration, and therefore trayterous?

9 Let the affects and effects of such teachers and schollers be obserued, and the truth of this assertion will be so eui­dent, as that nothing can be more mani­fest. To let passe their broad speeches, whē and where they dare: their concealing and abetting traytors, and trayterous de­signes, as they may (possibly) without danger, their reioycing at, and spreading abroad newes, importing successe to the Pope, though danger to the Prince, &c. To omit (I say) these and many such ar­guments of their trayterous affection, the [Page 61] shamefull practises of many, bewray the Popish preparation of most, if opportu­nitie once serue. Many haue been the con­spiracies against her Maiesties person, to take away her life. But O Lord haue mercy vpon vs, to preserue her. Many haue bin the treasons against the Land to destroy it. But O holy one of Israel defend this thine in­heritance. Who haue bin the authors and actors of all these tragicall attempts, but such teachers and schollers? What were the Rebels in the North? And were they not prouoked to rebellion by Nicholas Morton Priest, sent from Pope Pius, to vrge the execution of his bull? What were the Rebels in Ireland? And was not Ni­cholas Sanders a Iudas (that is) a leader to the Popes army, that came in pretence to relieue them? Parry and Sommeruile went about to murther her Maiestie. The one was encouraged in his diuellish enter­prise, by Cardinall Como, in the name of the Pope: and shall we thinke that the o­ther wanted the holy counsell of Hall the Priest arraigned? Babington and his com­plices, conspired against Prince & coun­try. Was not Ballard Priest a chiefe coun­sellor [Page 62] to them? and did not Bost a Priest keepe counsell (at least) as he lately con­fessed? If then Teachers and Schollers, Priests and Papists, concurre in seeking and following all opportunities to sub­uert our State, can any other end be ima­gined of Priests, their perswading, and re­conciling, but to prepare their Schollers to ioyne together against Prince and country, when force shall answere their affection?

10 That the multitude of resolued Papists, be thus poysoned and prepared, let this be your last consideration for this time, and not the least at any time. That as the King of Ashur purposing to besiege Hierusalem, sent from Lacish Rabshaketh 2. Chron. 32. 9. 12. 13. and others, to weaken the hands of the people, by disgracing their King Heze­chiah, as one without religion, in that he had taken away Altars, and defaced high places; and by aduancing Saneherib, as one that preuailed against all Gods: So these Locusts, which haue faces of men, Reuel. 9. 3. 78. 10. 11. and haire of women, but the stings of scorpions in their tailes, to wit, Priests, who pretend a tēder care of sauing soules [Page 63] in the beginning, but intend a cruell de­struction of Life and Land in the end, are sent into this Realme by their King (the Isa. 7. 4. Angell of the bottomlesse pit, out of the smoke thereof, namely, by the Pope in his fume, but without flame I trust) before inuasion intended, to weaken the hands, and withdraw the hearts of the people, from our gracious Queene, by disgracing her Maiestie, as one without religion, in that shee hath taken away sacrificing Al­tars, and defaced religious houses; and by aduancing their King, as one that preuai­leth against all Gods, all States, all Reli­gions. The like practise of sending Priests to prepare people against the comming in of Spaniards, is to bee perceiued in Scotland.

11 What successe this deuice hath, is also to be considered. The Pope is certifi­ed by Cardinall Allen, and the King of Spaine by Parsons the Priest, that there shall be found (ready secretly within her Maiesties dominions) many thousāds of a­ble people, that wil be ready to assist such power as shall be set on land. Of whose names they haue deliuered bead-roles, [Page 64] especially of such as dwel in port Townes and on the sea-coast, with assurance that Priests shall continue their reconciled people, in their lewde constancy. So hath her Maiestie published in her Declarati­on, Anno 1591. But Philopater denieth it, Sect. 4. impudently and barely without any rea­son. But if Ballard Priest sent such a bead­role into Spaine, and Throgmorton had gathered the names of popish Noblemen and Gentlemen, to the same purpose: It may bee (in reason) supposed, that to Priests intelligence is sent by Priests, what schollers they haue perswaded and pre­pared for Treason and Rebellion.

To conclude, 1. If the Church proceed not against Priests in Ecclesiasticall man­ner, before the Secular power execute them. 2. If Priests suffer not for affirming the Popes Primacy and reconciling, &c. beyond seas. 3. If Priests be not executed for other points of Popery, no lesse dam­nable then these, as they bee religious. 4. But if the Pope by his Bull, hath vpon paine of Excommunication discharged her Maiesties subiects of their allegeance. 5. If Papists be dispensed with, for obey­ing [Page 65] her Maiestie till time serue to the con­trary. 6. If Priests come of purpose to re­concile and teach according to the Bull expounded. 7. If it bee a Catholique do­ctrine, that subiects hauing force, ought to depose their Prince, maintaining Reli­gion contrary to the Church of Rome: and 8. In that case to ioyne with forreigne power. 9. If maisters and schollers haue from time to time attempted to put the said Bull in execution. 10. If Priests bee sent before inuasion to prepare the peo­ple: and 11. If thousands be notified euen by Priests prepared: then it may be auou­ched, that Priests are not executed for affirming the Popes Primacy and reconciling, &c. as they be reli­gious, but as they be trayte­rous, or dangerous to the State in ciuill considera­tion.