THREE POSITIONS Concerning the 1 Authority of the Lords day. 2 State of the Church of Rome. 3 Execution of Priests. ALL WRITTEN UPON Special occasions by JAMES BALMFORD Minister. 2. Tim. 2. 7. Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. AT LONDON, Imprinted by Felix Kyngston for RICHARD boil. 1607. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, AND VIRTUOUS LADY THE LADY MARGARET Countisse of Cumberland; JAMES BALMFORD (an unprofitable servant of jesus Christ) wisheth all true honour in this life, and eternal glory in the life to come. I Will honour them, who 1. Sam. 2. 30 honour me, saith the Lord of Lords: but in no one thing is that Lord more honoured, than in a religious sanctifying of the Lords day, which is an holy Sign Exod. 31. 13 between the Lord and us, that he doth sanctify us to be his people, and that we sanctify him to be our God. Of which day it is thus written; If thou turn away Isa. 58. 13. 14. thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy will on mine holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight to consecrated it as glorious to the Lord, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor seeking thine own will, nor speaking a vain word, Then shalt thou delight in the Lord, and I will cause thee to mount upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of jacob thy father: For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. In which words we may observe, 1. How highly the Lord esteemeth his Sabbath. 2. How religiously the people of God are to sanctify the same. 3. That they, who make no conscience of such sanctifying the Sabbath, can never delight in the Lord, what profession soever they make: and 4. That religious sanctifying the Sabbath, as it is a principal part of Godliness, so it hath a special promise of special blessings, even in this life. With these, and many other most gracious words, would God persuade man to be holy. But man hath sought out many inventions, and amongst the rest, this conceit; That the Lords day is not the ordinance of God. Upon which ground many make no more conscience of sanctifying the Lords day, than of keeping holy days (so called) ordained only by human authority; and some, by writing, not yet published, have opened a gap to much licentiousness. To slop which gap (as I may) I have endeavoured to prove; That the Lords day is an ordinance of God. Which Position, with two other, concerning the Church of Rome, and Execution of Priests (written upon just occasions, and by persuasion, the former of your Honour, the other of that right Christian Nobleman, of most honourable memory, Henry late Earl of Huntingdon) I haue published under your Right Honourable name; As knowing your well informed zeal for the Lords day, and against the Synagogue of Rome to be such, that England were the happiest nation in the world, if all noble personages were endued with the like; And (withal) hoping, that by these, and other more Divine Treatises, the same shall be yet more and more inflamed, to the glory of God, and comfort of your own Soul. THE FIRST POSITION. THE LORDS DAY, commonly called Sunday, is an ordinance of God. IF this be true, that man is not to pollute a Act. 10 15 what God hath sanctified; and If Saturday (so called) were sanctified by God, I appeal to the consciences of God's people for judgement, whether Man can make Saturday common, without warrant from God himself. If not; then Saturday is made common, either in regard of some Ceremony, or by God himself, for some other special cause: As he permitted a man unclean, b Numb. 9, 10, 11. or in a long journey, to make common the Passeover (which otherwise was to be kept) in the first month. That there was no Ceremony in the jews Sabbath to be abrogated by the coming of Christ, I have proved in another Discourse, which with sundry points concerning the Sabbath, I am desirous to publish hereafter, if God will. In the mean while, I desire the Reader to consider these brief notes. 1. That the Sabbath was made c Mark. 2, 27. Deut. 5. 14, 15. for man, yea so, that great care is had of servants their rest: which is no ceremonial respect. 2. That the Learned do so disagree about the supposed Ceremony, that one affirmeth Rest, and denieth The seventh day; another affirmeth the seventh day, and denieth Rest to be the Ceremony. 3. That the fourth Commandment (which by consequence gave confirmation to Saturday before Christ his death, as now to Sunday) and every word thereof, was d Exod. 34. 1. & twice written by the finger of God in tables of stone: To show, e 19, 11. & 20, 1. Deut. 4, 12, 13. 14. Gen. 17, 9, 10, 22, 23. That the Decalogue, as it was preached to the Church immediately by God himself, (before it was written by God, and delivered to Moses on the Mount) so it is eternal as God himself; As the Gospel preached by Christ himself, who was God as well as Man, is eternal. Gal. 3. 19 Heb. 12. 27. 28. & 21. etc. & 8. 2. Whereas Circumcision, and the ceremonial Law, brought from God to the Church by Abraham and Moses, was temporal. 4. That none of the other nine Commandments (except the second by Papists) is said to be in any part ceremonial. 5. That Saturday of itself without the consideration of Rest, or the number Seven, (both which are also liable to Sunday) cannot signify any thing to come. 6. That it was sanctified f Gen. 2. 3. in Paradise (though not expressly named) and therefore not instituted at the first, to signify Christ to come, and therefore no more a Ceremony, to be abrogated by the coming of Christ, than Marriage which g Gen. 2. 23. 24. was also instituted in Paradise, and is figuratively applied to signify h Ephes. 5. 25. etc. the spiritual conjunction between Christ and his Church. But let it be supposed, that Saturday was ceremonial. What other thing is thereupon to be inferred, but, that therefore it ceaseth to be Gods Holy day? But can we imagine, that God would take no order, that another day should be established for his own worship? Did he sanctify a Sabbath in the time of innocency, and when there were none to keep it but Adam and Eve? And would he not appoint a Sabbath in the time i Mat. 19, 28. of Regeneration, & when his people were k Isa. 2, 2, 3. multiplied, his Son l Psal. 110. 1, 2, 3. King in Zion, and the power of his rod such, that (as it was prophesied) His people should come willingly at the time of assembling his army in holy beauty? Did he himself, not only institute a Seventh day in Paradise to our first Parents, but confirmed it also m Exod. 20, 1, 8. to the jews? And will he leave christian's ( n 1. Pet. 2, 9 Achosen generation, and Royal Priesthood) without a Sabbath sanctified by his Divine authority; considering the Sabbath o Exod. 31, 13, 17. is a sign that we may know that he is the Lord, who doth sanctify us to be his people? And to what other end, than p Ezech. 46, 1, 2, 3. to worship him our Sanctifier? Lastly, when the Passeover was not kept in the first month, because of uncleanness, or a long journey, did God suffer it either to be omitted, or translated, as it seemed good to the Israelites? Nay, he himself q Num. 19, 10, 11. nominated the fourteenth day of the second month to be kept for the Passeover in those cases. Was God so zealous for the Passeover, a ceremonial Sabbath, & therefore temporal? And would he neglect The seventh day, a moral Sabbath, and therefore eternal? Sith in the fourth precept he commandeth A seventh day to be holy for ever. For as he commandeth Worship upon the Sabbath, prescribing neither jewish, nor Christian; so he commandeth A seventh day to be the Sabbath, prescribing neither Saturday, nor Sunday. So that the fourth Commandment and every word thereof (without any alteration) doth belong to Christians, as well as to jews. If so, than I conclude, that (whether Saturday were made common, because of a ceremony, or for some other respect) some other day in place thereof was sanctified to holy worship, by divine authority. If it be objected, that whereas by God himself, the institution of the jews their Sabbath, was commanded unto Adam, and the confirmation thereof promulgated to the Israelites, with the rest of the Decalogue: It is strange, that it should cease (not of itself, as being ceremonial, but) for some other special cause; and another day appointed in the place thereof, and that by God, and yet it is not known, whether immediately, or by whom, God made this alteration; I answer; that as God, at the last day, will judge the world r Act. 17. 31 by the man whom he hath appointed; so in the mean time he doth govern the Church by his Son, s Psal. 2. 6. Joh. 5. 22. Col. 3. 1. & 2. 20. whom he hath placed King in Zion. So that whatsoever the Son doth is authentical, and of Divine authority. Not only because he is God t Rom. 9 5. 1. Tim. 6. 14. 15. 16. blessed for ever, but also in that he is that great Prophet u Deut. 18. 18. 19 Act. 3. 20. 22. like unto Moses, whom we are to hear; For he doth nothing of himself * joh. 3. 32. 33. & 8. 28. but as his Father taught him. But that Christ the Son of the living God sanctified that other Sabbath day, I thus prove. If the Son be as faithful in all his own house, in things concerning the worship of God, x Heb. 3. 2. 5. 6. as Moses the servant; If Christ be the Messias, y joh. 4. 19 20. 25. 26. who should teach us all things: If Moses prescribed every thing belonging to the Tabernacle z Exod. 25. 9 38. even to a pair of snuffers; If the things belonging to the house of God, befew in comparison of those which belonged to the Tabernacle of Moses, because the hour is come, when a joh. 4. 23. we must worship the Father in Spirit and Truth, that is, spiritually, b Gal. 3. 3. without the intolerable c Act. 15. 10 Gal. 4. 3. yoke of carnal d Heb. 9 1. 10. rites; If a Sabbath be as necessary unto the edification of Christ his house, as a pair of snuffers to the service of Moses his Tabernacle: then (without doubt) Saturday being made common, Christ appointed some other day to be a Sabbath unto his people, as the Levitical Priesthood being ceased, e Heb. 7. 11. 12. Ephes. 4. 8. 11. 12. he sanctified another Ministry under the Gospel. Again, whereas Christ came f Mat. 5. 17. not to break, but to fulfil the Law, and the Law doth command one day of seven to be a Sabbath, as is said; Therefore Christ did either confirm Saturday, or sanctify some other day of the week: but that he confirmed Saturday none will affirm, therefore, he sanctified some other day of the week: Which to be Sunday, I thus prove. We see that Sunday is generally kept holy in all the Churches of Christ; And there is nothing to the contrary, but that it hath been sanctified In, and since the Apostles time. If then God, by Christ, hath sanctified a Sabbath unto Christians, it must necessarily follow, that either the Church hath never regarded, but neglected the ordinance of GOD, for many hundred years; or else, that Sunday was sanctified by Christ. But the former is not easily to be admitted, considering the Church g 1. Tim. 3, 15. is the Pillar of truth, therefore the later more willingly to be received. Again, if the Son h joh. 5, 19, 21. doth whatsoever the Father doth; and if the Father hath committed all judgement to the Son, i Exo. 22, 23 that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father; then, as the Father sanctified A seventh day; k Gen. 2, 2, 3 as on which he finished his works of Creation, and l Rom. 1, 19 20. was declared mightily to be the living God, m Exod. 31, 13, 17. to his own honour, (and therefore n Isa. 58, 13. did call it mine holy day) For it was not a shadow of Sanctification (as some dreaming of a ceremony, do imagine) but A Sign to God's people of their Sanctifier, that is, A token, or memorial that they may know that the Creator is the Lord, who doth sanctify them to be his people: So the Son sanctified that day, o 1. Cor. 15, 16, 17, 57 Rom. 8, 34. & whereon he consummated, and sealed his works of Redemption, and was declared mightily, p 1, 4. to be the Son of God, to his own honour. Which was Sunday, called for that respect, q Revel. 1, 10. The Lord's day, as shall be declared hereafter. For * Levit. 23, 15, 16. Matth. 28, 1, 5, 6. upon that day r Rom. 4, 25 Christ rose again for our justification, and manifested himself to be s Act. 1, 6, 7, 8, & 2. 1. the spiritual King of his Church, by miraculous giving the power of the Holy Ghost unto his Apostles. So that, Sunday is a sign, or memorial unto Christians, that they may know, that the Redeemer is the Lord, who doth sanctify them. If it be demanded why Christians should so honour the Son, that they neglect the Father; and so celebrate the memorial of the Redeemer, that they neglect the memorial of the Creator? Seeing it is written, t joh. 4, 23. The hour is come, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth; & by the light of nature u Act. 14, 15, & 17, 23, 24 God is glorified, as he is Creator; I answer: That it is not so; for A seventh day, (though not Saturday) is still sanctified. Which to be sufficient to celebrate the Creator, the fourth Commandment prescribeth neither this, nor that seventh day, but one of seven, doth evidently prove. So that whereas Sunday is The Lords day, and withal A seventh day, we may observe, that Christians * joh. 14. 13. glorify the Father in the Son, and celebrate the Creator with the Redeemer. By whom a New creation (though spiritual) was performed x Isa. 65. 17. & 66. 21. 22 according to the prophecy of Isaiah. last; If it may appear by the word, that Sunday was confirmed by the Apostles practise, and preceptive execution, than Sunday hath authority, not from the Church, but from Christ. But it appeareth by the word, that Sunday was so confirmed; therefore it hath authority not from the Church, but from Christ. That the sequel of the Mayor may better appear, I will manifest the Minor, by these three places of holy writ: viz. Act. 20, 6, 7. and 1. Cor. 16, 2. and Revel. 1, 10. For, in the first place three things are to be observed. 1. That Paul abode at Troas seven days. 2. That it is not said; The Disciples were called of purpose to his preaching, but Being come together to break bread, that is, to be partakers of the Lords Supper. And 3. That, ready to departed on the morrow, he continued his preaching, till midnight; Then it will appear, that Sunday (there called The first day of the week, in respect of the jews their account, to whom Saturday was the seventh, that is, the last day of the week) was sanctified to holy meetings, and exercises. And that Paul waited (as at Philippi y Act. 16. 12. 13. for the Sabbath of the jews, so) at Troas for the Christians their Lord's day. Which he would not have done, being an Apostle, and having such haste of departure, if Sunday had not been sanctified, by greater authority than the ordinary authority of the Elders and Brethren. If it be objected, that (according to the original) the words be One of the Sabbathes, in the two former places, and therefore it is uncertain, whether Sunday be meant in those places, rather than Saturday, I answer; That, by the same reason, it is uncertain whether our blessed Saviour did arise again the third day z 1. Cor. 15. 4. according to the Scriptures: For all the Evangelists a Mat. 28. 1 Mark. 16. 2. Luke 24. 1. joh. 20. 1. use the same words, when they report, That Mary Magdalen went to seek Christ, when he was risen. But more fully to confute this Argument, three things are to be noted. 1. That in the original the numeral (One) is put for the ordinal (First.) For Mark having said in the second verse of his 16. chapter, One of the Sabbathes, speaking of Mary Magdalen her seeking of Christ, changeth the words in the 9 verse, and saith; The First day; showing that Christ was risen. And that Sabbathes is put for Weeks. As in Leuit. 25. 8. it is written; Thou shalt number 7. Sabbathes (that is weeks) of years. Secondly it is to be observed, That in both places only Christians are said to have these meetings: For they, who came together, are called Disciples & Churches, and are said To break bread, that is, To receive the Communion b 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. which none but Christians may do. And therefore in both places the Spirit of God, in two sundry writers Luke and Paul useth these words; The first day of the week, rather than, The Sabbath day, more distinctly to express that day, which was sanctified by Christians. Whereas at Philippi, where no Disciples were as yet, Paul is said c Act. 16. 12. 18. to go on The Sabbath, to the place, where the jews were wont to pray, after he had been there certain days. For what need had the Christians being none but themselves, to neglect the Lords day, for the jews Sabbath? Thirdly, note that it is said; Every first day. 1. Cor. 16. 2. and consider whether there be any probability, that the Apostle would have them come together every Saturday. If not, it followeth necessarily, that by The first day of the week Sunday is understood. In 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. we are yet further to consider, that the Apostle saith; As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, which argueth Generality, and Every first day, which argueth Perpetuity. So that by this place, holy assemblies upon Sunday may seem, as general in those times, so confirmed for ever, by a preceptive exhortation. For as in this speech d 2. Tim. 2. 19 Let every one, that calleth on the name of Christ, depart from iniquity, a preceptive exhortation to call on the name of Christ, is implied, howsoever only departing from iniquity be expressly commanded. So in this speech delivered by an Apostle, Every first day of the week let every one of you put aside, is implied a preceptive exhortation, to come together upon the first day of the week, howsoever only putting aside be expressly commanded. If it be objected, That these meetings were only to gather for the Saints, I deny it. For it is said, Act. 20. 7. That the Disciples came together to break bread, which importeth other holy exercises. Again, If no more were understood than expressed, than Christians confirmed in the faith, were less religious upon their settled and sanctified holy day, than they were ordinarily, if not every day, at their first entrance into their holy profession. For than they met together e Act. 2. 42. 46. not only to break bread, but unto doctrine also, and prayers. Lastly, The Apostle, who was so zealous to sanctify the Lords day at Troas, would (no doubt) reprove in this place so great neglect of The Lords day, if such a matter were then to be supposed. As for Revel. 1. 10. if nothing else were urged, but the consideration of the two former places, it doth sufficiently appear, that by The Lord's day is meant The first day of the week (now called Sunday) according to the judgement of all the learned. Against which stream to strive, by making a doubt without reason (at least probable) is to bewray a proud conceit of a private opinion. But howsoever this be sufficient, yet for the godly their sake, I will say somewhat more than enough. It is the judgement of the learned (and I see nothing to the contrary) That as Paul praying in the Temple * Act. 22. 17 fell into a trance; so john sanctifying the Lord's day, was ravished in spirit. If so, how can we imagine, That john banished f Revel. 1. 9 in the isle Patmos, having no cause to constrain him, nor occasion to induce him, should rather sanctify the jews Sabbath, than the Christians holy day? Again, If we find these titles, Our Lord, or The Lord, so attributed to the Son, that he is called g 1. Tim. 6. 14. 15. The Lord of Lords, and by the title Lord h 1. Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6. Ephes. 4. 4. 5. 6. distinguished from the Father, and the Holy Ghost, so that in few (if any) places of the new Testament it is applied distinctly, by way of title, to any but to the Son, will any who saith jesus is the Lord (speaking by the Spirit of God) make any doubt that by The Lord's day is meant that day, which was especially sanctified to the honour of Christ? And will any Christian considering that which is said, be yet doubtful, whether that were Sunday, or no? Lastly Beza in his note upon 1. Cor. 16. 2. reporteth, That, in one Greek copy, these very words, The Lords, be added to Every first day. Which showeth manifestly, That not the jews Sabbath, but The first day of the week was called The Lord's day. If then in 3. places of holy Scriptures written by 3. holy men inspired by the Holy Ghost (of whom Luke was an Evangelist, Paul and john Apostles) we find, The first day of the week (according to the computation of the jews) now called Sunday, sanctified to the worship of God, yea so, That Paul waited for it at Troas, and doth preceptively exhort the same (though by implication) to be sanctified every week amongst the Corinthians, as in other places; and it obtained the name of The Lords day, as being specially sanctified to the honour of our Saviour, we may conclude, That it appeareth by the Word, That the Lords day called Sunday, was confirmed by the Apostles practise, and preceptive exhortation. Now the Minor, or assumption of the former syllogism is manifested, I am to confirm the sequel of the Mayor, or proposition. Wherein two things are to be proved. 1. That The Lords day was not established by the ordinary authority of the Church. And 2. That it was established by the Divine authority of our Saviour Christ. The reason of both is; because it was established by the Apostles. The former (though evident by that which is said) will yet further appear; If we grant, That the Primitive Church attributed as much to the Apostles, who first i 1. Cor. 3. 6. 10. planted the same, and (for the performance of that work of God) were k Act. 2. 4. endued with extraordinary gifts, inspired by the Holy Ghost, & instructed l & 1. 3. by Christ 40. days after his resurrection, as Israel did to Moses their Lawgiver. But while Moses lived the Israelites took all their directions from him; yea so, That not only in difficult cases m Levit. 24. 11. 12. Num. 15. 32. 33. & 27. 1. 2. of blasphemy, Profaning the Sabbath, and Daughter's inheritance, not formerly ruled by Moses, they came to him to know the mind of the Lord; but also in all things about the Tabernacle n Exod. 31. 3. 6. & 39 37. 42. & 25. 38. 40. even to a pair of snuffers, the workmen, though miraculously inspired with cunning, were altogether directed by him, who had his instructions immediately from God. Can we then think That the Disciples came together every first day of the week of themselves, though by general consent, without the authority of the Apostles so directing them? If they had attempted such a thing, how could they have answered this question, o 1. Cor. 14. 36. 37. Came the word of God out from you? A question made by the Apostle in a supposition, that the Corinthians misliking Paul's directions touching silemcing tongues without interpretation, and women in the Churches, would happily say, That they were of another opinion. So that it importeth this reply. But I pray you consider, that the Apostles are the first teachers of the Church, having received their instructions, either immediately from Christ his mouth, or by revelation, therefore the Church is to be ordered by them. If then workmen, cunning by inspiration, could not make a pair of snuffers without Moses his direction, nor the Church in Corinth, by it own authority, permit the manifestation of the extraordinary gift of the spirit to be in their public assemblies without interpretation, could The Lord's day (a matter of so great regard) be established without the authority of the Apostles? Again, Whereas the Apostle having reproved certain male usages amongst the Corinthians, and taken some order for reformation of the abuse of Love feasts, which were of good use at the first, but tending, at last, to the profaning of the Lords Supper, concludeth thus, p 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things will I set in order, when I come: Is it not evident, that the Church could do little, or nothing, much less establish Sunday to be the Lords day, without Apostolic authority? last; If Titus an Evangelist q Tit. 1. 5. could not reform Creta, nor ordain Elders, but as he was appointed by Paul, I see not but that all things in the Church were ordered and ordained by the Apostles. If by the Apostles, then by Christ. Which is the second point in the Mayor now to be proved. If we receive the writings of the Apostles, as the Word of God, why not their constitutions accordingly? I mean not unwritten verities, or rather the very lies of Antichristian Papists, but such ordinances, as are mentioned and commended in the Word. For the Apostles were r Act. 1. 2. 8. & 22. 15. chosen, and faithful witnesses of those things, which they have heard and seen; and (no doubt) as faithful s 1. Cor. 7. 25 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. in all the house of God, as Moses was about the Tabernacle, and in governing Israel: But Moses did not direct the workmen to make any thing, no not a pair of snuffers, but according to the pattern, which he saw in the mount, and in the said cases of t Levit. 24. 12. 13. Num. 15. 34 35. & 27. 5 6. Blasphemy, Profaning the Sabbath, and Daughter's inheritance answered not of himself, but consulted with God. Therefore the Apostles did not prescribe ordinances, but with such authority, that Paul (and so all) might say, u 1. Cor. 11. 23. I have received of the Lord (to wit Christ) that which I have also delivered unto you. But what need these inferences? Doth not the Apostle charge * & 14. 37. Every man that thinketh himself to be a Prophet, or spiritual, to acknowledge that the things he writeth to them, are the Commandments of the Lord? If the things which he then writ, viz. Directions about Prophecy, Speaking with strange tongues, and Silence of women in the Church, were the Commandments of the Lord, can we think him to be a true Prophet, and spiritual indeed, who perceiving The Lord's day to have been established by the Apostles, will not acknowledge it to be a Commandment of the Lord? If it be demanded, when our Lord commanded his Holy day: I answer; The faithfulness and credit of the holy Apostles, are sufficient to persuade an humble Christian to receive it as the Lords ordinance; though it be not certainly known when Christ did ordain it. But it is probable that he gave commandment concerning the same, within those 40. days after his resurrection. When (as it is written x Act. 1. 2. 3 in express words) he gave, through the Holy Ghost, Commandments unto the Apostles, whom he had chosen, and spoke of those things which appertain to the Kingdom of God. Now doth it not especially appertain to the kingdom of God, that Christians should sanctify their Lord's day, wherein y 1. Cor. 1. 23. 24. Christ crucified, z 1. Tim. 3. 16. The mystery of godliness, and a Mat. 1. 21. Saviour of the world should be * Act. 10. 42. 43. preached, as well as the jews had their Sabbath, on which Moses, A school master b Gal. 3. 24 to Christ, and A minister of the Letter c 2. Cor. 3. 6. which killeth was d Act. 15. 21. preached? Again, If in those 40. days Christ e Eph. 4. 8. 10. 11. appointed what Ministers should teach his Church for ever; how can it be, but that then also he appointed some Sabbath, whereon they should ordinarily perform the work of their ministery, as he was wont f Luk. 4. 16. to do himself? Seeing it is prophesied, g Psal. 110. 2. 3. That the power of his rod should be such, that His people should come willingly at the time of assembling his army in holy beauty. Seeing his Father (whose works * joh. 5. 19 he imitateth) appointed h Levit. 16. 2. 29. as an high Priest, so a time, when (once in a year) he should enter into the Most holy place; and as other Priests, i Exod. 29. 44. 38. so morning and evening sacrifices; and considering it is written k Eccles. 3. 1. To every purpose under heaven there is an appointed time. last; If the Son be like his Father, as in teaching his Apostles 40. days (for so long l Exod. 24. 12. 18. & 39 42. was Moses with the Father upon the mount) so in speaking those things which appertain to the kingdom of God, as his Father taught Moses all things belonging to the furnishing of the Tabernacle; and If the Son be like his Father in sanctifying a day to his own honour, as hath been declared, Why may not Christians believe, that Christ sanctified The Lord's day within those 40. days, as the Father m Deut. 9 9 confirmed The seventh day in those 40. days, that Moses was with him on the mount? And the rather, because it is te be observed, That the Disciples n joh. 20. 19 26. assembled the two first days of the two weeks immediately following Christ his resurrection; and that our Lord, not only of purpose sanctified both those assemblies with his holy and miraculous presence, but also (immediately before his Ascension) commanded his Apostles o Act. 1. 4. 5. 7. 9 to wait, a few days, for the promise of the Father; Which (by his providence, in whose power be times, and seasons, as Christ affirmed even in this case) was fulfilled p Mark. 16. 1. 2. Levit. 23. 15. 16. Act. 2. 1. 4. 14. upon a Sunday; and at the same time the Apostles first began the execution of their ministry, and preached Christ publicly: But public preaching q Num. 10. 7. 8. Isa. 58. 1. Ezech. 44. 23. 24. Act. 23. 14. 42. is a special work of the Sabbath day. It may therefore be gathered, That Christ appointed his Apostles to sanctify Sunday, whereon he would manifest himself r & 1. 6. 7. 8 to be King of Israel, as his Father instituted A seventh day, as on which, he was manifested to be GOD of heaven and earth. To conclude, If Saturday were made common, not by man, but by God himself, and that not for a Ceremony, but for some other cause; If God sanctified a Sabbath as well to Christians, as to jews; If every ordinance of Christ were an ordinance of God; If Christ were as faithful in all his own house, as Moses about the Tabernacle; If Christ came to fulfil the fourth Commandment, which prescribeth one day of seven; If the Church of God be not easily to be condemned as neglecting the ordinance of God in sanctifying Sunday for many hundred years; If Christ were like his Father in sanctifying that day to his own honour, whereon he was declared to be the Son of God, and King of Israel, to wit Sunday; If the day be so appointed, that the Creator is glorified with the Redeemer; If it appear by the Word, that the first day of the week was confirmed by the Apostles practise, and preceptive exhortation; If by the first day of the week be meant that day whereon Christ did rise again, and that was Sunday; If in the Word Sunday be called The Lord's day to the honour of Christ our Lord; If the warrant of Sunday consisteth not in the ordinary authority of the Church, because it was established by the Apostles; If every spiritual man be to acknowledge the ordinances of the Apostles, to be the ordinances of the Lord; and If the Apostles were informed by Christ touching the Lord's day within those 40. days after his resurrection: I may safely hold this my Position; The Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, is an ordinance of God. THE SECOND POSITION. THE CHURCH OF ROME IS not the Catholic Church, neither yet hath continued an apparent member of the same, ever since the Apostles time. 1 THe Church is said to be Catholic, in regard of the universality thereof; for this word Catholic signifieth universal. The Universality thereof consisteth in Times, Persons and Places. For there is no age of the world, no nation on the earth, and no sort of people, that can be exempted from the same. And therefore it is called The celestial Jerusalem, and said to be the congregation Heb. 12. 22. 23. of the first borne, which are written in heaven. So that we are to believe, That as there hath been ever an head (to wit Christ) so there hath been also a body (to wit the Church) some where, or other, but the Church of Rome is a particular Church, confined within a certain compass, and hath not been a Church but since Christ his coming in the flesh, therefore it is not the Catholic Church. 2 The Catholic Church is an object of faith, according to the Apostles Creed, and therefore invisible, howsoever the members thereof (called by Peter, Lively 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 11. 1. stones) be visible, as they be men: For faith is the evidence of things not seen: But the Church of Rome is visible, therefore not the Catholic Church. 3 I grant, that as one man, so one particular Church may be called Catholic, but it is only in regard of the Catholic faith, (as being one, & the same throughout the Catholic Church) which that one man, or that one Church professeth: But the Church of Rome professeth not (indeed) the Catholic faith (as shall be in part showed hereafter) therefore (in no sense) it can be truly called Catholic. But suppose it held the Catholic faith, yet were it not, for that cause, an object of faith according to the Apostles Creed, more than a particular man, or any other particular Church holding the faith. Here it is to be understood, that howsoever we may say: This man, or that Church is Catholic, yet we may not say, and speak properly, This is the Catholic man, or That is the Catholic Church. 4 That the Church of Rome holdeth not the Catholic faith, neither yet hath done for many years, may be demonstrated in sundry fundamental points. Let it be sufficient to produce though but one, yet that most fundamental, sith it is called by an excellency, The Word of faith, preached Rom. 10. 6. 8. by all the Apostles. And the rather that One, because it is the principal argument of that worthy Epistle, which Paul wrote Cap. 1. 8. to the Romans, whose faith was then published throughout the whole world. So that, if the Church of Rome serve from this truth, it is manifest that it is the offspring, not of the true members of the Primitive Church of Rome, but of the troublers of that Church, of whom Paul thus writeth: Now I beseech you brethren, Cap. 16. 17. 18. mark them diligently which cause division, and avoid them: For they that are such serve not the Lord jesus, but their own bellies, and with fair speech and flattering deceive the hearts of the simple. But what is that most fundamental point? Even that same, which Paul, after a large and learned disputation, setteth down as his peremptory judgement in these words; Therefore Rom. 3. 28. we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law. But the Church of Rome, that now is, holdeth, and for many years hath held, That a man is justified both by faith, and works, contrary to the conclusion; therefore the Church of Rome is not Catholic, but Antichristian. 5 I say Antichristian, because it may be proved such, by many reasons, and that because it erreth in this point; but I only propound to wise and religious consideration this deduction: That Antichristian Apostasy, or Antichrist, is called, The Mystery 2. Thess. 2. 7 of iniquity, that is, a mystical iniquity, that is, an iniquity which is indeed iniquity, but not perceived, as Christ is called The Mystery of godliness, that is, a 1. Tim. 3. 16. mystical godliness, that is, godliness indeed, but not perceived. But wherefore is Antichrist a mystical iniquity? Because his Righteousness, though glorious in show, is iniquity in deed, because he attributeth Gal. 5. 4. Rom. 3 27. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Rom. 1. 16. 17. & 4. 5. justification thereunto. Now this is a mystery to flesh and blood (which would feign rejoice in itself) that Righteousness should be Iniquity. Even so is the Gospel a mystery, for by it the Righteousness of God is revealed, which otherwise could not be perceived of flesh and blood. For is it not a mystical paradox to carnal reason, to say; God justifieth the ungodly? which yet is clear to him, who, understanding the Scriptures, doth not only abhor his foul iniquity, but also Phil. 3. 9 Esa. 64. 6. disclaimeth his own defiled righteousness, and by faith layeth hold on the righteousness of God, which is only by Christ, or Who trusteth not to his righteousness inherent, which tasteth of the cask, but to righteousness imputed, which maketh us blessed. These things well considered; It may appear, that as Christ is the mystery of godliness, not only because he is very God, though in the shape of a servant, but also because the Word of Christ, viz. the Gospel, teacheth a mystical righteousness; So the Pope is Antichrist, not only because he is an adversary in exalting himself above all that is called God, though he pretend to be the servant of servants, but also because his doctrine is a mystical iniquity. Hear it is to be remembered, that on the forehead of the Revel. 17. 5. 9 18. Whore of Babylon (to wit Rome) was written this word, A mystery; and it is also to be understood, that on the Pope's Mitre is the same word set with precious stones. If then for the doctrine of justification and merit by works, the Church of Rome Bee Antichristian, it followeth, that it is not Catholic, and therefore hath not continued an apparent member of the Catholic Church, ever since the Apostles time. 6 The later point inferred, may be the rather admitted, if we mark well that Paul saith, That the Mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7 was working in his time. So that it is likely, that those troublers (of whom mention is made in the 4. section) overgrew (as weeds) the good corn in time, and prevailed still, until that mystery of iniquity was revealed, and consumed by the Spirit of God in the mouth of Luther, and other the servants of Christ jesus. 7 For the better manifestation of this point, let us seriously consider, that howsoever the Church of Rome were now an apparent member of the Catholic Church (which indeed is not to be imagined) yet sith it is not the Catholic and invisible Church, but a visible and particular Church, and hath not any special promise, that it should continue the same from the first constitution, how can we be assured, but that, in so many hundreds of years, there have been some alterations and innovations, as well as in the Church of God among the Israelites, Rom. 9 4. to whom pertained the adoption, glory, covenants, giving of the Law, service of God, and the promises? And yet it is written 2. Chro. 15. 3 of the Church: Now for a long season, Israel hath been without the true God, and without Priest to teach, and without Law. 8 As for that promise of Christ, Thou Mat. 16. 18. art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it, it appertaineth to the Catholic Church, as builded upon Christ the 1. Cor. 3. 11. only foundation of his Church, and not to the Church of Rome, more than to the Churches of Asia, which are overcome, or any other particular Church which may be overcome; & yet that promise remaineth Gen. 9 13. inviolable, as the covenant, whereof the Rainbow is a sign, is inviolable, notwithstanding sundry particular countries be overflown. 9 Indeed Augustine did once take that Rock to be Peter the Apostle, and his successors the Bishops of Rome; but he after altered that his opinion, and understood Rock to signify Christ, by Peter confessed: For that Christ did not say to Peter, I will build me upon thee, But his words were (so Augustine conceived them) as if he had said, I will build thee upon me, and not me upon thee His meaning Col. 1. 24. is: It is absurd, that the Church which is Christ's body (and is therefore called 1. Cor. 12. 12. Christ; because it cannot consist without the head thereof which is Christ himself) should be builded upon Peter, who is but a member of the body. It is therefore convenient, that Peter being but a member, should be builded upon the body, considered together with the head. 10 Surely Augustine had reason to fly 1. Pet. 2. 6. to the true Rock of salvation. For howsoever the succession of the Bishops of Rome till his time, was an excellent testimony to the truth, because they successively maintained the faith touching the fundamental points thereof; yet he might well consider that Personal succession, without succession in faith, is not a sufficient confirmation, or authentical note of a true Church. For at Constantinople there hath been an interrupted succession of Bishops till this day. And yet the Papists will deny that to be any part of Christ his Church, because it retaineth not the true faith of Christ. 11 But because there is such ado about the succeeding of Peter, and it is made a matter of so great importance, it is necessary to be proved, that the Bishops of Rome be Peter's successors: Which how possibly Papists can perform, I cannot see; sith there is such a disagreement about his supposed immediate successor; the Decrees affirming Clement, and writers of good regard, (as Ireneus and other) placing Linus next after Peter. 12 That this doubt whether the Bishops of Rome be Peter's successors, may be put out of all doubt, the Papists must necessarily prove four things. 1. That Peter was at Rome. 2. That he sat Bishop there 25. years. 3. That he was universal Bishop. And 4. That his universal authority was sufficiently conveyed over to all that should lawfully succeed him in that See. In any of which if they fail, the Pope's authority falleth to the ground. For if Peter were never at Rome, how could he be Bishop there? If not Bishop at all, how universal Bishop? If he had no such authority himself, how could it be conveyed over to his pretended successors? And if there were not sufficient conveyance, how frustrate is the Pope's claim? But that there be such doubts in every of these points, as the Papists cannot clearly resolve, consider well the four next articles. 13 None doth simply deny, but that Peter might have been at Rome, as a passenger; or for some short abode, although so much be not manifest: But that he sat Bishop there, and that so many years, is altogether unlikely. For it not very likely, that Paul saluting so many by name, as he doth in his Epistle to the Romans, but that he would make some honourable mention of Peter? And whereas six of his Epistles were dated at Rome, Is it not likely, but that in some of them he would speak of Peter, if he had been there so long, and in such authority, as he doth of Timothy, whose authority was less, that thereby his exhortations, and reproving might better prevail? To say nothing that the Scriptures do not in any place, signify that Peter was at Rome: Which (in likelihood) should have been done, if God had seen succession of Bishops at Rome from Peter, to be a matter of so great importance, as now it is made. 14 But say that he was at Rome, it will help the Papists nothing, except they can prove, that he was also Bishop of Rome. Whereof there is small likelihood, if we take this word Bishop, not in the large sense, which comprehendeth Apostles, and all Ministers having authority; but in the strict sense, which signifieth a Minister entitled to a certain place. For is it likely that Peter descended from the highest degree in the Church (of which all Apostles were) next to Christ the head, to the inferior degree of a Bishop? or Is Matth. 18. 18. & 28. 18. 19 20. it likely that he who had authority throughout the whole world, as he was an Apostle, was tied to a particular charge, as he was Bishop? 15 But they say, He was Universal Bishop, and therefore his authority was not restrained. They must needs say so, for else his supposed being Bishop at Rome will stand them in no stead. But was his authority enlarged hereby? If no, (for how could he have a larger jurisdiction, than Apostolical authority throughout the world?) what reason then can they give, why he should enjoy that Universal authority, rather by the name of a Bishop, and that of a particular place, than by the name of an Apostle? Again, Is it not strange, that they cannot by any Scripture prove this point, sith it is of such consequence with them, as that it bindeth their consciences to the See of Rome? Nay rather the Scriptures show the contrary. For it is recorded in holy Writ, That the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. 8. (that is, of the jews) was committed to Peter, and the Apostleship of the uncircumcision (that is, of the Gentiles, such were the Romans) was committed to Paul. Again, Is it likely, that Paul who Rom. 15. 20. enforced himself to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest he should have built on another man's foundation, would so intrude himself into Peter's office, as to meddle with the affairs of so many Churches as he doth, (and that with all authority) in his Epistle to the Romans, and other his Epistles from Rome, and all this, without any mention of Peter, if Peter had been at Rome, and had such an Universal authority? Sith Paul (as is said) joined with himself (for the more authority of some of his Epistles) Timothy one of less authority than Peter, and writeth to the Philippians, That he Phil. 2. 20. had none like minded to Timothy, that would faithfully care for their matters. Lastly, It is utterly unlikely, That Paul Gal. 2. 11. etc. would have reproved Peter to his face, and that openly, for withdrawing himself from the Gentiles, if Peter had had such authority, as the Papists dream of. 16 But suppose that Peter was at Rome, and had such authority, what is the Pope better for it, if it were not made over to Peter's successors, by sufficient conveyance? But in this point, which chiefly concerns the Pope, the Papists seem utterly to fail. For Gregory the first, reproved john Bishop of Constantinople for endeavouring to obtain the title of Universal Bishop, and to have his Church called the head of all Churches, telling him that none of the Bishops of Rome durst take such a title, though the Emperors began in Rome, were wont to abide there only, and did then entitle themselves Emperors of Rome. Nay he told him yet more plainly, That whosoever aspired to be Universal Bishop, was a forerunner of Antichrist. Whereby it is evident that in Gregory's time, there was no knowledge of any conveyance of Peter's supposed authority made over to the Bishops of Rome. But for all this peremptory judgement of Gregory (surnamed The Great) within few years after (about anno 607.) Boniface 3. obtained that title, with much suit and bribery, of Phocas an adulterer, and murderer of his master (that Christian Emperor Mauritius) with his wife and children. But succeeding Popes for the credit of that dignity (being belike ashamed of such an institution) pretended to hold the same by the Donation of Constantine the first Christian Emperor. So that all this while, there was no conveyance of that authority from Peter that yet came to light. At last, the Pope (being come to the height of his pride) thought it a scorn to be beholden to Constantine, or any of them all, and therefore laid hold upon those words of Christ, Thou art Peter, etc. But what hold he hath by them is partly showed before, and is further to be considered, In that the Pope's champion (father Bellarmine, made a Cardinal for his deserts) doth confess, that this Universal Bishopric is descended to the Pope by a conveyance indeed, but not of the word, but of tradition. Thus you may discover the sundry grounds of an article of the Popish creed, viz. That the Pope hath Apostolical authority over the whole Church, as he is Peter's successor. 17 Leaving these doubts touching the pretended successors of Peter, and commending them to the advised examination of the Reader, I proceed briefly to prove (in more special manner) the Church of Rome not to have been an apparent member of the Catholic Church, ever since the Apostles time. I say Briefly. For if I should demonstrate (as I could) the many, & gross errors of the Church, both in doctrine and discipline (under which word I understand the administration of the Sacraments, and the Liturgy) and if withal, I should paint out the bloody tyranny thereof, in persecuting the children of God, it would appear more than manifest that it is, and hath been long an apparent member, not of the Catholic, but of the malignant Church: But then I should be longer than I may, by reason of necessary business, or need, considering so many books are written of those Arguments. I will therefore only propound some few things of many concerning the Pope, whom the Papists make the head of the Catholic Church. So that as a member of a man's body, is but dead if it receive no life from the natural head, so a particular Church is (in their opinion) no apparent member of the Catholic Church, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: From hence it followeth, That if the head be dead, the body must needs be dead: and, if the Pope be not, the Church of Rome cannot be an apparent member of the Catholic Church: But the Pope is not. Ergo. 18 The Pope is Antichrist, and hath been so long, therefore the Church of Rome is not, and for a long time hath not been an apparent member of the Catholic Church: For as his See is the seat of Revel. 17. 9 18. the whore of Babylon, to wit the City builded upon 7. hills, namely Rome, so he hath the properties of Antichrist: For he sitteth in the Temple as God, In charging 2. Thess. 2. 4 the conscience as strictly with his decrees, and traditions, as with the Word of God, from whence the other have no warrant, and In avouching himself to be free from error, which is proper to God. 2. He exalteth himself above all that is Rom. 13. 4. 2. Thess. 2. 4. called God, In esteeming himself as far above the Emperor (who must hold his stirrup, & on whose neck he must tread) as the Sun is above the Moon, and Rom. 13. 1. therefore he will not be subject to any Magistrate, contrary to the express word of God. 3. He is an adversary to Christ, 2. Thess. 2. 4. howsoever he pretend to be his Vicar; but 1. joh. 2. 22. therefore Antichrist in deed, seeing this word Antichrist signifieth For Christ, and yet Against Christ. I say an adversary, not only In teaching justification by works, to the prejudice of Christ's death, for if Gal. 2. 21. Righteousness be by the Law, Christ died in vain, but also, In teaching that by Christ we are freed from the guiltiness of sin, but not from the punishment thereof; and yet the Pope's pardons, and the breaden God of his own creation, can do as much good to soul's frying in Purgatory, as to all, that pay well for them 1. Tim. 4. 1. 3. while they live on the earth. 4. He teacheth doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving, of them which believe and know the truth. And 5. He 1. joh. 4. 3. denieth Christ to be come in the flesh, In affirming Christ his body to be, by transubstantiation, in so many places, as where Mass is said. As the Anabaptists likewise deny Christ to be come in the flesh, In affirming Christ to have brought his flesh from heaven. 19 Again; Sith the Pope (as supposed head) is of the essence and form of the Church of Rome, it must necessarily follow, that the Church of Rome hath not been always an apparent member of the Catholic Church (according to the sense of the Papists themselves) if it can be proved, that often, & sometimes many years together, there hath been no apparent Pope: But that is not impossible to be proved: For first it is to be noted with a memorandum, That by the special providence of God, Pope joan was delivered of a child as she was going solemnly on procession in the midst of the open street, and in the presence of the people. As if God had said from heaven, Behold the Whore of Babylon. Secondly, It is worthy the observation, That Stephen 6. and Sergius the third proceeded against Formosus, as against an unlawful Pope, both taking him out of the grave, spitefully disgraded him. The former summoning a Council, attired him with the pontifical robes, plucked them off again, put on lay-man's apparel, cut off the two fingers of his right hand, cast them into Tiber, buried him in laymen's burial, and disannulled his decrees. The other set him in the Pope's chair; drew him thence again, cut off his head, and the other three fingers; hurled body and all into the river, & recondemned all his acts, so that it was needful to admit them new to orders, whom he had made Priests. Thirdly, It is not to be neglected as not worth the reading, That six Popes (viz. Clement 5. john 23. Benedict 12. Clement 6. Innocent 6. and Vrban 5.) their See was 70. years together at avignon in France. Where Popes were elected, lived, and died, so that some of them never saw Rome. This I say is not to be neglected. For if john the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed the title of Universal Bishop, because the Emperors had then their seat there, howsoever they then bore the title of Emperors of Rome. If Peter were therefore the Bishop of Rome, because he had his seat there, and there died, as Papists do suppose, and If by the holy days for Peter's chair at Antioch, and Rome, Papists show their judgement to be, That it is of the essence of a Bishop to sit in the See, whereof he hath the title, for otherwise they need not make such ado, to prove that Peter was at Rome, seeing it were sufficient to prove (if they could) that he accepted the title, than those 6. Popes, howsoever they were in title Bishops of Rome, yet in truth they were Bishops of avignon and therefore no apparent successors of Peter, and therefore no apparent heads of the Church, and therefore for 70. years the Church of Rome was not an apparent member of the Catholic Church, according to the sense of the Papists themselves. Fourthly, Onuphrius (a Popish writer) telleth of 30. Schisms in the Church of Rome. Of which the 29. lasted 50. years together. Wherein there were sometimes two Popes together, and sometimes three. All which three were removed by the Council of Constance. Can any say, that all this while there was an apparent head? If not, it must necessarily follow, That the Church of Rome hath not been ever since the Apostles time an apparent member of the Catholic Church, according to the sense of the Papists themselves. 20 Lastly, As when the eye is dark, Matth. 6. 23 the whole body must needs be dark: So, if the head, viz. the Pope, be so corrupt, as that it cannot be perceived to be an apparent member of the Catholic Church, how can the Church of Rome, whose being is altogether in that head, be an apparent member? But most of the Popes have been such: Ergo. For howsoever that cannot be verified of all the Popes, which was said of Boniface 8. commonly called A devil incarnate, That he entered like a Fox, reigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog, yet some of them entered by Conjuration; or the devils help, as Silvester 2. and Gregory 7. first called Hildebrand, or The brand of Hell. Some by harlots, as Christopher 1. and john 11. Some by poisoning their predecessors, as Damasus, who also did drink of the same cup; and the said Hildebrand, who (besides his Conjuration) made way to the Popedom by poisoning six of his predecessors; and many by Simony or Violence. Were they apparent members of the Catholic Church, when they were Popes? Nay sundry of them were heretics. As Liberius was an Arrian: Honorius 1. a Monothelite: Anastasius a Nestorian: john 2 2. denied the Life to come, and the resurrection of the body, and this was laid to his charge when he was deposed by the Council of Constance: and Eugenius 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretic in the Council of Basil. As for their Lives, In respect of all, it is no less truly, than commonly said of Gregory 1. That he was the worst Bishop, but best Pope of Rome. But some of them Platina (no Protestant) called Beasts, and Monsters, and of john 12. Cardinal Turrecremata writeth thus: Because the life of this Pope was detestable, therefore Christ himself gave out the sentence of condemnation. For while he was abusing a certain man's wife, the devil struck him suddenly, and so he died without repentance. To set down in particular the monstrous offences of most Popes, is too large and too filthy a field for me to walk in; I will therefore shut up with the words of Genebrard (a Popish Chronicler) who writeth thus: For the space almost of seuen-score years, and ten, from john 8. to Leo 9 about fifty Popes did revolt wholly from the virtue of their ancestors, and were Apostatical rather than Apostolical. Yea some did get into the See, by force or bribery; Wherefore it is no marvel, if they were monstrous, sith they entered in, not by the door, but by a postern gate. To conclude, If the Church of Rome be not the Catholic Church, because it is confined, visible, & faileth in the faith, without which faith, personal succession is of no validity; If it have no promise of perpetuity, the words of Christ to Peter not serving the turn; and therefore may be overcome as well as the Church of Israel, whereunto the promises did appertain. If Papists cannot prove, that Peter was at Rome, nor that he was Bishop there, nor that he was Universal Bishop, nor that his authority was sufficiently conveyed over to the Bishops of Rome, upon which succession standeth the being of that Church. If the Pope (upon whom as their head the Church of Rome dependeth) be Antichrist, and sundry times, yea many years together, there hath been no apparent Pope at all, and most Popes have been no apparent members of the Catholic Church, because of their heresies or monstrous lives, it followeth evidently, that the Church of Rome is not the Catholic Church, neither hath been an apparent member of the same, ever since the Apostles time. And therefore it is to be wondered that any Christian man or woman, should be so simple, as to hang their salvation upon such a Synagogue, as out of which, God from heaven biddeth his people to departed: Revel. 18. 4. THE THIRD POSITION. PRIESTS ARE EXECVted, not for Religion, but for Treason. IT is not to be denied, that Priests are executed for affirming the Pope's Primacy, and reconciling to the pretended Church of Rome, etc. which are points of their supposed religion: But yet they are not executed for these (or like) points or parts as they be religious, but as they be traitorous, or dangerous to the State, in civil consideration. 1 For, if Priests were executed for these, or like points, as they be religious, than the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiastical manner, before the secular power execute civil punishment. As against anabaptists, and other in this Queen's reign, hath been performed. So that Priests their case differeth from Hackets only Secundum magis & minus, the one being more dangerous in civil consideration than the other. 2 Secondly, they should be executed as well for affirming the Pope's primacy and reconciling, etc. (as Story for his misdemeanure, though) beyond seas. For such affirming the primacy and reconciling, etc. are as damnable in religious consideration on one side of the seas, as on the other, but not so dangerous to our state in civil consideration. 3 Thirdly, they should be executed as well for other points of popery: as giving the glory of the Creator (to wit prayer and praise) to creatures, Angels, Saints, stocks, and stones, etc. being no less damnable than such affirming the Pope's primacy and reconciling, etc. in religious consideration, but not so dangerous to the state in civil consideration. As may appear by a like case propounded. If anabaptists, denying magistracy, and that Christ took flesh of the Virgin Mary, should swarm in England, and if Magistrates should punish in a more civil manner of proceeding, not the latter (though no less damnable, as it is religious) but the former, being more dangerous to the state in civil consideration, who would say, that anabaptists did suffer for religion, and not for treason or felony? 4 That affirming the Pope's primacy and reconciling, etc. may appear directly to be dangerous to the state in civil consideration, and therefore traitorous; it is to be known & considered, that Pope Pius Quintus (by his bull declaratory) pronounced our gracious and Christian Queen an heretic, and excommunicated all such as yield obedience to her. If then the Pope's authority be persuaded as a matter of conscience, & if by reconciliation her majesties subjects become vowed members of such an head as is her capital enemy, we may be assured that so many as are so persuaded and reconciled, are prepared to obey the Pope, and disobey the Prince. Is not then such affirming the Pope's primacy and reconciling, etc. dangerous to the state, in civil consideration, and therefore traitorous? 5 In that I say (prepared) it is yet further to be known and considered: that whereas the Northern Earls had ill success in executing the said Bull, other devices were frustrated, and the hope of Papists their present prevailing much failed Parsons and Campian (English Priests) being to come into England to urge the said Bull, and doubting that (in the rigour thereof) it would not be readily obeyed, did crave and obtain of Pope Gregory the thirteenth, this exposition more plausible to Papists, but more dangerous to the state: That the said Bull may alway bind the Queen and heretics: but Catholics (that is Papists) in no sort, things standing as they do, but then only, when there may be public execution thereof. 6 Philopater a lover of his country (as he pretendeth by that feigned name) no Englishman (if ye will believe him) yet descended of the English nation (as he saith himself) in a poisonful and traitorous book, often printed in divers places beyond the seas (such liking find such books with such subjects as Papists be) granteth that Priests are sent, with authority Sect. 3. from the Pope, to pardon, excommunicate, reconcile, and teach (according to the Bull expounded) that subjects are not to obey the Queen in spiritual matters, but in civil, and that for the present state of things. 7 What is implied in this last clause, Philopater himself discovereth when he saith, that it is agreed among divers Lawyers and schoolmen, that if a Prince Sect. 3. fail from the Roman faith, and endeavour to withdraw other, subjects may and ought oppose themselves, & depose their Princes, if they have force. Which proviso, he inculcateth and urgeth with this reason: Last religion should be endamaged, and advanced, attempts not prevailing. 8 The same Philopater doth peremptorily pronounce as tyrannical, this question moved to Priests, fugitives, recusants, and such like: If the Pope, or other in his behalf and cause of religion, should invade the land, what part would you take, the Popes or the Princes? His reason of mislike is, because a right Papist cannot answer freely thereunto, without offence to God or Caesar. As if God were offended, if Caesar defended against the Pope. By which exposition of the bull, doctrine of the Priests, and mislike of a question so necessary it doth clearly appear that the end of affirming the Pope's primacy and reconciling, etc. is to prepare her majesties subjects to be ready (upon pain of excommunication) to join with such forces as shall be employed against our Queen and state, in a pretended cause of religion. Is not this dangerous to the state in civil consideration, and therefore traitorous? 9 Let the affects and effects of such teachers and scholars be observed, and the truth of this assertion will be so evident, as that nothing can be more manifest. To let pass their broad speeches, when and where they dare: their concealing and abetting traitors, and traitorous designs, as they may (possibly) without danger, their rejoicing at, and spreading abroad news, importing success to the Pope, though danger to the Prince, etc. To omit (I say) these and many such arguments of their traitorous affection, the shameful practices of many, bewray the Popish preparation of most, if opportunity once serve. Many have been the conspiracies against her majesties person, to take away her life. But O Lord have mercy upon us, to preserve her. Many have been the treasons against the Land to destroy it. But O holy one of Israel defend this thine inheritance. Who have been the authors and actors of all these tragical attempts, but such teachers and scholars? What were the Rebels in the North? And were they not provoked to rebellion by Nicholas Morton Priest, sent from Pope Pius, to urge the execution of his bull? What were the Rebels in Ireland? And was not Nicholas Sanders a judas (that is) a leader to the Pope's army, that came in pretence to relieve them? Parry and Sommeruile went about to murder her Majesty. The one was encouraged in his devilish enterprise, by Cardinal Como, in the name of the Pope: and shall we think that the other wanted the holy counsel of Hall the Priest arraigned? Babington and his complices, conspired against Prince & country. Was not Ballard Priest a chief counsellor to them? and did not boast a Priest keep counsel (at least) as he lately confessed? If then Teachers and Scholars, Priests and Papists, concur in seeking and following all opportunities to subvert our State, can any other end be imagined of Priests, their persuading, and reconciling, but to prepare their Scholars to join together against Prince and country, when force shall answer their affection? 10 That the multitude of resolved Papists, be thus poisoned and prepared, let this be your last consideration for this time, and not the least at any time. That as the King of Ashur purposing to besiege Jerusalem, sent from Lacish Rabshaketh 2. Chron. 32. 9 12. 13. and others, to weaken the hands of the people, by disgracing their King Hezechiah, as one without religion, in that he had taken away Altars, and defaced high places; and by advancing Saneherib, as one that prevailed against all Gods: So these Locusts, which have faces of men, Revel. 9 3. 78. 10. 11. and hair of women, but the stings of scorpions in their tails, to wit, Priests, who pretend a tender care of saving souls in the beginning, but intent a cruel destruction of Life and Land in the end, are sent into this Realm by their King (the Isa. 7. 4. Angel of the bottomless pit, out of the smoke thereof, namely, by the Pope in his fume, but without flame I trust) before invasion intended, to weaken the hands, and withdraw the hearts of the people, from our gracious Queen, by disgracing her Majesty, as one without religion, in that she hath taken away sacrificing Altars, and defaced religious houses; and by advancing their King, as one that prevaileth against all Gods, all States, all Religions. The like practice of sending Priests to prepare people against the coming in of Spaniards, is to be perceived in Scotland. 11 What success this device hath, is also to be considered. The Pope is certified by Cardinal Allen, and the King of Spain by Parsons the Priest, that there shall be found (ready secretly within her majesties dominions) many thousands of able people, that will be ready to assist such power as shall be set on land. Of whose names they have delivered beadroles, especially of such as dwell in port Towns and on the sea-coast, with assurance that Priests shall continue their reconciled people, in their lewd constancy. So hath her Majesty published in her Declaration, Anno 1591. But Philopater denieth it, Sect. 4. impudently and barely without any reason. But if Ballard Priest sent such a beadrole into Spain, and Throgmorton had gathered the names of popish Noblemen and Gentlemen, to the same purpose: It may be (in reason) supposed, that to Priest's intelligence is sent by Priests, what scholars they have persuaded and prepared for Treason and Rebellion. To conclude, 1. If the Church proceed not against Priests in Ecclesiastical manner, before the Secular power execute them. 2. If Priests suffer not for affirming the Pope's Primacy and reconciling, etc. beyond seas. 3. If Priests be not executed for other points of Popery, no less damnable than these, as they be religious. 4. But if the Pope by his Bull, hath upon pain of Excommunication discharged her majesties subjects of their allegiance. 5. If Papists be dispensed with, for obeying her Majesty till time serve to the contrary. 6. If Priests come of purpose to reconcile and teach according to the Bull expounded. 7. If it be a Catholic doctrine, that subjects having force, aught to depose their Prince, maintaining Religion contrary to the Church of Rome: and 8. In that case to join with foreign power. 9 If masters and scholars have from time to time attempted to put the said Bull in execution. 10. If Priests be sent before invasion to prepare the people: and 11. If thousands be notified even by Priests prepared: than it may be avouched, that Priests are not executed for affirming the Pope's Primacy and reconciling, etc. as they be religious, but as they be traitorous, or dangerous to the State in civil consideration. FINIS.