The Protestantes.

WE affirme that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense, which we call the literall sense, when as the wordes are either taken properly, or figuratiuely to expresse the thing which is meant: as in this place, the seede of the woman shall breake the Serpents head, the literall sense is of Christ, who should triumph ouer Sathan, though it be spoken in a borowed and figuratiue speach. There can be therefore but one sense, which is the lite­rall: as for those three kinds, they are not diuerse senses, but diuerse applicatiōs onely and collections out of one and the same sense.

[Page 27]1 It shall appeare by a seuerall induction of all these kindes: In the first example of the Allegoricall sense Galathes 4, the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense, but that it may be allegorically applied, which is histo­rically set downe. There is then but one sense of the place, part whereof consi­steth in the storie, part in the allegorie: so that the whole sense is conteined in them both. Concerning the second exāple of the Tropologicall: there is not a twofold sense of that place, but one whole generall sense; that as the mouth of the oxe was not to be musled, so the Minister of the Gospell must be proui­ded for. Likewise of the Anagogicall kind: it is not one sense to vnderstād the rest of Canaan, an other of the kingdome of God: but there is one whole sense, that as they for their Idolatrie were depriued of the land of promise, so we should take heede lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdome of heauē. So we cōclude that those are not diuerse senses, but one sense diuersly applied.

2 The literal sense is the onely sense of the place, because out of that sense onely may an argument strongly be framed: wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not cōclude, they are not the senses of the place. An allegorie or type may be part of the literall sense, and then it concludeth: but when an allegorie is framed beside the literall sense, it concludeth not, and therefore is no part of the sense: as to reason thus, the oxes mouth must not be musled, Ergo the Mini­ster must be maintained, it foloweth well, because it is part of the sense: but allegories deuised beside the sense proue not, though they may illustrate.

The Protestantes.

WE say, it is daungerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of Gods spirite: this was the occasion that di­uerse of the auncient fathers greatly erred: as the Iesuite him selfe reprehēdeth Papias, Iustinus, Lactantius, for allegorising that place Reuel. 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes, by false interpreting of the thousand yeares there mentioned.

To their argumēts our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth. First, it fo­loweth not, because it was lawfull for the Apostles gouerned by the spirite to make allegories, that it is therfore lawfull for others. Secondly, whē the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirite, which the holy writers had, and of the like dexteritie in vnderstanding and expounding Scripture, [Page 28] they may likewise be bold to make allegories.

Let vs heare what Augustine saith of this matter. Sicut mihi multum errare videntur, qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gesta sunt, signi­ficare arbitrantur: ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib. alle­goricis inuoluta esse contendunt. As they are much deceiued, which thinke that the stories in the scripture do signifie no other thing, but that which was done: so they are to rash and bold, that would draw all things to allegories, which they read in scripture. Ergo, it is not lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture, as it seemeth good to them selues.

The Protestants.

WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture: It were to lōg whē we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church, or to expect a generall Councell, or go vp to Rome. And it were to much to trouble the Popes graui­tie with euery questiō: The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way: see that we neede not ascend to heauen or cōpasse the earth or passe the Alpes: but the word of God is amongest vs, the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them: the interpre­tation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors, or tryed to any place or persons. Our arguments folow, some few of them.

1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture, which doth be­get vs faith: the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith. Rom. 10.17. faith commeth of hearing the word, Ergo the spirit of God is the onely inter­preter of scripture. The proposition also is cleare: for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof, if any should geue the sense of the scripture, but that which worketh faith, then vpon him should our faith be grounded. If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture, and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood, then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense. argum. Whitach. 2. & 9.

2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit, wherewith they were writtē, but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures, Ergo. [Page 30] The first part the Papistes them selues graunt: the second is thus proued: the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration, that sauoureth of A­nabaptisme: where is it thē to be found? whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire, or in his Epistles? or if they haue S. Pe­ters spirite, where is S. Paules found but in his writings? Yet it is all one spirite, & appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures: where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope: the spirituall man iudgeth all things. 1. Cor. 2.15. you haue an oyntment from him that is holy, and you haue knowen all things: and ver. 27. you need not that any mā teach you. By these places it is euident, that eue­ry faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures.

3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures, Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church. The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans. Act. 17.11. If they did well in examining Paules doctrine, much more may the decrees of the Pope, Church, Coūcels be examined by the scriptures. But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not▪ therefore they might examine his doctrine, saith the Iesuite. Answere, it is no matter for the person of Paule, they examined his doctrine, which dependeth not vpon the person. Secondly, they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship, who was famous throughout the Churches. Thirdly, they doubted onely whether Paul was an Apostle, but we are sure the Pope is none, neither successor of any Apostle, but very Antichrist, Ergo we haue more iust cause to examine his decrees.

4 Lastly, let Augustine speake: Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum ma­gistrum habere, & sub illo condiscipulos esse, nec ideo magistri sumus, quia de supe­riore loco loquimur vobis, sed magister est omnium, qui habitat in nobis omnib. You know brethren (saith he) that we are all felow scholers vnder one maister, and though we speake to you out of an higher place, yet are we not your master, he is the teacher and master of vs all that dwelleth in our harts. Ergo the spirite of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof.

The Protestantes.

WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selues, our mea­ning is, that by certaine compendious and ready meanes, we should labour to vnderstand the scriptures by them selues: the meanes are especially these foure. First, to haue recourse to the originall toung, as in the old Testa­ment to the Hebrue, in the new to the Greeke: as 1. Tim. 2.15. through bearing of children they shalbe saued, if they continue in faith and loue: In the English it is doubtfull, whether this clause, if they continue in faith, be referred to chil­dren, or to those that beare them: but read the Greeke and the doubt is remo­ued: for bearing of children is all one word in the originall [...], so that it must needes be vnderstood of the women: for this word [...] ▪ bearing of children is in the singular number, that which foloweth of the plurall, and it is but an action, not a person, so that it should be improperly sayd, if they continue▪ that is, in bearing of children.

Stapleton obiecteth against this meane: that it is not now needefull, seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatiō authorised by the Councell of Trent, he meaneth the vulgare Latin. We answere. First, it is no perfect but an erro­nious translation, and verie corrupt. Secondly, if it were neuer so perfect, yet for more certaintie, it is profitable to search the originall: euery man will trust his owne skill, rather then another mans. Thirdly, the Councell did fondly in authorising an old blind translation, before the authenticall copies of the He­brue and Greeke.

2 Secondly, the scope of the place, the circumstance of it, with that which goeth before, and commeth after must, be wayghed, which will bring great light to the place we haue in hand: an example we haue 1. Pet. 4.8. loue coue­reth [Page 32] multitude of sinnes: the Papistes gather out of these words, that loue doth iustifie vs before God and taketh away our sinnes: but by the circunstance of the place, the Apostole saying immediatly before: haue feruent loue among you, it is euident he vnderstandeth brotherly loue amōgest our selues, where­by faultes are buried, forgeuen, and forgotten.

Stapleton obiecteth: that this is but an vncertaine way, and many times fay­leth: for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another: how then can it helpe to consider the circumstance of the place be­ing of a diuerse matter? We answere, we say not that any of these meanes ser­ueth for euery place, but when one fayleth, to vse another: when the circum­stance helpeth not, to runne to the originall, if there we find, no succour to cō ­pare places together, and when we may, to vse them all, or the most.

3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable, as Iames. 2.21. A­braham was iustified by workes, compare it with that place Rom. 4.2. there S. Paule saith flatly that Abraham was not iustified by workes: Wherfore see­ing one Apostle is not contrary to the other: we must needs gather, that this word iustified is diuersly taken, Paule saith that Abraham was not iustified that is, made righteous before God by his workes. Iames saith he was iusti­fied, that is declared to be iust before men, and so Thom. Aquinas expoun­deth it.

Stapleton obiecteth, that this meanes in cōparing of places is of it selfe ma­ny times of smal force. Answere, as though we affirme that these meanes must be vsed asunder, and not rather ioyntly together, and where one fayleth, ano­ther to helpe. Secondly, some things are found but once in the scriptures. Aun­swere, they are then either very plaine, or not greatly necessarie. Thirdly, here­tikes haue erred in comparing of Scripture. Answere, they compared them not diligently, nor with a syncere minde, but corruptly and negligently.

4 The fourth rule is the analogie and proportion of faith, which is no­thing els but the summe & grounds of Religiō gathered out of scripture, such as are conteined in the Creede, the Lordes Prayer, the ten Commaundements, and in our whole Catechisme. We must take heede, that in the interpretation of Scripture we swarue not from this rule of faith, nor impugne any principle of Religion. Wherefore the Papistes interpretation of those wordes of Christ we do reiect. Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: who would haue the verie flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament: for this is against the article of the Creede, that Christ is ascended into heauen, and there sitteth till his comming againe in iudgement.

Concerning these meanes, thus writeth Augustine. Rarissime inuenitur am­biguitas in verbis proprijs, quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognosci­tur Scripturarum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut praecedentes soluat inspectio, de doctrin. Christ. lib. 3.4. There is almost no ambiguitie in any word proper­ly vsed (that is not metaphoricall or borrowed) which may not either by the circumstance of the place, the conference and comparing of interpreters, or [Page 33] by looking into the originals, easily be taken away. Augustine we see appro­ueth this methode, though our aduersaries like it not.

Besides these, prayer must be vsed before we enterprise any thing, that the Lord would direct vs. And they which cā not so easily take this course, which is prescribed, shall do well to seeke helpe of learned and godly expositors, or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 5. cap. 9.

The Protestantes.

THat the scriptures are necessarie for the people of God, the reading, prea­ching, and vnderstanding whereof is the onely and ordinarie meanes to beget faith in vs, we thus proue out of the Scriptures them selues.

1 The scriptures conteine necessarie knowledge to saluation, which can not be learned but out of the scripture, Ergo they are necessarie. The know­ledge of the law is necessarie, but that onely is deriued from the Scripture: as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7. he had not knowen lust to be sinne, vnlesse the law had said, thou shalt not lust. And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned, but out of the scripture: much more the knowledge of the Gospel, is more high and mysticall, and more straunge vnto our nature.

2 That whereby we are kept frō error and doubtfulnes in matters of faith is necessarie: but this is performed by the scripture, Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth vs from error. Math. 22.29. ye erre not knowing the scriptures (saith [Page 35] our Sauiour). The ignoraunce of scripture was cause of their error. Secondly, if our knowledge were onely builded vpon tradition without scripture, we should be doubtfull and vncertaine of the truth, so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus: I haue written (saith he) that thou mightest be certaine of those things, whereof thou hast bene instructed: Hence we conclude, that although we might know the truth without scripture, as Theophilus did, yet we can not know it certainlie without.

3 If the scriptures be not necessarie, then we may be without them, but this can not be, Ergo the scriptures can not be spared: for then God had done a needlesse and superfluous worke in stirring vp the Prophets and Apostles to write. S. Paule saith, that what soeuer is writtē, is written for our learning, that through patience and cōsolation of the scriptures we might haue hope. Rom. 15.4. The Lord saw in wisedome that his people could not be without the Scriptures, which are necessarie for their learning, for their comfort, and to strengthen their hope: how then dare our aduersaries say, that the scriptures are not necessarie, seeing these things wrought in vs by the scriptures, know­ledge, consolation, hope, are most necessarie.

4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict: Illud credo, quod etiā hinc diuinorū eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset. de peccator. merit. & remiss. lib. 2.36. I thinke (saith he) that euen con­cerning this matter (speaking of the originall or beginning of the soule) the Scriptures would not haue bene silent, if we might not safelie be ignoraunt of this matter, without daunger of saluation, Ergo whatsoeuer is necessarie to sal­uatiō, is onely to be found in scripture (for other matters there not expressed, there in no daunger in not knowing them) therfore the Scriptures by this Fa­thers iudgement are most necessary.

The Protestantes.

WE do not affirme, as our aduersaries charge vs, that all things necessa­rie to saluation, are expressely conteined in scripture, that is, in so ma­ny words: but this we hold, that all things, which are necessarily to be knowen of vs, are either expresly declared in Scripture, or necessarily concluded out of Scripture, and so conteined in them. We also graunt, that it was not Gospell onely which was written, but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by liue­ly voyce: the whole summe whereof and substaunce is conteined in the writ­ten word: and so we conclude, that nothing necessarie to saluation either con­cerning faith or manners, is els where to be found but in the holy Scriptures.

1 S. Paule saith: if we, or an Aungell preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached, let him be accursed, Ergo the Scripture conteineth all things necessarie.

First, the Iesuite aunswereth, that S. Paule speaketh not onely of his wri­tings, but also of his preachings which were not written.

We aunswere, that the summe of all S. Paules preachings is conteined in his Epistles and other holy writings: for S. Paule confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures, as Act. 17.10. the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scrip­tures, and found it to be consonant, and to agree in all things.

Secondly, he condēneth, those which preach any thing, not besides or other­wise, but contrarie: and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden, but that which is contrarie. We aunswere, whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture, praeter Scripturas, is also contra Scripturas, contrarie to Scripture, as are all Popish traditions, which they lay a necessitie vpon, both beside and contrarie to Scripture. Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much, bring in another or cōtrary Gospell, as the Apostle saith ver. 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel, which S. Paul taught. Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter, or cō ­tra, beside or contrarie to Scripture, are notablie by this place ouerthrowen.

2 Iohn. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God, & that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name, Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation: for they suffise to worke in vs faith, and faith bringeth vs to eternall life.

First, Bellarmine aunswereth, that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written. Aunswere. If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith, the whole body of Scripture much more: but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings, of the Apostles, for he was the suruiuer of them all, & acknow­ledged their writings and approued them. Secōdly (saith he) the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise, but they are profitable, and referred to [Page 38] this end to worke faith. Aunswere. The Scripture is not one of the meanes, but the sole, whole, and onely meanes: for if they perfectly worke faith, what neede any other helpes: but the first is true, for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith, which shall bring vs to eternall life, Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith.

3 The whole Scripture (saith S. Paule) is profitable to teach, to improue, to correct, and instruct in righteousnesse. 2. Tim. 3.16. Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie: for what els is requisite besides these foure, to teach the right faith, improue error, to instruct in righteousnes and vertue, & to correct vice?

First they aunswere, the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scrip­ture, as the whole, euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole. But you will not say, that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to sal­uation: therefore this perfection is not so to be taken.

We aunswere. First, S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver. 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures, he speaketh of them all. Secondly, if euery part had these vtilities, you might as well conclude that euery word and silla­ble hath them, for they are parts of Scripture. Thirdly, it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe, that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture, but the whole, for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes, but the whole.

Secōdly, they say it foloweth not: the Scripture is profitable, therfore suffi­cient, they also graunt it is profitable. Aunswere, but we conclude out of S. Paule, that the Scripture is not onely profitable, but sufficient, as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute, perfectly instructed to euery good worke. If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs, then are they suf­ficient, then neede we no other helpes.

4 Lastly, Augustine thus writeth, in Psal. 66. Ne putetis (saith he) ex alijs Scripturis petendum, quod forte hic deest. Thinke not (saith he) that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture. And in another place: In Euangelio quaeramus, nam si ibi non inuenimus, vbi inueniemus? Let vs (saith he) seeke to be resolued in the Gospell, if we finde not there, where shall we find it? Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen, which is not to be found in the Scripture.

The Protestantes.

WE hold that the Catholike Church consisteth onely of the predesti­nate, and comprehendeth the vniuersall number of all those which shalbe saued, not onely those now liuing on earth, Fulk. an­not. 1. Io­han. 2. Sect. 10. Fox. pag. 609. but all that haue bene since the beginning of the world: of this Church S. Paule was euen being a persecu­ter, for he was neuer a member of the deuill nor reprobate, as Iohn Husse saith articul. 2. Of this Church Iudas the traytor neuer was, though he were repu­ted for a Disciple of Christ for a while Huss. articul. 7. Therefore the wicked and reprobate though they liue in the outward assembly of Christians, are no more the true members of Christ, then the tares in the field may be coun­ted wheat or good corne.

1 The true members of Christ, are also his sheepe, the wicked are not the sheepe of Christ, Ergo neither his members.

The sheepe of Christ heare his voyce: they do not heare his voyce, Iohn. 10. vers. 3. Ergo if they shall aunswere, that hypocrites and wicked men do heare Christes voyce, so long as they continue in the outward profession of Christians, we thus im­proue it: Christes sheepe do folow him in life and example Iohn. 15.4. but so doe not they. If it shalbe yet aunswered that they may also a while walke in Christes steps: this is not enough, for all Christes shalbe saued. ver. 9. wherfore the Gospell vnderstandeth such folowers, as continue to the end.

2 Christ is the head of his Church, and all the partes thereof, but he is not the head of the wicked & reprobate, Ergo. The Iesuite graunteth that he is the head, euen of those partes that shall perish. Bellarmin. cap. 7. We thus answere, Christ is the head onely of those, for whom he gaue him selfe. Ephe. 5.23.25: but he gaue not him selfe for the wicked, Ergo. If this be denied, we thus pro­ceede, Christ dyed onely for those whom he sanctifieth and cleanseth, to make them a glorious Church without spot and wrincle. Ephe. 5.26.27. But this can not agree any wise to the wicked, Ergo.

3 The Church of God is the whole familie of the children of God in hea­uen and earth, Ephe. 3.15. they both make but one Church, the wicked are not of this familie: for who would say that the Saintes in heauen, and wicked and reprobate men vpon the earth, are felow seruaunts, and of one houshold, Ergo they are not of the Catholike Church.

4 Of all other that is a most euident place. 1. Iohn. 2.19. they went out of vs, but were not of vs, Ergo heretikes and reprobates are not of the church. [Page 46] Bellarmine aunswereth: though they were not of vs, that is, of the Church: ani­mis & voluntate, in soule, and minde, and purpose of hart, yet they were of vs, externa professione, in externall profession. Thus they are not ashamed, such is there great boldnesse, to contradict the scriptures, for the Apostle saith, non erāt ex nobis, they were not of vs: they say, yes, forsoth, after a sort, erāt ex nobis, they were of vs: the Apostle saith nay, they say yea, he saith indeed exierunt ex nobis, they went out of vs, which soundeth nothing like, as erant ex nobis, they were of vs, as the Iesuite subtillie would conclude.

De Bap­tis. lib. 6. cap. 3.5 Let Augustine speake for vs both, Illa columba, vnica, pudica, casta, spon­sa sine macula & ruga non intelligitur, nisi in bonis, iustis, sanctis. That louely doue (saith he) the chast, vndefiled, and vnspotted spouse (that is the Church of God) is onely vnderstood of those that are righteous, faithfull, holy, Ergo the wicked are not of the Church, which is the spouse of Christ.

The Protestantes.

COncerning the catholike church, we hold, that because, it is an article of our faith, it is alwayes vnto the world inuisible, and not to be espyed but by the eyes of faith. Fulk. Math. 5. Sect. 5.

Concerning particular churches▪ if by visible, they vnderstand that which may be seene, so we graunt they are alwayes visible. Fulk. Act. 11. v. 24. If for that which is actually visible: we say it is not so alwayes visible to the world, nay it may sometimes be so hid and secret, that the members know not one another. Fulk. in Math. 5. Sect. 3.

1 To the Hebrues it is thus written. cap. 13. v. 18.23.24. you are not come to the moūtaine, which might be touched, but to the Citie of the liuing God, the [Page 48] celestiall Ierusalem, &c. Ergo the church is inuisible, and here opposed to the visible hill of Sinay.

Bellarmine answereth, that this is vnderstood of the triumphant church in heauen, not of the militant vpon earth.

To this we make answere, the Apostle vnderstandeth the whole vniuer­sall church in heauen and earth, which both make but one familie, Ephe. 3.15. for here he nameth not onely the spirites of iust men which are in heauen, but the faithfull vpon earth, whose names are written in heauen: the congregatiō (saith he) of the first borne: the wordes are [...] and [...], a gathering together, collection or cōgregation, which must needes be vnderstood of men vpon earth. Againe (saith he) ye are come, not ye shall come: they had now left the smoking mountaine Sinay, and were come to Sion, the church vnder the Gospell. Wherefore this is a most firme and inuincible argument: the catho­like church is the vniuersall number of Gods chosen in heauen and in earth, Ergo inuisible.

2 We will giue an instance: In the dayes of Elias the church was not vi­sible, for he camplaineth, and saith that he was onely left alone, 1. King. 19.10. Ergo the church is not alway visible.

Annot. in Rom. 11. ver. 4.The Rhemistes answere. First, at that time the church was visible in Iudaea, the souldiers were numbred to 1000. thousand, 2. Chron. 17. We aunswere againe. First, belike they haue taken a more exact account of them then the Lord him selfe: for he (saith he) had reserued 7000, 1. King. 19.18. that had not bowed their knees to Baall, they say there were ten hūdred thousand. Againe Elias, if he had knowen such a number, could not haue bene left so comfort­lesse, as in grief of hart to desire to dye. But be it graunted that the church was visible in Iudaea at this time, though it were not so to Elias: yet where was that visible church in the dayes of Achaz, and Manasseh, when Iudaea fell also to I­dolatrie? Thirdly, to beleeue that there is an holy catholike church is an article of our faith, Ergo it is inuisible.

Bellarmin answereth. First, the holinesse of the church is inuisible. We reply, so the church is partly visible, partly inuisible by his confession. First, why thē do ye define the catholike church to be a visible cōgregatiō, if it be not wholly & altogether visible? they know that difinitio must cōuenire definito, the definitiō must agree wholly to that which is defined: but now it is not: for they say, the catholike holy church is partly visible as it is a church, partly inuisible as it is holy. Secondly, do we not say in the Creede, Credo Catholicam, as well as Cre­do Sanctam, I beleeue a catholike church, as well as I beleeue the holy church? then it is also inuisible, as it is catholike, because this also is part of the article: see I pray you what shifting is here?

Secondly, he answereth, that some thing is seene in the church, some thing beleeued: for we see that visible companie of men, which make the church, but whether that companie be the true church, we do not see it, but beleeue it.

We reply againe. First, the Iesuite hath not yet proued that some thing is [Page 49] seene in the church, some thing beleeued: but one thing is seene, namely the congregation as they are men, another thing is beleeued, that they are the church: the sight and beliefe now by his owne confession are not both in the church. Secondly, we denie that the vniuersall cōpanie of the catholike church, which is the number of the predestinate can be seene, therefore all is beleeued, and nothing seene. Thirdly, he saith that by faith we know which is the true church: Ergo by faith we know which are the members of the church: Ergo by faith the mēbers do know them selues to be of the Church: therefore faith is requisite in the true members of the church: thē vnfaithfull men can not be true members of the church, which point the Iesuite strongly before main­tained against vs. Mendacem oportet esse memorem, a lyar had need haue a good memorie: lest he tell contrarie tales, and so hath the Iesuite here, for before he denied that faith was requisite to make a true member of the church: here he saith that without faith a mēber cā not be knowen, much lesse therfore made.

3 The Rhemistes confesse in these very words, that in the raigne of (their imagined and supposed) Antichrist the externall state of the Romane church, and publike entercourse of the faithfull with the same shall cease, and that there shalbe onely a communion in hart with it, and practise in secret, Annot. in. 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 10. Where then (I pray you) shalbe your tabernaculum in sole, ciuitas in monte, candela splendens in domo: your tabernacle in the sunne, your Citie in a mountaine, your candle shining in the house, that is, say you, in the world. Math. 5. Sect. 3. Ergo out of their owne wordes we conclude, that the church shall not alwayes be visible, and notoriously knowen in the world.

Lastly, we will conclude with Augustine. Aliquando in sola domo Noah Ec­clesia erat: in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat: in solo Loth & domo eius Ecclesia erat: in solo Henoch Ecclesia erat: Sometime the church was onely in Henochs house, Enarrat. in Psal. 128. sometime onely in Noah, some time in Abraham alone, in Loth & his house. How then hath the church bene alwayes so visible and notoriously knowē to the world, when it hath layen hidden some time in one house, yea in one man.

The Protestantes.

WE doubt not to say, that the church of God may erre in some points not necessarie to saluation: but can not fall cleane away from God into any dānable error. Fulk. annot. in Ephe. 5. ver. 29. That the church may erre, as we say, we do shew it thus: and by the Church, we vnderstand the whole companie and congregation, the pastors with the people.

1 When our Sauiour Christ suffred, the church erred in faith, Ergo it may erre: the proposition is thus proued. The church was either in the Scribes and Pharisies, or els in the Apostles: but both of them erred: they in putting Christ to death, the other in their incredulitie, not beleeuing rightlie in the resurre­ction of Christ.

Bellarmine aunswereth, first that the Pharisies were priuiledged not to erre, Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 17. onely till the cōming of Christ. We replie againe. First, after Christ was come they sate in Moses chaire, and Christ biddeth they should be heard. Math. 23.2. if they erred not afore, neither could they now, for they were not displaced out of Moses chaire: but the truth is, they neuer had any such priuiledge not to erre. Secondly, if the Pharisies were now prone to error, then by our aduersa­ries owne confession, they ceased to be the church, Ergo the church was not now visible, for in them it was not: and the Apostles fled from Christ, and shif­ted for them selues: how could then the church be visible to the world?

Secondly, the Iesuite aunswereth concerning the Apostles. First, the Apo­stles were not yet entred into their office and Bishoprike, but onely appointed to it, and therefore they might erre. We replie againe. First they were not one­ly appointed Apostles, but partly already they had exercised their Apostle­ship: for they were sent forth to preach the Gospell, and had power and com­mission to worke miracles, and heale diseases Math. 10▪ how then is not the Ie­suite ashamed to say, that they were not yet Pastors nor Apostles? Secondly, if [Page 52] the Pharisies erred, and the Apostles erred, then all the world was in error, Ergo by their saying at this instant there was no church vpon the earth, which is a great absurditie, for the church erreth not, they say.

Secondly, (saith the Iesuite) the Apostles erred not in faith: they were re­proued for not beleeuing the resurrection: which beliefe because they had not yet receiued, they could not loose it. We reply. First, though they had not erred in any materiall point: yet if there were any error at all in them, it is sufficient for our purpose: that they erred it is manifest, for they fled away from Christ. Secondly, he excuseth them for their infidelitie concerning the resurrection, because this faith they had not yet receiued. But had not Christ (I pray you) often instructed them of this matter: and if this were no such error in them, then Christ was to sharpe in reprouing them for their infidelitie. Thirdly, it appeareth, that they wholly were deceiued concerning the Messiah: Luke. 24.21. the two Disciples say, they trusted that it had bene he that should haue de­liuered Israell: see then what weake aunswers these are: did these felowes thinke, that their gloses should not be examined? or that their dreames should be taken for oracles?

2 The church of the Iewes erred before our Sauiour Christes comming, Ergo the true church may erre.

The proposition is proued: In the time of the raigne of good kings, they did offer sacrifice vpon hill altars, but onely to the Lord, which was an error. 2. Kings. 12.3.14.4. The feast of the Passeouer was not kept so precisely accor­ding to Gods word at any time before, no not in the raigne of the best kings, as it was in the 18. yeare of Iosias raigne, 2. King. 23.22. The feast of Tabernacles had not bene so solemnly and truly kept from the dayes of Iosua, as it was in Nehemiahs time▪ Nehem. 8.18. Ergo all this while the church of the Iewes erred somewhat in the externall worship of God. Fulk. Ephes. cap. 5. Sect. 4.

Cont. 2. Epist. Pe­lag. lib. 4. cap. 7.3 Augustine saith, Quomodo erit Ecclesia in isto tempore, perfecta sine macula & ruga, cuius mēbra non mendaciter confitentur se habere peccata. How can the church be perfect in this life, without spot or wrincle, whose members do tru­ly confesse, that they are not without sinne? Ergo the church sinneth and is imperfect, and why not subiect to error? But in the Councell of Basill it was denied, as ye heard, that the church could sinne.

The Protestantes.

WE denie not, but that the catholike vniuersall church, as it hath hither­to continued since the beginning of the world, so shall it endure to the end: the Lord shall neuer want vpon earth a companie of faithfull men, which shall truly serue him: though it be not necessarie, neither hath alwayes bene seene, that they should be in any one place. A visible church we define to be a congregation of men, amongest whom the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administred: such a Church hath not alwayes bene, neither can we be assured that it shall alway be found vpon the earth, wherein the worship of God publikely and visibly is practised.

1 In the raigne of Ahaz king of Iuda there was no visible church, where the pure worship of God was practised, for both Israell vnder Pekah, and Iuda vnder Ahaz, fell to Idolatrie, and folowed the custome of the Gētiles. 2. Kings. 16.3. yea Vriah the high Priest consented with the king to set vp Idolatrie. Likewise in the dayes of Manasseh, who did euill after the abhomination of the heathen. 2. Kings. 21.2. there was no place, where God was publikely wor­shipped. for Iudah was corrupted, Israell was carried away captiue, Ergo there was a time, when there was no visible Church.

2 In the Passion of our Sauiour there was no visible church, such a church we still meane, as where there are, Prelati & subditi, pastores & oues, Prelates and people, pastors and sheepe. We proue it thus.

The visible Church was not amongest the Pharisies and Priests, for they shamefully and wickedly erred. Bellarmin. 17. It was not among the Apostles, for they also erred, therfore after the Papists opiniō they were not the Church: for the Church (say they) erreth not. Secondly he saith, they were yet but mate­riall partes, not formall, that is, not Bishops or Pastors, how then could there be a visible Church, which was without the formal and principall parts, that is Pastors and Bishops, Ergo there was then no visible Church.

3 When the abhominatiō of desolation shall stand in the temple, & there shalbe a generall defection and apostasie from the faith, then shall the visible [Page 55] church fayle vpon earth: But the first is true Math. 24.15. 2. Thess. 2.3. Ergo.

To the first place the Iesuite aunswereth that it must be vnderstood of the destruction of the temple. cap. 16. But the Rhemistes more liberall then so, af­firme that it shalbe especially accomplished in Antichristes time, when as the sacrifice of the Masse shall vtterly be abolished. annot. in Math. 24. ver. 15.

To the next place, cōcerning that defectiō & apostasie, which S. Paul spea­keth of, first he saith, that it shalbe a defection from the Romane Empire: but the Rhemistes say, it shalbe a defection frō most points of Christian Religion. Secondly, the Iesuite aunswereth, that though it be a defection from the Ro­mane faith, yet it shall not be generall but particular: but the Rhemistes bet­ter aduised graunt it shalbe a reuolt of kingdomes, peoples, prouinces: & the publike entercourse of the faithfull with the church of Rome shall cease, they shall onely communicate with it in hart. annot. in 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 6.

Now out of their owne wordes we conclude: there shalbe a time whē as the publike seruice of God shall cease, there shalbe desolation in the Churches and temples of Christians: there shalbe then no publike entercourse with the Church, but a priuat communicating in hart, Ergo there shalbe a time, when there shalbe no outward visible Church notoriously and famously knowen: Ergo our aduersaries are in an error, & are condemned by their owne mouth.

The Protestantes.

THat the Church hath no such power to ordaine articles of faith, or impose matters to be beleeued necessarie to saluation not contayned, or prescri­bed in the holy scriptures: We prooue it thus, and wee are sure, that the true Church of Christ will neuer chalenge any such prerogatiue.

1. All truthes and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to saluation, that the ignorance thereof should bring perill of damnation: Ergo much lesse are any verities out of scripture of any such necessitie: the first is manifest: for to know the iust chronologie of time or space of yeares, from the beginning of the world to Christ, is a veritie in scripture, yet not necessary: so to beleeue that Marie continued a virgin euer after the birth of our Lord, was thought by Ba­sile to be no necessarie poynt to saluation, if wee did hold her to haue beene a virgin afore: and many such other poyntes there are in scriptures, which a man may be ignorant of without perill of saluation, Ergo much more may we be ig­norant of vnwritten verities, or rather Popish fables.

2. The Church hath no more authoritie then the Apostles, nor yet in all things so much: But they had no power to make articles of faith: for Saint Paul deliuereth that which he had receiued concerning the sacrament, he durst not adde vnto it, as the Papists haue been bolde to doe since, 1. Cor. 11. Ergo the Church may explane and open articles of fayth out of the scriptures, but not make new.

3. We prooue it by the confession of our aduersaries. The fathers of Basile, that concluded, it was an article of the Christian fayth to beleeue the superiori­tie of the councel, Fox. p. 677. did gather it out of the saying of Christ, dic ecclesiae, and ther­fore enforced it as an article. Whereby wee gather, that they helde, that the Church could establish no article of fayth without scripture. Bellarmine like­wise sayth, that the Church is not now gouerned by newe reuelations, but wee ought to be contented with those decrees, which wee haue receiued from the Apostles: Cont. de scriptur. quaest. 6. c. 4 Ergo, as D. Whitakers doth strongly conclude, the Church cannot coyne new articles of faith.

4. Lastly, we haue before prooued at large out of the worde of God, that the scriptures containe all things necessary to saluation: and therefore all arti­cles of fayth must be deriued from thence. 1. controu. quaest. 7. And so we con­clude with Augustine: Epistol. 49. quaest. 2. Linguae sonos, quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicēt, pacto quodā societatis sibi instituere possunt: Quib. autē sacris diuinitati congru­erent, voluntatem dei sequuti sunt, qui rectè sapuerunt: Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem iustitiae pietati (que) hominum. Men, sayth he, may deuise among themselues what language they will vse to expresse their minde: But howe to serue God, wise men euer followed the will and commaundement of GOD▪ which neuer hath failed men in all necessary matters concerning righteousnes and godlines. By this fathers sentence, the scriptures, which containe the will of God, containe all necessary things. Ergo, we neede not seeke elswhere.

The Protestants.

ALthough there be great moderation to bee vsed in the ceremonies of the Church, and there is also some limitation for them: yet hath the Church greater libertie in the rites and ceremonies, which are appoynted for order and comelinesse sake, then in the doctrine of fayth and religion: The doctrine of saluation is alwayes the same, and cannot be changed, and toucheth the con­science: But rites and ceremonies are externall, and commanded for order sake: and neither are they vniuersall, the same in euery Church, nor perpetuall, but are [Page 77] changed according to times, and as there is occasion. Againe, the precepts of Christianitie are either directly expressed, or necessarilie concluded out of the scriptures: but externall rites and ceremonies are not particularlie declared in the word: there are onely certaine generall rules set downe, according to the which all ceremonies brought into the Church, are to bee examined: as for the Sacraments of the Church, they cannot bee altered, hauing a perpetuall com­mandement from Christ: Therefore the Church cannot appoynt, what, how many ceremonies soeuer she shall thinke good, but according to these foure rules and conditions, which followe here in order.

1 All things ought to bee done to the glorie of God, euen in ciuill actions, much more in things appertayning to the seruice of God, 1. Cor. 10.31. Our ad­uersaries offend agaynst this rule, applying and annexing remission of sinnes, to their owne inuentions and superstitious ceremonies, as vnto penance and ex­treame vnction, which they also make Sacraments: for this is greatly derogato­rie to Christs institution, who hath only appoynted the hearing of his word, and vse of the Sacraments, for the begetting and encreasing of faith, and by this faith only is the death of Christ applied vnto vs for the remission of sinnes.

2 All things ought to be done orderly and decently, 1. Cor. 14.40. Where­fore al ridiculous, light & vnprofitable ceremonies are to be abolished: such our aduersaries haue many, as knocking, kneeling, creeping to the Crosse, lighting candles at noone day, turning ouer of beades, and many phantasticall gestures they haue in their idolatrous Masse, as turning, returning, looking to the East, to the West: crossing, lifting, quaffing, and shewing the emptie cup, with many such toyes.

3 All things ought to bee done without offence, 1. Corinth. 10.32. But to whom, that hath but a little feeling of religion, is not the abhominable sacrifice of the Masse offensiue? What good conscience doth it not grieue, that the Priest should create his maker, as they say? should offer vp the bodie of Christ in sacri­fice, and be an intercessor as it were for his mediatour, desiring God to accept the sacrifice of his sonnes bodie? As also to make it a propitiatorie sacrifice for the quicke and the dead? But of these matters we shall haue fitter occasion to entreate afterward, when we come to the seuerall controuersies.

4 All things ought to bee done to edifying, 1. Corinth. 14. vers. 12. But the popish ceremonies are so farre from edifying, that by reason of their infinite rabble and number, they are a clogge vnto Christians, and more burdensome, then were the obseruations of the Iewes: They haue hallowed fire, water, bread, ashes, oyle, waxe, flowers, braunches, clay, spittle, salt, incense, balme, chalices, paxes, pixes, altars, corporals, superaltars, altarclothes, rings, swords, and an infi­nite companie besides: doe these tend (thinke you) to the edification of the minde? Nay, they doe cleane destroy and extinguish all spirituall and internall motions, drawing the heart from the spiritual worship of God, to externall beg­gerlie and ragged reliques and ceremonies. Fulk. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 1. Beza. lib. confess. de eccles. articul. 18.19.20.

The Protestants.

WHile the Church of Rome continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, it was a notable and famous visible Church, and a principall part and mem­ber of the vniuersall Catholike: but now since it is degenerate and fallen away from the Apostolike faith, from being the house of God, to be a synagogue for Antichrist, we take it not to be so much as a true visible Church. But neuer was it to be counted the Catholike Church, as though all other Churches were parts and members of it: but it selfe onely was a part as others, and Catholike too, while it continued in the right faith: but not Catholike as hauing iurisdiction ouer the rest, and all to receiue this name of her.

1 The vniuersall Catholike Church is so called, because it conteyneth the whole number of the elect and first borne of God, Heb. 12.23. Whereof manie are now saints in heauen, many liuing in the earth, many yet vnborne. But all these were not, neither are of the Romane faith: the holie men departed knewe not of these superstitious and prodigious vsages, which now doe raigne in the Church of Rome: nay, many of them neuer heard in their life so much, as of the name of Rome: Ergo.

2 It is called Catholike, and vniuersall, because they that are to be saued, must belong vnto this companie, and be of this Church, for without the Church there [Page 79] is no saluation, for Christ onely gaue himselfe for his Church to sanctifie it and cleanse it. Ephes. 5.25. But all that dye out of the faith of the Romane Church, do not perish. Nay verely, we doubt not to say, but that all which depart this life in the communion thereof without repentance, are barred from saluation, and dye out of grace. We are in the right faith: neither will we be our owne iudges, the scriptures shall iudge vs: Euery spirit that confesseth, that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. 1. Iohn 4.2. We beleeue aright in both the natures and all the offices of Christ: which you doe not, which doe greatly deface his prophe­tical office, in not reuerencing his word, but making it imperfect: his kingdom, in appointing him a Vicar and Vicegerent vpon earth, as though he of himselfe were not sufficient to gouerne: his Priesthood, in setting vp another sacrifice: Ergo, your spirit is not of God.

3 The Catholike Church is so called, because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. Ephes. 2. vers. 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture, and addeth many things vnto it, as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse. Ergo.

4 The Catholike Church hath the name, because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth. Acts 1. vers. 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith, which is now professed, as we haue shewed before. Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo, ex Amand. Polan.

Protestants.

WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ, but an Anti­christian Church, and an assembly of heretickes, and enemies to the Gos­pell of Iesus Christ.

1 That cannot bee a true Church, where the word of God is not truely prea­ched, nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution: So are they not in the Popes Church: For the word is not sincerely taught, but they haue added many inuentions of their owne, and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture: the Sacraments also they haue not kept, for first they haue augmented the number: they haue made fiue more, of con­firmation, orders, penance, Matrimonie, extreame vnction: beside, the Sacra­ments [Page 80] of Christ they haue corrupted. In baptisme, beside water, they vse spittle, salt, oyle Chrisme, contrarie to the institution: and they lay such a necessitie vp­on this Sacrament, that al, which die without it, say they, are damned. In the Lordes Supper, they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice, made an Idol of bread, chaunged the Communion into priuate masses, taken the cup from the lay people, and many other abhominations are committed by them. Ergo, nei­ther hauing the word, nor Sacraments according to the institution, they are no true Church.

2 They which are enemies to the true Church, and doe persecute the mem­bers thereof, are no true visible Church: they cannot be of that Church, which they persecute; as Bellarmine saith of Paul: how could he bee of that Church, which he with al his force oppressed? de eccles. lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God, & are most cruel towards them, as their consciences beare them record. Ergo.

3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ, so is theirs: the Pope himselfe is Antichrist: for who else but hee sitteth in the temple, being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome? Apocalyps. 17.9. But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward. Ergo. they are not a true visible Church.

The Protestants.

COncerning Peters being at Rome: First, wee doe not vtterly denye it, but onely affirme that he could not come thither so soone as in the second yeare of Claudius, and sit there so long, namely, fiue and twentie yeares, as they hold. Secondly, it may bee graunted, that he was there, as a matter of storie, not an ar­ticle of faith. Thirdly, wee haue certayne doubts and arguments, about some circumstances of his being there, which our aduersaries are not able to an­swere.

1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers, concerning the time of Peters comming to Rome: Orosius sayth hee came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne: Hierome saith, the 2. yeare of his raigne: other say, the fourth yeare: other, the thirteenth yeare: Damasus would haue him come thither in Nero his raigne. This dissention of writers sheweth that the matter may be iust­ly doubted of, Fulk. in Rom. 16. sect. 4.

Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: No more doe all agree concerning the time when the world was created, nor for the storie of Christs life, in what time euery thing was done when he suffered, and such like: yet it followeth not, that those things were not true, because there is some diuersitie about the time, Rhemist. 1. Pet. 5.13.

Wee replie: First, most of these things concerning the chronologie of scrip­ture, though it be not necessarie to saluation, yet by diligent search may be found in scripture. Secondly, if they can shewe any scripture for Peters being at Rome, as we haue for the other stories, we will beleeue it, though the time perfectly be not knowne: but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there, and the time is vncertayne, we may worthilie doubt of it, much lesse are bound necessarilie to beleeue it.

2 The storie of Peters comming to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius, his abiding at Rome fiue & twentie yeres, his death and martyrdome in the 14. yere [Page 115] of Nero, and the 37. yeare after Christs ascension: we proue out of the scriptures to bee false. For Peter was at Ierusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. yeares after Christ: for Paul sawe him there 3. yeares after his calling, and agayne 14. yeares after that, Galath. 2. there is 17. yeares, and one yeare was past before Pauls conuersion: in all 18. yeares: adde vnto these the 25. yeares of Pe­ters being at Rome, that maketh 43. yeares: and so Peter should suffer in Vespa­sianus raigne, and not in the time of Nero.

Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: that Peter was at Rome seauen yeares before the Councel held at Ierusalem, Act. 15. which was in the 18. yeare after Christ: and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes, he returned to Ierusalem, and there spake with Paul, and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life.

This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient. First, Act. 15.2. it appeareth that there was, as it were, a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusa­lem, of the which Peter was one: for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem. Secondly, till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held, it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes, of whom there were then but fewe at Rome: for, saith the A­postle, he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision, was also mightie in me, Gal. 2.8. Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue labou­red vntill this time in the circumcision. Thirdly, afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome: for after this, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2. Fourthly, these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries, and craftie e­uasion without scripture: but seeing we appose them out of scripture, it is great reason, they should likewise answere vs out of scripture.

3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures: as first, that if Peter were at Rome, it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle, Rō. 16. sent to the brethren. Our aduersaries answere but very simplie, that at that time, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle, either Peter was not at Rome, or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe, and this Epistle enclosed in them: such goodly coniectures they haue. But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes, if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor, were continually amongst them?

Other places also of scripture we haue: as Philipp. 2.20. speaking of Timothy he saith, I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your mat­ters Coloss. 4.11. These onely are my workfellowes, 2. Timoth. 4.11. onely Luke is with me: Ergo, Peter all this while was not at Rome, for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers: at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy, though he were a worthie yong man, before him. That which Bellarmine answereth, is iust nothing: that S. Paul speaketh in those pla­ces onely of his domesticall helpers, which did minister vnto him: When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers: these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God, Coloss. 4.11.

[Page 116]An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words, 2. Timoth. 4.16. At my first answering no man assisted me: Ergo, it is like that Peter was not then at Rome, for he would not haue forsaken Paul. Bellarmine answereth: that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court, that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour. But this is a weake solution. First, it appeareth by that which followeth, that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence: they did not assist me (sayth he) but the Lord assisted me: that is, gaue me strength to defend my cause: so that the word, assisting, must bee taken in the same sense before, that they fayled him in that, wherein God assisted him, that is, in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth. Secondly, it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering: at the first all left him, but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds: what to doe? more frankly to speake the word, Philipp. 1.14. Ergo, at the first they for­sooke him, because they were afrayd to speake the word.

The Protestants.

IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the pub­lique cure and charge of soules: in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi, Bishops, as Christ is called the shep­heard and Bishop of our soules, 1. Pet. 2.23. But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place, which is called Episcopus intitulatus, a Bishop entituled, wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops, Fox. pag. 15.

1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision; therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Ro­manes, because they were of the Gentiles, and part of his charge: and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vnto Peter, that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, as he was of the Iewes; Peter should haue in­truded himselfe into Paules charge, not in preaching to the Gentiles, (for both Paul might preach to the Iewes, and Peter to the Gentiles) but in taking vpon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, which was giuen before to S. Paul.

2 The Rhemists themselues graunt, that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul, annot. in 2. Gal. sect. 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs, but varying from them in this opinion, shewed in a letter of his to Cardi­nall Poole, how in times past, both Peter and Paul ▪ were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome, and principes apostolorum, the chiefe of the Apostles. Eusebius sayth, that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul: Alexander suc­ceeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul: If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter, they may doe it as well from Paul: for they both founded that Church, preached there, and both there suffered, Fox, pag. 1066.

3 No Apostles were Bishops▪ for they were diuers offices, Eph. 4.11. he gaue some to be Apostles, some to be Pastors & Doctors: Ergo, they were diuers offi­ces, and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops, for both are all one. The offices were much different: Apostles were immediatly called of God, Bi­shops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles, the Apostles calling was ge­neral ouer the whole world, the Pastors were obliged to their dioces & parishes & particular Churches: the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie, & but for a time; the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church. Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places. Irenaeus saith, [Page 118] that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt: the Church of Rome once founded, the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vpon Linus. Whereby it appeareth, that they onely reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ, Tunstal. ex Fox. pag. 1066. It had therefore been con­trarie to the commaundement of Christ: who sayd, Ite in vniuersum mundum, goe into all the world: if they should haue left their calling, and bound them­selues to any peculiar Church: Ergo, we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope neither hath, nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer o­ther Bishops: but that euery one in his owne precinct, and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge: It is thus proued.

1. Peter was not chiefe, neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue: Ergo, neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops. The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed. The heauenly Hierusalem, which is the Church of God, is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter, but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles: argument. Tunstalli. To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian. Fox. p. 106 [...] All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: and vpon them all in­differently and equally, is the strength of the Church grounded and establi­shed. Fox. p. 1066.

2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome, but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment: afterward followed the Councel of Nice, wherein was decreed, that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts: ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set: first the Bishop of Rome: next the Bi­shop of Alexandria: the third was the Bishop of Antioch: the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem: and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch. All these had equall authoritie in their prouin­ces, and one was not to deale within anothers charge: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, argument. Nili. plura Fox. p. 9.

3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile, which were all of the Popish sect: what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they, but only sha­dowes? might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe? what had they more then their Miters and their staffe, when they could determine no­thing ouer their subiects? Verily in the primitiue Church, the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie: but now it was come to that poynt, Fox. p. [...]79. col. 1. that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes. What plainer testimonie can we haue, then from the papists themselues?

Augustine also agreeth to their sentence: habet omnis episcopus, saith he, De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 2. pro licē ­tia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium propriū, tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit, quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare, sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini no­stri Iesu Christi: Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement, neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops, as he is not to iudge them, but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ: See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church, and sayth, they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ.

The Protestants.

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

1. This matter was notably handled, anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Car­thage, where Augustine was present, with Prosper and Orosius: To this Coun­cel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests, of the which this was one, that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes, and also of the Councel to Rome: alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel. The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople, Antioch & Alexandria, for a copie of the Coūcel [Page 123] of Nice, wherein no such Canon was found, that appeales should bee made to Rome: but the contrary: for in the sixt Canon of that Councel, it was founde how all matters, and all persons ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes: vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome. First, it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another. Secondly, there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help: for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel. Thirdly, it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome: for it is not like, that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop, and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name.

Fourthly, no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust: be­cause the witnesses cannot be present, being hindered by infirmitie of sex, age, sicknes, by whom the truth should be discussed.

Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded, that neither any appeales should be made to Rome: neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters: And this answere they made to Zozimus first, to Bonifa­cius and Celestinus, that in short time one succeeded another. And for all the B. of Rome his absolution, Apiarius was againe called coram, and brought to confesse his fault. Fox. p. 10. col. 2.

Now out of the Acts of this Councel, and their reasons alleadged wee con­clude, that it is not fit, conuenient nor reasonable, that appeals should be made to Rome.

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

2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell, then this of Carthage: for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed, that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome▪ which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome, a few princi­pall matters onely excepted, apud Fox. p. 697.

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

4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter, Miltiades Episcopus Romanus, non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani, sed rogatus imperator iu­dices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian, but the Emperour being requested, sent other bishops, that should sit and determine the cause together with him. Out of these words first we note, that it had beene [Page 124] vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter, not belonging vnto him, vnlesse the Emperor had committed it. Secondly, that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him, as Bellarmine imagineth: but, he could not otherwise choyse, for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour, to be iudges as well as he. Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath, to heare or receiue ap­peales from other countries.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons, ought to be, and is by right subiect to the iudgement and authoritie of the Emperor, King, Prince, or other supreame magistrate, and may also by generall Councels be corrected and censured, thus it is proued.

1. Peter was iudged of Paul, Galat. 2. and of him iustly reproued: Ergo, the doings of the Pope may be iudged and censured.

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

[Page 125]We replie: First, publike censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiasticall iudgement and discipline, therefore Peter being publikely rebuked, was ther­by iudged also of Paul. Secondly, the question is not onely concerning publike & open iudgement, but whether it be lawfull to call the Popes doings into que­stion, & whether his decrees are absolutely to be receiued without any scāning or discussing, or making any doubt thereof: for this we hold, that it is the duety of all Christians to examine and trie the trueth of all things, which they are to receiue and beleeue, though they sit not formally and iudicially, as in consisto­ries: to iudge their spirituall pastors: so the Beraeans iudged of the Apostles doctrine: so may the Popes decrees be examined and iudged. Thirdly, the Ie­suite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproued, but the Extrauagant denieth it: non est, qui audeat dicere, domine curfacis sic? none dare say vnto him, sir why doest thou so? Fulk. 2. Gal. 2. sect. 8.

2. Euery soule must be subiect to the higher powers, Ergo, the Pope, Rom. 13.1. Bellarm. answereth, that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiours both spirituall and temporall, and therefore it cannot bee concluded, that the Pope ought to obey, but hee must bee obeyed, because hee is also a spirituall po­wer.

We replie: Saint Paul in this place speaketh onely of the ciuill Magistrate. First he calleth them [...], Princes, which is not meant of ecclesiasticall or Church gouernors, nor so taken in any place of scripture. Secondly, they are sayd to beare the sword. Thirdly, tribute is payde to them: those thinges agree not to ecclesiasticall gouernors: so the Iesuite is answered.

The Protestants.

WE doubt not to say, that the Pope both lawfully hath been depriued som­time by the Emperour, somtime by generall Councels, not onely for he­sie, [Page 127] but for other notable crimes, and may still bee proceeded agaynst by the same right, as well as any other Bishop or Prelate.

1 Diuers examples wee are able to bring forth, how the Pope hath been de­posed for other crimes, beside heresie. Pope Iohn the 13. was deposed in a ge­nerall Councel by the consent of Otho the Emperour, for other matter beside heresie: as that he ordayned Deacons in a stable, that he committed incest with two of his sisters, that playing at dice, he called to the diuell for helpe, that he defloured virgins, that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine, likewise with Ramera and Anna, and her Neece: for these beastlie parts and such like, he was deposed: there was no heresie obiected agaynst him. And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped? yet the Papists thinke no: for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie. This deuillish Pope, through the harlots of Rome (for he was well beloued of them) recouered his Popedome agayne; but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him: for in the tenth yeere of his Pope­dome, being founde without the citie with an other mans wife, hee was so wounded of her husbande, that within eight dayes after hee dyed, Fox. pag. 159.

Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before, and hee expelled, yet recouering the Papacie by force, hee tooke him, put out his eyes, and threwe him in prison where he was famished: Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first, Fox. p. 160. and he afterward slayne. I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome!

In the Councel of Brixia, Gregorie the 7. was deposed, not for heresie, but for other abominable vices: as maintayning of periurie and murthers: for follow­ing Diuinations & Dreames, Sorcerie & Necromancie, Fox. p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance: Eugenius in the Councel at Basile: yet neither of them for heresie. And yet our aduersaries would still make vs be­leeue, that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie.

2 We can haue no better argument, then from our aduersaries themselues. It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold, and doe runne as it were in a maze, not knowing which way to get out. Pighius thinketh, that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie, and therefore for no cause may bee deposed: Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD, and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church: thus holdeth Iohann. de turre cremat. Caietanus is of opinion, that for manifest and open he­resie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed, and may also actually be depo­sed of the Church: But Bellarmine confuteth all these. There is a fourth opinion most grosse: that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie, is either alreadie of right deposed, or may be actually depriued of the Church. Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities, who sayth, that the Pope in case of manifest heresie, ceaseth to bee Pope, and is euen now de­posed: and if after the Church proceede agaynst him, they iudge not the [Page 128] Pope, for now hee is no Pope: Which opinion how absurd it is, I haue decla­red before.

The Protestants.

THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ, nor his Apostles, neither was heard of for many yeres after: we thus are able to proue it.

1 Before the Nicene Councel, which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates: Rome had small or no preeminence. So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth, who afterward was Pope of Rome, and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat, & ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus, Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel, euery Bishop liued to himselfe, there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome. What more euident testimonie can wee haue then of a Pope himselfe? Yet the Iesuite sayth, that it is false in part, which hee writeth. He is somewhat man­nerly, in making him but halfe a lyer: yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words, Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2.

Secondly, in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church: but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, were priuiledged in like manner in their confines, as the Bishop of Rome was in his: They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne pro­uinces: Sic Tonstall. Stokesli. ad Poolum.

Thirdly, afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vnto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes; as to haue the first place, to sit first, to giue his sentence first. One cause hereof was, for that Rome was then the Emperiall and chiefe citie in all the world: this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon. Can. 28. An other cause thereof, Fox. pag. 9. was the ample priui­ledges and immunities, which the Emperours endued it withall, as Constantine the great: and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe, that all men should re­teyne that religion, which Damasus of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold.

A third cause was, the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church, who often vo­luntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome, as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge, they themselues being diuided and rent into sects. And hereupon, and other like causes it came about, Fox. p. 18. that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes, but yet had no such preeminent au­thoritie, as to commaund them.

Fourthly, the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie, because they were reuerenced of other Churches, many matters were committed vnto them, and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels, when they were [Page 130] absent. Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See, taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire, till Anno. 606. or somewhat after, Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour (who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his chil­dren, to come to the Empire, and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that suc­ceeded him) of him, I say, Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned, to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church: Fox. p. 120. and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world.

Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time, the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France, who aspired to the Crowne, and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes, first deposing Childericus the right­full King, and dispensing with the oath, which the French men had made before to Childericus, Calum. Institut. 4. cap. 7. sect. 17.

Thus then it sufficiently appeareth, that the primacie of Rome, which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches, is not of any such antiquitie, as they would beare the world in hand, neither that it had the beginning from Christ: but both the time when, and the authors by whom it began, may bee easily assigned.

2 Wee neede no better argument, to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ, then the Iesuites owne confession. First, he sayth, that it doth not depend of Christs institution, but, ex Petri facto, of Peters fact, that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor, then the Bishop of Antioch, or any other: It is not, iure diuino, saith he, by Gods lawe: neither is it, ex prima institutione pontificatus, quae in Euangelio legitur, of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell. And agayne, Romanum pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur expresse in scripturis: It is not expressely set downe in scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter: but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter. Nay, he saith further, that Peter needed not to haue cho­sen any particular place for succession, and he might as well haue chosen An­tioch as Rome: Ergo, neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture, neither any commandement of Christ: for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe, as the Iesuite saith, if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then, marke I pray you, they cannot proue out of scripture, that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke, but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall, whosoeuer they should appoynt: Ergo, the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession, can alleadge no scripture, institution, or commandement of Christ, for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome: and yet agaynst their know­ledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall, Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif. ca. 17.

3 Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam ecclesiae vsus obti­nuit, episcopatus presbyterio maior est. The office of a Bishop is aboue the office [Page 131] of a Priest, according to the names of honour, which the Church by custome hath obtayned. If then the difference of those two offices, both named in scrip­ture, did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church, which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme, and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture: much lesse can the Pope (whose neither name, nor office is expressed in scripture) fetch from thence any shew of proofe, for his v­surped primacie.

The Protestants.

WE will shewe by Gods grace, that these sixe seuerall titles and names a­foresayd, are either such, as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop, nor any mortall man▪ or els were common in ancient times as well to o­ther Bishops, as to him of Rome.

1 For the first name of Pope, it is deriued from the Greeke word [...], which in the Syracusane language, is as much as, Father: which name was indif­ferently giuen to other Bishops, which were famous in the Church for their ver­tue and learning: As Cypriane, Epiphanius, Athanasius, were called Papae, Popes: Fox. pag. 8. Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage, by the name of Pope, Epistol. 77.

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

Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter, or Priest, being no Bishop, yet thus saluteth him: Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit, he hath written to your holines. De origine anim. 2.1. De origine anim. lib. 1. cap. 2. Nay, in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man, neither Priest nor Bishop, thus he writeth, Hinc angor, quòd sanctitati tuae▪ minus quàm vellem cognitus sum: This grieueth me, that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire. If [Page 132] then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops, but Priests also, yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life; what colour or shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue, to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome?

2 The second name is prince of Priests, or high and chiefe Bishop: which title, if it be taken for a chiefe power, dominion, and soueraigntie, is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard, 1. Pet. 5.4. and cannot in that sense agree to any man. If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation, so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops, as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius, Pontificem maximum, chiefe Bishop: yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops: as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus: Summi sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a deo iudicandi sunt: The high Priests, that is, Bishops (saith he) are to bee iudged of God. If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell, and the worthie cal­ling of Christians, in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium, of the high Priesthood, is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and o­thers: Fox pag. 12 Col. 1. so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name. Yea, the holy Apostle cal­leth all the people of God [...], a princely, royall, or chiefe priest­hood: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name.

3 The third name is, to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth. Where we are to vnderstand, that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ, he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth: for, I am with you (saith he) to the end of the world: he himselfe is alway present in power, and needeth not in that respect, that any man should supplie his roume. Petrus scriba martyr. Fox. pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration, so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ, in gouerning the people accor­ding to the word of God: In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius King of the Britaines, calleth him the Vicar of Christ, and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes, Fox. p. 107. for the gouernment of the people. So all Bishops, Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ, in preaching, praying, binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. Quaest. ex [...]uo (que) 127. So Augustine saith, or whose worke els it is, that, Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius: Euery pastor and prelate (and not the Pope onely) is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists, annot. in 2. Cor. 5.18. that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ, and as his ministers, Quaes [...]. 106 that is, his Vicars. Nay, Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word: he saith, that, Homo imperium Dei habens, quasi vicarius eius est: That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures, doth therein represent God, and is as his Vicar vpon earth. So then, all ministers are the Vicars of Christ; the ciuill Magistrate likewise, in some good sense, may bee so called: yea in respect of the creatures, man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade: Ergo, this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome.

[Page 133]4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare, to be called the head of the vniuersall Church: this is a name only due vnto Christ, neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head, but him, Ephes. 1.22.4.15. But (say they) wee doe not make the Pope such an head, as Christ is, but on­ly a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth.

We answere: First, Ergo, the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church, whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part. Se­condly, the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bo­die of the Pope: Ergo, the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church, Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly, the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument: The head of the bodie being dead, the whole bodie also dyeth; but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope: Ergo, he is not properly the head of the Church, Fox pag. 675.

If it shall bee further obiected, that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past, caput Episcoporum, the head of all other Bishops: we answere, that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation, not of dominion and power: as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England, yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it, or vnder the iurisdiction thereof. But we shall haue oc­casion more fully to discusse this matter afterward.

5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See: the Rhemists say further, that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship, Annot. 4. Ephes. sect. 4.

We answere: First, if they call those Churches Apostolicall, whose first foun­ders were the Apostles, then the See of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, are as well Apostolicall as Rome: and this the Iesuite denyeth not, Lib. 2. de pontific. cap. 31. Secondly, those Churches are Apostolicall, which hold the Apostolike faith: so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall, being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith: but those Churches where the Gospell of Ie­sus Christ is truely preached, are indeede Apostolike. Thirdly, how can the Pope be an Apostle, or haue Apostolike authoritie, seeing hee preacheth not at all, much lesse to the whole world, wherein consisted the office of an Apostle? Nei­ther can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ, as all the Apostles could: for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter, and not by commandement from Christ; he can in no wise be counted an Apostle, or his office an Apostleship: for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors, they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new A­postles. Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship, can finde nothing in scrip­ture, nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers, Fulk. annot. in Ephes. 4. sect. 4.

6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop, it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage, as it is alleadged by Gratian: Distinct. 99 Vniuersalis autem nec Ro­manus pontifex appelletur: No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall. [Page 134] In Gregorie the first his time, Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople, obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke: but Gregorie would not agree thereunto, calling him the forerunner of Antichrist, that would challenge so proude a name.

Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere, that Gregorie found fault with this title, Lib. 2 de pont. ca. 31. because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone, and none other to bee beside him, but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars.

To this wee replie: First, Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops, not to be Bishop alone, for this had been a thing impossible. Second­ly, if Iohn had sought any such thing, it is not like that the Chalcedone Councel and the Emperour would haue yeelded to so vnreasonable a matter as they did. Thirdly, Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria doth call the sayd Gregorie vniuer­sall Pope, which name he vtterly refuseth: and yet Eulogius had no such mea­ning to make him Bishop or Patriarke alone, but onely to giue him a preemi­nence aboue the rest. Fox. pag. 13 This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregorie, in stead of the title, Vniuersall, brought it into the Popes stile to be called Seruus seruorum dei, seruant to Gods seruants: Ergo, wee conclude with Gregorie, that this title. Vniuersall, is an Antichristian name, and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselues, and how other Patriarkes and Bis­shops haue challenged that ambitious name and title, as well as the Popes of Rome.

The Protestants.

WHat our sentence is of this matter, it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide: that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church, and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or other­wise for the same, for it belongeth not to his charge. Secondly, we say, that nei­ther he, nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside, can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation, other then those which are in Scripture conteined. Thirdly, all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites, and pub­like order, doe not otherwise binde the conscience, then in regarde of our obe­dience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things, and for auoyding of scan­dall and offence: But in respect of the things commaunded, such lawes doe not binde. Caluin. loc. praedicto.

1 Saint Iames saith, there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to de­stroy, cap. 4.12. He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience, that is able to saue and to destroy: but that cannot the Pope doe. Ergo, Caluin. argum.

Bellarmine answereth, that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of dam­nation, in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience, and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment. cap. 20. All this wee graunt, that the lawes of men being good lawes, doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers, but not in respect of the thinges commaunded, which in their nature are indifferēt. The Iesuite should haue said: [Page 144] that God is offended not onely for their disobedience, but simplie for not do­ing the things commaunded, which he durst not say: As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politike end commaundeth vpon some dayes absti­nence from flesh, it is not the eating or not eating of flesh, that simplie displea­seth and offendeth God, but the contempt of the lawe, and wilfull and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate: for otherwise the vse of the creature is free and indifferent.

Cap 1 [...]. lib. 4. de pontif.2 Wee will beate the Iesuite with his owne staffe: hee saith not that all lawes doe binde the conscience, but onely iust lawes, in the which fower cōditi­ons are required. First, that they be made for some profitable end: so are not po­pish lawes which nourish superstition, and haue no edifying, and some of them doe commaund plaine idolatry, & open impietie, as the worshipping of images, the adoration of the Masse, & such like. Secondly, saith he, they must not be con­trarie to Gods law, but such are many of their ordinances, yea the most of them. Thirdly, they must be made by him that hath authoritie: therefore none of the Popes lawes binde the vniuersall Church, for it is not subiect to him. Fourthly, the forme and manner of imposing such lawes must be orderly: but their lawes are most disordered, imposed vpon the Church violently, without their consent, or any good proceeding. Thus, you see, euen by their owne confession, their lawes cannot binde.

One thing more I must needes tell them of. If they would needes haue their lawes to binde men in conscience, they should haue made fewer of them: now they are so many, that if the breach of them were an offence of conscience, doe men, what they could, they should dailie make shipwrack of their consci­ence. It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur, a good Chri­stian, it is an homely speech, because the matter was somewhat homely, yet hee did hit the marke. Like as (saith he) crosses were set vp against the walles of London, that no man should pisse there; and while there were but a few, men for reuerence of the crosses, would not pisse against the wall: but when in e­uery corner they set vp crosses, men of necessitie were faine to pisse vpon the wall and crosses too. So saith he, if there had been fewer lawes of the Church, they would haue been better kept: Fox. pag. 999. but now they are so manie, that men cannot chose but breake them.

3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his lawes ouer the whole Church. Ergo, hee cannot make lawes to binde the whole Church. The argument followeth, for hee that hath absolute power to make lawes, hath also power to commaunde obedience to the lawes so made.

The first is thus proued: the Pope indeede hath taken vppon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches: but it was an vsurped and tyrannicall power, and many times resisted, and controuled.

Pope Victor Anno 200. would haue excommunicate the East Chur­ches about the keeping of Easter, Fox. p. 41. but hee was stayed by Irenaeus. The [Page 145] Councell of Constance did sende out excommunications against Pope Benedict. sess. 36.

In the Councell of Basile, Pope Eugenius cited Cardinall Iuliane, with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia, vnder great penaltie: they likewise cited Eugenius vnder the like penaltie, either to come or send to Basile. Fox. pag. 668.

Pope Leo the tenth, in his fumish Antichristian Bull, excommunicated and condemned Luther. Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excom­munication against him, being an aduersarie to Christ, in these words: ‘accor­ding to the power and might, that the spirit of Christ, and efficacie of our faith can doe in these our writings, if you shall persist still in your furie, we condemne you together with this Bull and all the decretall, and giue you to sathan to the destruction of the flesh, that your spirit in the day of the Lord may be deliuered: in the name, which you persecute, of Iesus Christ our Lorde. Fox. page 1286.’

Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls, and pre­sumptuous excommunications: for it falleth out iustlie by them, Prouer. 26. ver. 2. as the wise man saith. As the Sparrow and the Swallowe by flying escape, so the curse causelesse shall not come. Now seeing therefore the Pope fayleth of power and strength to see his lawes executed in the vniuersall Church, it cannot bee that his lawes should vniuersally binde.

Lastly, let Augustine speake: he thus defineth sinne, peccatum est dictum, Cont. Fau­stum lib. 22. cap. 27. fac­tum, vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei, sinne is any thing done, saide, or coueted against the Lawe of GOD: therefore the transgression simplie of the lawe of man is not sinne; but as thereby also the Lawe of God is transgressed: Ergo simplie it bindeth not the conscience: for sinne onely bindeth and toucheth the conscience.

The Protestants.

THat Bishops haue not their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction from Rome, but do as well enioye it by right of their consecration, election, institution, in their owne precinctes, circuites, prouinces, cities, townes, yea, as the Pope doth in his Bishopricke, and by much better right, if they be good Bishops, and louers of the truth: thus briefely it is proued.

1 The Apostles had not their iurisdiction from Peter, but all receiued it indifferently from Christ: this the Iesuite doth not barely acknowledge, but proueth it by argument,. against the iudgement of other Papists. cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope, though he were Peters successor: for if he were (to graunt it for disputation sake) he is no more to the Bishops of the Church, then Peter was to the Apostles. If hee gaue not the keyes to the Apostles; neither doth the Pope Saint Peters successor, to the Bishops, the Apo­stles successors: for they may with as great right challenge to bee the Apostles successors, as he can to be Saint Peters.

Nay, the Apostles gaue no power or iurisdiction to the Elders and pastors, whom they ordained: Act. 20.28. Take heede to the flocke, ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or ouerseers: and Ephes. 4.11. Hee hath giuen some to bee Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors and teachers: so then the pastors and teachers, though ordained by the Apostles, yet had their calling and office frō God and not from the Apostles, much lesse now can they receiue their power from any, no not from the Pope, for he is no Apostle, no nor Apostolike man, hauing left the Apostolike faith.

2 Augustine saith, Solus Christus habet authoritatem, & praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro iudicandi. de baptis. 2.2. Onely Christ hath authoritie (saith hee) to preferre vs to the gouernement of the Church, and to iudge of our dooings: the pastors then of the Church haue the keyes of the spirituall regiment from Christ himselfe, not from the Pope, or any other.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiasticall hath no manner of tem­porall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly ouer Kings, Princes, Empe­rors, but ought of right to bee subiect to them and their lawes: it is thus proued.

1 By the same reason whereby the Iesuite proueth, that the Pope directlie hath no temporall iurisdiction, we will conclude, that neither indirectlie can he haue any, and so none at all. Christ, while he liued vpon earth, tooke vp­on him no temporall iurisdiction, either directly or indirectly: he refused to bee a King, Iohn 6. Nay hee would not bee a Iudge in ciuill matters, as in de­uiding the inheritance, being thereto required, Luke 12.13. Hee payed poll money, Matth. 17. hee did submit himselfe to the iudgement of Pilate an heathen Iudge: therefore seeing Christe vsed no such temporall iurisdiction, neither can any Minister of Christe: for the seruant is not aboue the Master: Onely Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ.

Fox. p. 670.2 The Fathers of Basile doe vrge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2. against Panormitane, who had vnaduisedly sayd, that the Pope was Lorde of the Church. But the Apostle saith, Feede the flocke of Christ, not by constraint, but willinglie, not as Lordes ouer the Lordes inheritance, verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise vseth all forceable, constraining, and tyrannicall meanes, killing, slaying, imprisoning, deposing those that will not obey him: Fox. pag. 786. who calleth himselfe chiefe Lorde and Magistrate of the whole Worlde. Surely this is Antichrist, and not the Minister of Christ, or successor of Saint Peter, whose counsaile he refuseth to followe and obey.

3 Let but the stories of former times bee searched: there wee shall finde how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaued themselues towards Kings, and Emperors: Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to doe pe­nance for Beckets death, and to bee displed of the Monkes. Innocent the third caused King Iohn to kisse the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subiect. Alexander the third did tread vpon Emperor Frederick his neck. Pope Inno­cent spoyled Frederick the second of his Empire, caused him to bee poysoned, [Page 151] and his sonne Conradus to be beheaded: and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order, Fox. p. 787. Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his sonne.

It is not good, they say, to put a sword into a mad mans hand: and thinke you not, that these Popes vsed the temporal sword very discreetely, which they thus vsurped, making fooles and slaues of Emperors, as Pope Adriane did, that rebuked Frederick the first, because he held his stirrup on the wrong side, and did excommunicate him, for setting his name before the Popes in writing? Th [...] very insolent, diuellish, and Antichristian practise of this their temporal power, sheweth from what originall it commeth, euen from the father of pride.

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

The Protestants.

FIrst we willingly grant, that the Church may inioy those tēporall possessions, which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof, so they bee not abused to riot and excesse: as the Leuites beside their tithes, [Page 154] had their cities and fieldes, Numb. 35. Secondly, the iudgement of Ecclesiasti­call matters doth of right appertaine to the Church, as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord, 2. Chron. 19.11. Thirdly, we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes: but as the ciuill Ma­gistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes, so spirituall per­sons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state; being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall, and conferred with, and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters: as wee reade, Deuter. 17.8. How the high Priest, and chiefe iudge, did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance. But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince, and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states, and handle both swordes, we say it is contrarie to the word of God: for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince, in making and ordaining ciuill lawes, in ha­uing power of life and death, in proclaiming of warre, and waging of battayle: with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale, as we will now shew in order.

1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes, though the Eccle­siasticall bodie, according to the ancient custome of this land, haue their suf­frage and voyce, and doe giue consent: yet the chiefe stroke, in alowing, confir­ming, and enacting of such lawes is in the prince, and cannot agree or bee mat­ched with any spirituall office.

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

Againe (saith he) no man that warreth, entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life, 2. Timoth. 2.4. By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode (as the Iesuite imagineth) merchandise, traffike, buying, selling, and such like, but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement, of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state, which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines, and require greater studie and labor, then the other baser workes which are named. To this Augustine agreeth: Quo iure (saith he) defendis villas? Vnde quisque pos­sidet quod habet? Iure humano, iure imperatorum: quare? quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores & reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano. tract. in Ihoann. 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions? by the lawe of man, the lawe of the Emperors: for these humane lawes, by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world. See then, ciuill lawes, and humane constitutions are giuen and made, not by the Pope, Priest, or any other Prelate, but onely by Kings and Princes, and the ciuill magistrates.

2 It were a mōstrous & an vnnatural thing, that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life & death: for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword, [Page 153] then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword: and if it be not lawfull for the ci­uill Magistrate to excommunicate, which is as the spi [...]tuall sword, and the grea­test censure of the Church, no more is it to be suffered, that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person, any man should bee put to death.

The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud, which touched the life: but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie, where the magi­strates sate. Deuter. 17.5. Not to the temple, where the priest ministred. Nay, we see, that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth, namelie, when they put our blessed Sauiour to death, the priests did not challenge any such power: It is not lawful (say they) for vs, to put any to death: Iohn 18.31. But that power was in the temporall Magistrate, as Pilate said to Christ, Know­est thou not, that I haue power to crucifie thee, and power to loose thee? Ioh. 19.10. Ergo, the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince, to haue power of life and death.

3 If the Pope be a temporall prince, then hee may wage battaile, which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme, yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion: for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre: And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe.

There were great & bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt, and the Antipope Clement, in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine. Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud, Bishop of Norwich, was the Popes Captaine generall in France: where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge, Fox. pag. 446. and put man, woman and childe to the sword.

So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris, and tooke himselfe to his sword: waged many battailes, and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King, vpon Easter day: where there was of his army slaine, to the nū ­ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists them­selues: for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France, Fox. p. 798. Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ, who cōmaunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath: If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword, how is it lawfull for the Popes, that, I am sure, dare not challenge more to themselues, then was lawfull for Peter? Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is, that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist shall raigne but three yeeres and an halfe, we take it for a meere fable, and a very popish dreame: whereas on the contrarie side, wee are able to shewe, both that Antichrist is alreadie come, and hath tyrannized in the world these many yeeres.

1 We will make it plaine by demonstration, that Antichrist hath been in the world many yeeres agoe, by the propheticall places of scripture. First, it is sayd, the number of Antichrist is 666. Apocal. 13.18. So, anno. 606. or there­about, Boniface the 3. obtayned of Phocas the Emperour to be called vniuersall Bishop. Thus sayth Illyricus, Chytraeus. Also beginning at the yeere of the Lord 97. at which time Iohn wrote the Apocalyps, and counting 666. yeeres, we shal come to the time of Pipinus, whom the Pope made King of France, and he a­gayne much enlarged the iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope. And yet more euidently, about the yeere of the Lord 666. the Latine seruice was com­manded to be vsed in all countreys subiect to the See of Rome, by Pope Vitalia­nus: and about the same time, Constantius the Emperour remoued the ancient monuments of the Empire to Constantinople, and left the citie to the Popes plea­sure, Fulk. annot. in 13. Reuel. sect. 10.

Another prophecie we haue, Reuel. 20.3. that after one 1000. yeeres Sathan must be let loose. Euen so, a thousand yeeres after Christ, Pope Siluester a great coniurer, hauing made a compact with the Diuell, obtayned the Papacie, and not long after him came in Gregorie the 7. a great Sorcerer also and Necroman­cer, sic Lutherus.

But because it is not to be thought, that Sathan was bound during that great and long persecution vnder the Romane Emperours, wee must begin the ac­count of the 1000. yeeres, from the end of the persecution, which continued 294. yeeres: vnto that adde a thousand, so haue we the yeere of our Lord 1294. About which yeere Boniface the 8. made the sixt booke of the Decretals, confir­med the orders of Friers, and gaue them great freedomes: with this number a­greeth Daniel his 1290. dayes, Dan. 12.1 [...]. Also somewhat before this time, anno 1260. the orders of Dominicke and Franciscane Friers began first to be set vp by Honorius the 3. and Gregorie the 9. and so haue we the 1260. daies, which are set downe, Apocal. 12. plura apud Fox. pag. 398.

2 If Antichrist should raigne but three yeeres and an halfe, as our aduersa­ries teach, and then immediatly that time being expired, the world should end: then it is possible to assigne the time of our Lord Christ his comming to iudge­ment, so soone as Antichrist is reuealed. But the Gospell sayth, that of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels in heauen, Math. 24.36. yet these good fellowes take vpon them to be wiser then the Angels: for they dare [Page 161] set downe the very day of Christs comming: which shall be, as Bellarmine pre­sumptuously imagineth, iust 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist. And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11. where mention is made of 1290. dayes, that is, as he fondly interpreteth, three yeeres and an halfe, the iust time of Antichrists raigne: But blessed is he that commeth (sayth the Prophet) to 1335. dayes: that is, sayth Bellarmine, to 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist, and then Christ commeth, cap. 9. What intolerable boldnes and presumption is this, contrarie to the saying of Christ, to attempt to declare the very houre of his comming?

Agayne: the prophecie of Daniel had no such meaning: for he onely spea­keth of the afflictions of the Church, before the comming of Christ, as Iohn pro­phecieth of the troubles that came after. Daniel therfore in that place receiueth instructions concerning the cruell persecution of the Iewes vnder Antiochus E­piphanes, the beginning, and the end thereof: There are three times reuealed vnto him.

The first is of a time, two times, and halfe a time, or rather the deuiding of time, or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew, a part or parcel of times: Dan. 7.25. so long should the temple be defiled, and the abomination set vp in the temple, that is, three yeeres and certayne dayes: And so it came to passe, for this deso­lation began in the temple the 145. yeere of the raigne of the Greekes, the fif­teene day of the moneth Casleu. 1. Macchab. 1.57. when Antiochus caused the daylie sacrifice to cease, and incense to bee burnt to Idols: And iust three yeeres and ten dayes after, which is to bee reckoned for the odde parcell of times, Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu, they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the lawe, 1. Macchab. 4.52.

The second time reuealed, is of a 1290. dayes, Dan. 12.11. which maketh three yeeres, seuen moneths and odde dayes: which is the time, counting from the desolation, when as the sacrifices should be restored, and confirmed by the Kings graunt, and Letters Patents: which accordingly came to passe, ann. 148. the fifteenth of the moneth Xanthicus, which was the last moneth but one, as it is recorded, 2. Macchab. 11.33.

The third time is described by dayes, 1335. Dan. 12.12. Blessed is hee that should liue to see that time: namely, when the Church of the Iewes should ful­lie bee deliuered by the death of Antiochus, which was in the beginning of the next yeere, which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16. Thus wee see these times were fully accomplished vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus: wherefore these prophe­cies being once fulfilled, they cannot bee drawne to signifie any other time, but by way of similitude and comparison.

Neither is that any thing worth, which the Iesuite obiecteth out of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2.8. Then shall the wicked man bee reuealed, whom Christ shall con­sume with the spirit of his mouth: As though presently after the reuelation of Antichrist Christ should come. And therefore Antichrist must not be expected [Page 162] or looked for before the end of the world: for the whole time from the first com­ming of Christ to his second, is in the scripture called nouissima hora, the last times, 1. Ioh. 2.18. And therefore Antichrist, at what time soeuer he is reuealed after the ascension of Christ, he commeth in the last times: whose vtter ruine and destruction shall be reserued for the glorious appearing of Christ, as the A­postle there speaketh.

3 Whereas the scripture sayth, that Sathan must bee bound for a thousand yeeres, and after let loose agayne, Apocal. 20.2: And it is playne that the thou­sand yeeres since Christ are expired more then fiue hundred yeeres agoe: It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is alreadie come: for he must bee reuealed with the loosing of Sathan. Our aduersaries haue nothing to answere but this, that by this 1000. yeeres, a certayne time is not ment, but the whole space du­ring the time of the newe Testament, till the comming of Antichrist, Rhemist. Reuel. 20. sect. 1. To whom wee answere, that by the same reason, neither shall their 42. moneths shewe any certayne time, but the whole space so long as An­tichrist shall raigne: and this number of moneths, as of dayes, weekes, houres, the scripture euery where taketh mystically in prophecies: but when thousands, or hundred yeeres are mentioned, they are alwaies taken literally: as Isay. 7.8. it is prophecied, that Ephraim, that is, Israel, should vtterly cease to bee a people within 65. yeeres, which euen so came to passe, counting from the fourth yeere of the raigne of Ahaz King of Iuda, to the 25. yeere of Manasses, when the rem­nant of Israel was carried away.

The Protestants.

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

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

Agayne, Christs names were prophecied of and knowne before: One name of his is to bee called a Nazarite, so the people call him, Math. 2 [...].11. a pro­phet of Nazareth. This name the Prophet hath, Isay. 11.1. he calleth him, Net­ser, in Hebrew it signifieth a branch. Another name of his, is King of Israel, Iohn 12.23. prophecied of by Zachar. 9.9. Also he was called the sonne of Da­uid, Math. 21.9. And Isay sayth, he shall spring out of the roote of Iesse. 11.1.

[Page 164]Further, hee was knowne by the name Messiah, or Christ, before he came, Ioh. 4. the woman of Samaria said, I know well that Messiah shal come, which is called Christ, vers. 25. This name was reuealed to Daniel, 9.25. he is called Mes­siah, the prince.

But will our aduersaries say, his name Iesus was not knowne before his com­ming? yes, euen that name also hath some euidence out of the Prophets: for Ie­sus or Iesua, is all one, and signifieth a Sauiour: of the which name we reade Za­char. 3. where mention is made of Ieshua the high Priest, who was a type of our Sauiour Christ, and bare his name, for vers. 5. a Diademe is set vpon his head: which must needes bee vnderstood of Iesus Christ, our high Priest. Agayne, he is called Hosanna, Iohn 12.13. which signifieth the same that Iesus, and both are deriued from the same roote: translated, Saue vs. Which name we finde in the 118. Psal. vers. 25.