A Christian Plea, Treatise 1 · Chapter 4 · Judgment – Testimonies 1

A Christian Plea · Treatise 1 · Chapter 4 · Judgment – Testimonies 1

p. 182M. Iunius his judgment of the Church of Rome: as may be ſeen in the ſecond tome of his works in folio, Libro ſingulari de Eccleſ. contra Bellarm. cap. 17, pag. 1018, 1019. &c.

BEing to treat of the Church of Rome, we will firſt open the aequivocation, or divers ſignification of the word, before we determine of the thing it ſelf, that all men may better perceiue, what it is, that is at this day called in queſtion among us. For very many ar deceived with the homonymie or divers ſignification of the very word, and unawares inſnare themſelues p. 183and others, by ignorance of the deceitfulnes in the ſpeach.]

The church of Rome [therefore is properly ſo called, or abuſiuely, by the miſterming or abuſing of the name, both as it is called a church, and as it is called the Romane church. For as it is called the Romane church,] ſometimes it properly ſignifieth a company which is at Rome, as Paul ſpa…e, writing to the Romanes: ſometimes it ſignifieth abuſiuely, all the Churches on the earth, that cleaue to the Romane church, according to the forme of doctrine, and conſtitution thereof. But we will ſimply treat of the church, as it is the Romane church, or church of Rome: and the things which we shall ſpeak of this church, the ſame may the godly reader by proportion underſtand of the church ſo called by abuſe of ſpeach.

[Now””All this whole paſſage he omitteth, and all other clauſes ſentēces & paſſages that are included in theſe []. as it is called a church (vvhichwhich thing chiefly is in controverſie) it is ſo termed three maner of waies: as a ſubject, as an accident growen to the ſubject, and as the ſubject together with that his accident. As a ſubject, it is the ſimple or ſingle church of Rome, As an accident growen upon the ſubject, it is the papacie, or the papal hierarchie, which they cal eccleſiaſticall. As a ſubject compounded vvith his accident, it is the church of Rome become papall, or under the pope, that is to ſay corrupt, as I may ſo ſpea…, by that lawles or unnatural shoot of the Pope, ſpringing out of the ſtoe…. Now of each of theſe we will conſider ſo briefly as we can]

The Church of Rome when it is conſidered as a ſubject, it hath two parts, the paſtors and the flock of Chriſt: for which church the Apoſtle of old gaue thanks to God by Ieſus Chriſt, becauſe her faith was published throughout the whole world. Rom. 1, 8. [And for which we alſo dayly ask of God in our prayers, that he would informe it to worship him by his ſpirit in the Goſpell of his ſonne, & to ſtablish it in the faith.] Neither doe we deny this ſubject to be euen at Rome, [by the mercy of God,] at this day, becauſe we truſt there is God calling, perſons called, & the calling it ſelf yet in her: the meeting of which things together in one giveth being to a church, as before we shevved.

But touching the papacie, or the papall hierarchie, which they are woont to call Eccleſiaſtical, we ſay that it is not the church properly, but an accident growen unto the church, and ſuch as covertly worketh againſt the life, and health of the church. [That it is not the church properly,Here again he omits clauſes, words & paſſages of speciall waight. is proved by the very definition of the papacie, and of the church of God.] For the papacie [according to his generall] is an order: [the church is a companie or an aſſemblie. The papacie by his difference, is an order poſitiue,] humane or from men, and naught: The church is an aſſemblie divine or from God, [by divine authoritie united together vvith reaſon. Now thoſe things which differ both in their generall, and in their eſſential difference, and in their neceſſarie conditions or properties, they cannot be one and the ſame thing. And that the papacie is an accident growen upon the church, experience it ſelf ſpeaketh. For the ſubject is before his accident, which is contingent and ſeparable: The church was many ages when the papacie was not: The papacie came to the church contingently (beſide the being of the church,) and ſo may be ſeparated from it, as at this time alſo there are churches where the papacie is not, & there will be churches ſtill hereafter vvithout the papacie. Therefore the papacie is not the church, but it is an evill growen up in the church, a peſtilence, a dropſie, a gangrene in the bodie, deceitfully working againſt the life and health of it, and therefore moſt dangerouſly & noyſomely eating up the liuely and wholeſome moyſture of the church. But of this whole matter we hauehave ſpo…en in the third controverſie, and in this fourth we are to ſpeak of it hereafter.]

[Therefore concerning the other which remaineth let us ſe, whether the papal Roman church,This alſo he paſseth by. or that which is of the pope, be the church. The opinions which are about this matter are divers. The popish generation cry out with full mouth, that it is abſolutely the church. Others not beholding a different regard of the papacy, from that which is the church, deny it to be the church. We relying both on the nature of the thing, and on the authoritie of the Scripture, doe put a difference. The nature of the thing doth teach, that the church is one thing, and that the papacie is another, as we ſpake a litle before. The authoritie of the Scripture teacheth the church, but it teacheth not the papacie: therefore they are divers things. For they delude undoubtedly, I ſay they delude, which require at our hands one definition of the ſubject & of the accident, as of one ſingular thing, or obtrude it on us. For thus muſt we ſay, The papal church, as it hath that in it which belongeth to the definition of a church, it is a church: but as it hath in it the evill growen unto it, which we call the papacie, in that reſpect it is not a church, but a faultie or defloured, a polluted and corrupt church, and drawing on to deſtruction.]

[Let us ma…e it plain by a ſimilitude. The body it ſelf is one thing,And this he omits. the corruption or conſumption in the body another thing. The body is the ſubject, the corruption or conſumption is the evill accident cleaving unto the ſubject, the corrupted or conſuming body is compounded of them both. There is both the body, and the conſumption in the conſuming body. So likewiſe p. 184is a body that is ſvvolne with the vvater, cauſing the dropſie. Both are together, and yet ſo together, as eyther one of the two, or both together muſt needs perish. If the nature of the body be ſtronger, the conſumption ceaſeth and the dropſie-water decayeth: but if the conſumption or dropſie prevaile, there is moſt certain deſtruction of them both. So is the church of God: for in it ſelf it is the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt. If a deadly diſeaſe growe upon it, both are then together, the body and the diſeaſe in the body. If the purging medicine of the grace of God (for nothing is here naturall, be of the more efficacie, the diſeaſe then is vanquished and decayeth: but if the diſeaſe prevaile, then both of them (the body & the diſeaſe) muſt needs come to an end. For ſuch is the condition of the diſeaſe: it both feedeth it ſelf on the body decaying, and deſtroyeth it ſelf together with the body.]

And this alſo.[After this maner therefore doe we eſteem of the church of Rome, which they cal the papal or popish church. There is the church, there is the papacie, and there is the papal church. As there is the church, it is the ſubject of God: as there is the papacie, there is the diſeaſe of man: as it is the papall church, there is a fight between the church & the papacie, that will deſtroy eyther one of them apart, or both together. If God shal giuegive it the purging medicine of his grace, by meanes whereof the papacie, the accidentarie evil decay and perish, it is wel: but if the papacie, that moſt faultie and corrupt order, and deadly accident prevaile, it wil bring deſtruction to both of them, both to the church and to it ſelf, by the judgment of God.]

And this.[And this now in the memorie of our fathers and our owne wee ſee to hauehave befallen many churches, which claue faſt unto that Romane church. For when it ſeemed good unto God more clearly to light the torch of the goſpell, & to ſcatter the papal ſmokes by his ſpirit, there remayned churches returning by his grace to a better conſtitution and ſtronger health, and that which was of the Pope departed vanishing away of it own corruption: but when as God ſent not that purging medicine of his divine grace into the body of any church, then the popish corrupt blood got ſtrength more and more, which will be to that church deadly deſtruction, unles God of his merciemercy provide a remedie. In the remembrance and conſcience of this benefit, doe our churches fitly ſing vvith the Prophet, Bleſſed be the Lord which hath not giuen us for a praye unto their teeth. Our ſoule is eſcaped euen as a bird out of the ſnare of the foulers: the ſnare is broken, & we are delivered. Our help is the name of the Lord, &c. Pſal. 124.

[Wherefore in my judgment they ſpeak prepoſterouſly, who ask whether the church be in the papacie:And theſe clauſes alſo. becauſe on the contrarie it should be asked, whether the papacie be in the church. For the ſubject is not in the accident, but the accident in the ſubject, whoſe being is an in-being, or to be in a thing, as men commonly ſpeak. And that] the papacie is in the church, as the order or eſtate of apoſtaſie in the houſe and city of God, [is as certaine, as that of the Apoſtle is certain,] 2 Theſ. 2. that the man of ſinne, the ſonne of perdition ſitteth in the temple of God, with his whole order or‘‘Or, rank, in the former tranſlation. eſtate of apoſtates: & not [on the other ſide, that] the temple of God conſiſteth in that order and number of apoſtates, which is a thing moſt ſtraunge & furtheſt off. But the terme of the papacie taken doubly & aequivocally, deceiveth them in ſuch ſort, as here before we shewed concerning the Romane popish church. For under the name of the papacie (which is an order vitious & corrupt) they comprehend the ſubject it ſelf, which is annoyed with that corruption, not diſtinguishing aright between theſe things.]

[As therefore, if any should deny that to be a bodie,] which lyeth in a deadly ſort ſwollen with the water of the dropſie,And this. [or should affirme that water vvhichwhich choketh the body, to be the body it ſelf, should in both theſe be deceived in his judgment: ſo alſo are both deceived, as well they which deny it to be the church, becauſe the papacie is in it, as they which avouch the papacie to be the church it ſelf, which vve hauehave before diſproved.] The papacie is a poyſon in the church, which poyſon muſt needs be vomited out, if it will be preſerved: or els the church vvilbe extinguished by it, if it ſuffer that poyſon to prevaile, and poſſeſſe all the veynes of the bodie.

[But how can she be the church, (will ſome ſay in which the papacie is? Euen ſo as there is the body,And this. in which a diſeaſe worketh. But becauſe the papacie is a deadly corruption, the more that the papacie getteth ſtrength, the more the church is weakned: the increaſe of the one, is the decreaſe of the other. And hence it commeth to paſſe, that in the churches which are called popish, ſome are more healthie, and ſome more unhealthie then others: the more healthie are thoſe which hauehave leſſe of the papacie, and more of the church: and thoſe are the more unhealthie which hauehave more of the papacie, and leſſe of the church: & of this kind, I doubt not that church to be, which at this day is at Rome.] For it had long agoe giuen up the ghoſt, if God by the medicine of his grace and long ſuffring had not nourished and kept it warme.

[Notwithſtanding that we may giuegive content unto their minds, which doe not yet reach unto theſe things,And this. or think that they are more ſubtily then truly ſpoken of the church which they call p. 185the papal or popish church: let us anſwer this queſtion in few words, from the regard of al particular churches, as they are among mē, or in conſideratiō of things humane. Everie church, which in deed is a church, is conſidered two waies, on Gods behalf (as they ſpeak) & on our behalf.] On Gods behalf, it is altogether a church, wherſoever there is found a companie called of God, with his calling by the ſpirit & the holy Scripture, & the miniſterie of perſons ordeined for holy things & divine actions. [On our behalf, there is no church at al, (although it be ſo of God,And this alſo. as we hauehave ſaid) to which there doth not cleaue corruption, concerning the perſons, things, actions, and finally the whole miniſtration of man ordeyned by God. Now that which is on Gods part, is not taken away by our default, ſo long as it ſeemeth good unto the Lord, to acknovvledge it for his church, and call it by his calling, by the ſpirit, and holy Scripture, and the miniſterie. For shall the unbeleef of men, (ſaith the Apoſtle Rom. 3, 3.) make the faith of God without effect? shal the weaknes of man make voide the truth of God? or his imperfection the perfection of God? Far be it off: yea let God be true and everie man a lyer, ſaith the Apoſtle in the ſame place.]

We wil make the matter plain by an example & ſimilitude out of the words of Ieremie, ch. 3. A wife being filthie with adulteries, if her husband will pardon her, and conſent to receiue her,And theſe clauſes he paſseth over. and to dwell with her, she abideth ſtill the wife of her husband, [not in deed by her own fact (for she hath broken wedlock, what in her was) but by the benefit or goodnes of her husband.] So a church overflowing not onelyonly with lighter infirmities, but alſo with grievous adulteries, [should ceaſe in deed on her part to be a wife, but she ceaſeth not on her husbands part.] For touching the election, as the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 11, 28. she is beloved for the fathers ſakes, ſpeaking of the church of the Iewes. [It is a church ſo long whiles God calling her, proclaymeth that which is in Ier. 3, 13. OnelyOnly acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou haſt tranſgreſſed againſt the Lord thy God,And theſe following. & haſt ſcattered thy waies to the ſtraungers under everie green tree, and ye hauehave not obeyed my voice, ſaith the Lord. Turn, O backſlyding people, ſaith the Lord, for I am maried unto you, & I wil receiue you &c. It is a church ſo long, whiles God with proteſtation calleth upon it departing from him & being rebellious, as it is in Eſa 50, 1. Where is the bil of your mothers divorcement, wherewith I put her away? or who is there of my creditors to whom I ſould you? &c. The church then at length ceaſeth to be a church, whē God ceaſeth to cal it back, & taketh away the evidence of that holy marriage, that is, the holy Scripture, out of the hand of the adulteres, and her that is ſtubburne, teſtifying that the matrimonie is diſſolved on his part, & ſo receiveth the covenant of grace to himſelf. It is not for any man, to deny that to be a church, which God calleth a church. Neither is it for any man, to cal that a church, which God, having giuen the bil of divorce, & taken away the draught of the mariage contract, denyeth ſo to be.]

And after this maner doe we eſteem of the church in which the papacie is. God calleth her with his calling, by his ſpirit, & word, & the publike records of that holy mariage (which we cal the holy Scripture) & the miniſterie, & holy things, & actions,And this alſo. which before we hauehave briefly reckoned up. [Theſe things doe remain to that church moſt manifeſtly, on Gods behalf. But in that on the behalf of men al theſe holy things & actions, together with the very perſons themſelues, abound & overflow, with moſt grievous & deadly corruptions, this is the ſinne of men, not the fault of God, whoſe grace & truth is perfected in infirmitie On Gods part, she is yet called Hammi, my people, & Ruchama, finding mercy, which moſt truly on her part, may be called Lo hammi, not my people, & Lo ruchama, not obteyning merciemercy, as we read in Hoſeah the Prophet. But we rely upon the mercy of God, and according to his grace revealed, we ſpeak our mind, or deliver our ſentence concerning a church erring and going aſtray.]

[But this church hath every thing in it corrupt. I cōfes it. But] in that it hath al the divine things in the Scriptures, it is of God: in that it hath thē al corrupt, that is of it ſelf;And this. in that it hath al the divine things, it is a church, in that it hath the ſame al corrupt, it is a corrupt church. The church is not takē away by corruption, unles it be total (as they ſpeak) which they cal deſtructiō.And this [A corruptiō that is in part doth not take away a church, but wekē it. The church of Rome hath al things corrupt, but not altogether: this is not a deſtructiō, but is to be called a corruptiō of it in part.]

[For to proſecute theſe heads particularly, which we hauehave briefly noted in the conſideration of the church God by the alone preſence of himſelf calling, doth lay the foundatiō of the church,And this whole paſſage he omitteth. in Chriſt the head therof. The church of Rome addeth another foundatiō to this foundation, & to this head another new head (wherupō it is called papal or popish) wherin it may likwiſe reſt with al. The calling is to God alone, in the church of Rome there is calling to others with God, & the calling upō thē. There the calling is by the ſpirit & Scripture alone, whence it receiveth the miniſterie, & delivereth nothing more, then that which it hath received from the Lord: here it receiveth a miniſterie from the ſpirit of Chriſt, and of the Pope, from the Scripture, and the ragged traditions of men: there finally the perſons, things and actions are caried, according p. 186to the doctrine of the ſpirit, and the Scripture onelyonly: here all things are taken and exerciſed out of the Popes changeable shop, and at his beck (as they ſay) they ſtand and fall. So all the marks on Gods behalf are in it: but for it ſelf, on it own part (as they ſay) there is no mark intire, no marke that is not corrupt by the papall poyſonfull ſorcerie, and the order of all things moſt miſerably perverted. For which cauſe in Lyons in France, a certain Frier did merrily preach to the people, when he ſayd the Hugonots (for ſo they are called in France) did conſent with the church of Rome in all their articles of ſaith, but there was one shrewd word, the word [OnelyOnly,] at the crack whereof war was in …indled, for they beleeue onelyonly what the rule of faith hath out of the holy Scriptures: but the church of Rome requireth more unto faith then is eyther conteyned in the rule of faith, or in the holy Scriptures, becauſe ſuch is the authoritie of the church.]

And this alſo.[Theſe things being well underſtood, all men will eaſely perceiue how that Church, in reſpect of God or on Gods part, is yet a church: but of it ſelf is moſt corrupt, and verie neere to deſtruction. But here doe ariſe two doubts and difficulties, by which the minds of many are troubled. The firſt doubt is, what we are to judge of the members of that church: The latter what the dutie of them is who are in that church, and ſee the great corruptions thereof.]

[To the firſt queſtion we anſwer on this manner, A threefold judgment had need meet together in this cauſe:And this. the firſt, of trueth: the ſecond, of charitie: the third of prudence or wiſdome. The judgment of trueth is of the common condition of the church, by which we judge from the calling of God, that as yet she is a church. The judgment of charitie is of the ſeverall members of the church, by vvhichwhich we preſume they be members of the church, whiles they be called with the calling from God, and are in this way, as David calleth it Pſal. 2. The judgment of prudence or wiſdome, is that by vvhichwhich we diſcerne and diſtinguish perſons, things & actions, divine from humane, good ones from evill, true ones from falſe, and the degrees of theſe alſo amongſt themſelues. For as of things and actions, ſo alſo of perſons ſome are corrupting through ignorance infirmitie, or malice wholly, or in part others are corrupted, euen in the ſimplicity of their hearts as the Scripture ſpeaketh: and of theſe there are a great number, of whom it were ungodly to eſteeme that they were not of the church of God. Of ſuch as doe corrupt we muſt take heed, Mat. 7. of the corrupted, who are corrupted yet ſtill, we muſt hauehave compaſſion. But the Church verely is not to be judged of the maner of either of theſe: for Chriſt ſaith not, ye shall not know the church; but, by their fruits, of doctrine and life, ye shall know them, Mat. 7, 20. And without doubt, they doe very unwiſely who judge of the trueth of a church, by the particular life or doctrine of any men, who ever they be, eſpecially of private men: for the calling of God maketh the church, not the aſſenting anſwer of the men that are in it: as on the other ſide the Church ceaſeth not to be a church for the refuſall, or deniall of men, whereſoever the calling of God is. Now let us come to the ſecond demaund.]

What is the duetie of thoſe (wilt thou ſay that are in the popish church, and ſee the grievous corruptions of it?And ſome clauſes here Their dutie is ſuch as of thoſe children, which dwel together with their adulterous mother: [for God hath uſed this ſimilitude in Eſay and Ieremie, as we hauehave ſeen before] A wiſe ſonne vvill euen from his heart abhorre the ſinne of his mother, he will with ſpeach and ſigne call back his mother from evill, and he will abſteine himſelf from it: and in all things he will cleaue to his father, [he will ſtand to his judgment, he will obey his will: and while he can by reaſon of his mother, he will cleaue unto her, next after his father: but when and whiles by reaſon of her he can not doe it with good conſcience, for the ſpiritual and bodily injurie of her,] he will betake himſelf into the chamber of his father,Cloſet, or inner room. [where alſo is the church the mother of us all. Gal. 4, 26. For this is not a good conſequent, if one depart from this or that church, therefore he doth altogether depart from the church. He doth but trifle that doth ſo from a particular, conclude univerſally. A part of the flesh if it be divided or cut aſunder from another part by a wound received, is not ſtraight way to be thought to be ſeparate or cut of from the whole body: for it is cut aſunder, and the mouth of the vvound openeth, but neyther part is therefore diſjoyned from the bodie. A godly ſonne therefore ought to cleaue to his father and mother jointly, ſo long as with good conſcience he can: but becauſe he cannot with ſound faith and conſcience hauehave fellowship vvith the unfruitfull works of darknes, Eph. 5, 11. he rather leaving his mother, cleaveth to God his father, and our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, then that he vvill defile himſelf with thoſe foule deeds of his mother.]

And theſe paſſages following to the end,[And this did our aunceſtors religiouſly, whom the popish tyrannie for ſome ages hath exerciſed. The godly which were at Rome, and other where in the Church which they call the Romane church abuſiuely, firſt learned to abhorre euen from their ſoule, the ſinnes of their mother, when once they began to hauehave right underſtanding; by words and ſignes they modeſtly called her back from her naughtie deeds, whiles she would beare them, they carefully abſteyned themſelues p. 187from all communion of evill, yet in all things cleaving to their father, from whom, in whom, by whom, and for vvhom are all things, ſtanding to his judgment, and obeying his will: finally they did ſo long cleaue to their mother next after their father, vvhilſt by her they could ſo doe with intire faith and conſcience, and their owne ſalvation. But when they could not longer with good faith and conſcience ſo doe, by reaſon of the violent tyrannie, & the ſpirituall & corporall injurie of their furious mother, then being ashamed of her shamefulnes, and reſting ſilent, they betooke themſelues into their fathers boſome and his inner roome, albeit that she purſued them outragiouſly: leaſt they being ashamed of her, should be ſaid to shame her, as ſtumpets are uſually woont to doe.]

[For vvhichwhich cauſes, I doe humbly beſeech God the Father of our Lord Ieſus, that he would both by his ſaving calling informe, direct and care for his church, and whatſoever belongeth to his church, & that he would alſo teach every one that is in it his truth, & the truth of his church: and that he would ſo work, as they wiſely abſteyning from all evils, eſpecially from thoſe which the ſonne of perdition, and author of the apoſtaſie hath brought in, and taking heed of the ſpirit of lyes, and the efficacie of his errour, they may religiouſly cleaue unto the Father and his good things, in everie of them, & to their mother next after the father (or ſo far as she accordeth with the Father:) that increaſing in his truth, pietie, ſaith and louelove they may beſtow & employ al their ſtudies to the edification of the church, the ſalvation of all, and the glorie of that our heauenly Father. &c.

God the Father and the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, by that eternall ſpirit of his eternall truth, bring to paſſe, that the wiles of Sathan being driuen away, we may al grow dayly in Chriſt, in the church, and in the truth of Chriſt and the Church, and that we may more and more confirme one another in louelove unfayned, to his glory and the common ſalvation of us all. Amen.

Hitherto M. Iunius: who though he be dead, yet liveth and ſpeaketh ſufficient in this writing, for the point in hand. Which vvhiles M. Ainſw. would ſeem to anſvver, it is ſtraunge (but good to be obſerved) how many things of waight he paſſeth over; beſides that ſometimes he picketh out a ſentence here, and a ſentence there, & leaveth out vvhat commeth betvven; which should help the Reader, and more cleare the matter: thus being injurious herein both to the living & the dead: not to ſpeak of the unſpeakable abuſe of Scripture alſo, into vvhichwhich he falleth ſtill more and more: which the Reader shall doe vvell to obſerue, though I inſiſt not upon the particulars, which would be endles: and being now purpoſed here onelyonly to note a fevve things moe, vvhichwhich he hath, that are merely Anabaptiſticall, and full of gloſing deceit.

21. Speaking of the Church of Rome, vvhereas he should diſtinguish betvveen the Temple of God, and Man of ſinne, ſpoken off 2 Theſ. 2, 4.Animadv. p. 98-102. &c. he eyther regards not to obſerue it; or confounds them together as one, without diſtinction; or ſo ſpeaketh of Gods Temple & church there, as if it were no other then the Divels, ſpoken off Rev. 18, 2, 3. & 16, 14. then Sodome, Egypt & Babylon, Rev. 11, 8. and 16, 19. the lothed of God, delivered to Sathan, to be ſeduced, deluded, damned, 2 Theſ. 4, 8.9, 11, 12. And hovv then is there the people of God, the Temple of God, the baptiſme of God, the covenant of God, the ſalvation of God to any in that Church, &c. Betvveene theſe things, there is no juſt proportion: for what concord hath Chriſt vvith Beliall, or the Temple of God vvith idols or divels? 2 Cor. 6, 15, 16.

22. Speaking of the congregation of Saints that was at Rome in Pauls time (he ſaith not, as he might, that it is ſince corrupted, adulterate, or fallen into defection, &c. but) he ſaith abſolutely, it is gone long ſince, and the p. 188man of ſinne with his worſhippers come in the place. Pag. 98.So then here againe let him tell us, vvhether he thinketh theſe be the Temple of God, the people of God, under the covenant of God, having the baptiſme of God, which the Lord hath ordeyned and giuen to his Church; or vvhether there be no ſuch there at all, though corrupted and abuſed, &c.

23. Whereas‘‘See here before, pa. 183. M. Iunius ſpake of Gods church, being euen at Rome at this day, by the mercy of God, becauſe he truſted, that [there is God calling; perſons called; & the calling it ſelf yet in her: the meeting of which things together in one giveth being to a church, &c.] M. Ainſ. not having vvhat to anſvver hereunto,Animadv. p. 98, 99, doth very boldly, & without limitation or reſtreynt, deny that God is there calling as in his church, but that the man of ſinne ſits there as God, calling all to worship him, and that his calling is by the working of Satan, and in all deceiueablenes of unrighteouſnes among them that periſh; 2 Theſ. 2, 9, 10, 11. All vvhichwhich together (ſaith he) giveth being to Antichriſts church, but not to Chriſts. Animadv. p. 98, 99. Thus (after his manner) ſtill he termeth that Antichriſts church, which the Apoſtle calleth the Temple of God. But omitting this, if it be as here he ſaith, hovv then hath there ben or can there be ſalvation to any in that church, ſince the man of ſin ſate there: vvhichwhich himſelf thinketh vvas ſone after Pauls time. Pag. 84. How alſo should any of that church become Martyrs, & vvitneſſes of the Chriſtian faith, againſt the profeſſed enemies thereof? And how should any Ievves or Pagans be converted to the faith of Chriſt, by any of them? Or doth he think, that no ſuch thing is had or done at all by them?

Beſides, if novv an Anabaptiſt take up M. Ainſ. own vvords, and where he ſpeaketh of calling, apply it to baptiſme had in the church of Rome, ſaying thus as M. Ainſ. doth here, I deny that God is there baptizing as in his church, but the Man of ſin ſits there as God, baptiſing all that vvorſhip him, and his baptiſing is by the vvorking of Sathan, and in all deceiueablenes of unrighteouſnes among them that periſh; and the perſons baptized, are deluded to beleeue lyes. 2 Theſ. 2, 9, 10, 11. All which together, giuegive being to Antichriſts baptiſme, but not to Chriſts: what now wil M. Ainſvv. anſvver hereunto, but that eyther he shall contradict himſelf, or fall into more errour hereabout, to the further hardening of the Anabaptiſts in their erroneous opinions and courſes.

Pag. 99.24. That which M. Iunius applieth (and fitly) to the popiſh Hierarchie: M. Ainſvv. applieth to the church of Rome, and the whole church there: Yea though himſelf aftervvard acknowledg, that the popiſh eccleſiaſtical hierarchie conſiſteth of Biſhops, Prieſts, and miniſters, pag. 100. beſides whom, there are the people: as himſelf alſo noteth in the other page aforeſaid. Pag. 99.

25. When‘‘See here before, p. 183. M. Iunius (for more clearing of the point) purpoſely diſtinguished between the papacie, and the Church: shevving the difference between them, both in their generall kind, and in their peculiar difference: namely that the papacie is an order or eſtate, humane & evill: the church a companie or aſſemblie, Animadv. p. 99, &c.divine, and by authoritie of God knit together: &c. M. Ainſ. finding no anſwer hereunto, purpoſely paſſeth over divers vvords, clauſes, ſentences, and vvhole paſſages, vvhichwhich would giuegive light to the matter in p. 189hand: and not content herewith, makes much a doe about a word (a rank of apoſtates) urging it contrarie to M. Iunius his meaning, hovv ever it be underſtood. For firſt, although the Tranſlator in this place uſed two vvords (an order or ranck of apoſtates) yet he might ſee M. Iunius his word was but one, ſignifying an order or an eſtate of apoſtates, as before he ſpake of an order or eſtate of apoſtaſie. Which vvord alſo the Tranſlator here kept and joyned with the other. But novv this word of an order or eſtate, ſo fitly opening the point in queſtion, and not leaving ſuch colour of exception or aequivocation, as M. Ainſ. ſeeketh after: he leaveth it, and taketh hold on the other. A ſleight and ſilly courſe. But (as himſelf ſaid erevvhile) what vvill not men doe, for help in time of need?

As for the word (ranck) it alſo is uſed in our tongue, for an order, eſtate, conditiō, eſtimatiō, &c. As in Pſa. 53, 13. where David ſpeaking of Achitophel, or the like, ſaith, But it was thou, a man according to my ranck, as the new Tranſlators hauehave it in the margent: for which they hauehave in the text, a man, mine equall; and M. Ainſw.‘‘In Pſal. 55, 14.Ps 55:14 in his tranſlation and notes, O man eſteemed of as my ſelf, or according to my order, or eſtimation, &c. vvhere novv obſerue theſe things, for the more clearing of this matter: 1. That the vvhole church or common vveale of Iſrael, Prieſts and people, vvere not of the ſame order, ranck, or eſtate, vvhereof David and Achitophel vvere. 2. That the order or ranck there ſpoken of, was to be diſtinguished from the perſons themſelues othervviſe conſidered. Both vvhichwhich M. Iunius obſerveth here, and M. Ainſvv. confoundeth or perverteth what he can. 3. That where the other Tranſlators uſe the word ranck, M. Ainſw. uſeth the vvord order: cleane contrarie to his dealing here, vvhere he leaveth the word order or eſtate uſed both by the author and Tranſlator, & layeth hold on the word ranck. And vvhy ſo? That let M. Ainſ. tell us himſelf: unleſſe vve should think that he did it, becauſe the vvord ranck in our tongue, doth ſometimes alſo ſignifie that vvhichwhich is or grovveth thick together, as corne in a field, or the like; and ſo is applied to perſons or things in this behalf. So as thus a ranck of apoſtates may be underſtood of a companie of apoſtates, and thoſe alſo thick together: vvhereas M. Iunius, about this queſtion, putteth difference purpoſely betvveen an order or ranck, and betvveene a companie or aſſemblie: making the one the general of apoſtaſie, and the other the general of a church: and ſo shevving that the apoſtaſie, and church of Rome, are tvvo different things, and diverſly to be conſidered.

Which vvhiles M. Ainſvv. vvill not regard as he should, but conſound or abuſe, what he can: let others judge what vain a doe he maketh hereabout, and hovv yll in this behalf he dealeth vvith M. Iunius. And this the more, ſeing that alſo‘‘See it here before, p. 184 in the very next ſentence to one of them which M. Ainſvv. here citeth, M. Iunius himſelf shewed the fountaine and occaſion of this deceit, how ever M. Ain. (after his maner) paſſeth over it: namely, that the terme of the papacie taken doubly and aequivocally deceiveth men in ſuch ſort (ſaith he) as ” here before we ſhewed touching the Romane popiſh church. For under the terme of the papacie (which is a vicious corrupt order) they comprehend the ſubject p. 190it ſelf, vvhichwhich is annoyed with that corruption, not diſtinguiſhing aright betweene theſe things, &c. Which how true it is found in M. Ain. not onelyonly in this paſſage, but throughout his treatiſe, is ſo evident as I need not ſtand further to shevv it. Every page, yea almoſt every ſentence, is a vvitnes and demonſtration thereof.

Or if in this place, by an order or ranck of apoſtates, we underſtand alſo a companie of apoſtates (as in the next clauſe follovving there is a vvord of number, that may be taken to imply ſo much:) yet any may perceiue that M. Iunius here ſpeaketh this, not of the vvhole church, as M. Ainſ. urgeth it; but onelyonly of the papall eccleſiaſtical hierarchie, as””Pag 183 &c. othervvhere in this treatiſe he calleth it. Which is evident by the very vvords themſelues, vvhichwhich are theſe:””Pag 183 &c. And that the papacie is in the church, as the order or eſtate of apoſtaſie in the houſe and city of God, is as certaine, as that of the Apoſtle is certain, 2 Theſ. 2 that the man of ſinne, the ſonne of perdition ſitteth in the Temple of God, vvith his vvhole order ‘‘A… the other tranſlation had it.or rank of apoſtates: and not on the other ſide, that the Temple of God conſiſteth in that order & number of apoſtates, which is a thing moſt ſtrange & furtheſt off. Where marke two things, for clearing the point in hand: Firſt, that M. Iunius expreſſely diſtinguisheth between the Church or Temple of God it ſelf, and betvveene the man of ſinne that ſitteth therein, with his whole order or eſtate of apoſtates: Secondly, that here, by this order or rank of apoſtates (ſpoken off) he underſtandeth onelyonly the popiſh hierarchie aforeſaid, and not the vvhole church or Temple of God it ſelf: vvhichwhich he ſaith were moſt ſtrange and is furtheſt off. Novv though he ſpeak thus plainly & expreſſely, yet M. Ain. vvill not regard it as he should, but taketh and urgeth it ſo, as he heareth M. Iunius himſelf ſay, is moſt ſtraunge and furtheſt off: vvhether from the truth it ſelf,““Advert. p 60— 65. & here, p. 171. &c. or from the Apoſtles meaning; and ſo alſo from his own; it commeth to a like end for the point in hand.

Yea and moreover, if this phraſe of a rank of apoſtates, be applied (as by M. Ainſ. it is) to the whole church, Prieſts and people: yet we muſt ſtil remember the divers conſideration of churches,““1 Kin. 13 28, 30, &c Hoſ. 5, 1, 2 &c.1 Kgs 13:281 Kgs 13:30Hos 5:1Hos 5:2 & of their eſtate in this behalf: as both M. Iunius‘‘Se before p. 185. &c in this treatiſe obſerveth, and we hauehave alſo noted * before. If we looke upon Iſraell, eyther on the ten tribes, or on Iudah alſo, when the Kings & Princes, Prieſts and people, were fallen into apoſtaſie, forſaking the Lord,‡‡2 Chr. 33, 2, 9, 10. …er 1, 16.18. & 5, 30, 31. and 7, 17, 18. & 44, 15, 16, 17. &c.2 Chr 33:22 Chr 33:92 Chr 33:10 and burning incenſe to other Gods, &c. vvill not M. Ainſ. ſay of them (as here he doth, of the church of Rome) that now the whole church of Iſraell and Iudah, Prieſts and people, vvere a ranck of apoſtates. But will he therefore conclude thereupon (as here he doeth) that they vvere not then (in other conſideration) the Church of God, the Temple of God, the people of God, that they had not true circumciſion, nor the covenant of God, &c. yet thus he concludeth about the Church of Rome.

26. Likewiſe when M. Iunius accounteth the papall hierarchie as an accident grovven upon the church,Animadv. p. 99. 100. M. Ainſ. mentioneth the word (accident) as being deſirous to take hold thereon, but medleth not with M. Iunius his reaſons, being not able to giuegive anſwer unto them. That the papacie (ſaith p. 191M. Iunius)‘‘Se before p. 183. is an accident growen upon the church, experience it ſelf ſheweth. For the ſubject is before his accident, which is contingent and ſeparable. The Church was many ages, when the papacie was not: The papacie came to the church contingently (beſide the being of the Church) and ſo may be ſeparated from it: as at this time alſo there are Churches, where the papacie is not; and there wilbe churches ſtill hereafter without the papacie. &c. Novv vvhat one word of anſwer hath M. Ainſ. hereunto? In this (as in other things) he is as mute as a fish: though all may ſee, that theſe are the things that should hauehave ben inſiſted upon, if he could hauehave found any anſwer.

27. He trifleth alſo and cavileth about the ſimilitudes of a poyſon, Animadv. p. 99, 100.a gangrene, and an ulcer in the body, whereunto M. Iunius compareth the popiſh hierarchie in the church. Neyther doth he keep to the point, vvherein M. Iunius compareth them together: but either maketh other applications of his ovvn, or ſeeketh out ſome differences between thē, in other reſpects, &c. As if ſimilitudes should hold in al things: Whereas he should hauehave shewed (if he could) that they doe not agree in that, vvherein M. Iunius compareth them together: As firſt, that theſe diſeaſes and evils are not the body it ſelf, but differing from it, and yet in it. Secondly, that they are noyſome and proue deadly in the end to the body, if there be not help and remedie had againſt them. Beſides that M. Ainſw. himſelf compareth them here, to the Egyptian boyles, and to the Image which Nebuchadnezar ſaw, of gold, ſilver, braſse, yron and clay. Yet I ſuppoſe he will put a difference betvveen the boyles, and the Egyptians themſelues: neither thinketh the perſons ſpoken of to be vvithout all natural life, nor able to performe any action either good or bad, as was the caſe of that image it ſelf. The Prophets compare the apoſtate Ievves (as here he doth the apoſtate Chriſtians) to braſse and yron, &c. Ier. 6, 28. Ezec. 22, 18. Shall vve now thereupon conclude againſt Iudah, as he doth againſt the church of Rome, to make in deed a verie nullitie of all their actions, miniſtration, and Churches eſtate? The Scripture compareth the vvicked to duſt, myer, hay, ſmoke, ſtubble, tares, melting wax, &c. Pſal. 1, 4. & 18, 43. and 37, 2, 20. & 68, 3. & 83, 14. Mat. 13.38. and the godly to trees, corne, ſeed, the mountaines of Sion. &c. Pſal. 1, 3. & 125, 1. Mat. 3, 12. & 13, 38. and Chriſts comming at that day, to a thieues comming in the night, &c. Matth. 24, 43, 44. 1 Theſ. 5, 2. Rev. 16, 15. Were it not now an eaſie (but a vain) thing for this man, being not able to except againſt theſe ſimilitudes, for the things vvherein they are compared together, yet to ſet him ſelf to cavill there againſt, vvhether framing other applications of his own, or shewing ſome differences in other reſpects, &c.

28. But it is ſpecially to be obſerved, that he ſaith, If the papacie, Ibid.or papall hierarchie eccleſiaſticall (be not the church: ſo ſpeaketh M. Iunius: for vvhichwhich M. Ainſ. hath) if it be no part of the body of the Church, but ‡‡Se before p. 183.an evill grovven up in the church, an accident, a poyſon, a gangrene, an ulcer, covertly vvorking againſt the life and health of it, and daungerouſly eating up the liuely and vvholeſome moiſture of the church: what ſhall we think of all the actions of that eccleſiaſticall hierarchie, their miniſtration of ſacraments, their making of miniſters, p. 192and the whole church adminiſtration, by that rank of apoſtates; they cannot poſſibly be the actions of the body, of the church, neyther of Chriſt. Can a ſcab or gangrene performe any action of a naturall body or member? And now vvhat is become of their true baptiſme, and ordination of miniſters before pleaded for? theſe will be but as the operation of the poyſon or fretting of the gangrene; for they that did them, being the popiſh eccleſiaſticall hierarchie, were (not the church, for vvhichwhich M. Ainſ. hath) no parts of the church, but accidents, as the gangrene, or pocks upon the whores body, which conſume life and grace, but giuegive none at all. Could any Anabaptiſt write more Anabaptiſtically then thus? Or can a man hold theſe opinions, & yet not become an Anabaptiſt, if he walk conſcionably? If the baptiſme had in the church of Rome, be not true baptiſme, yea if it be but as the operation of poyſon, or fretting of the gangrene, &c. ought not al men by al meanes to renounce and reject it? Or will any man of any godlines or conſcience ſtill retein it? HaueHave your ſelues (O ye Anabaptiſts) ever ſaid more concerning the baptiſme aforeſaid, then this man hath done? Yea would you not be ashamed before God and men, to hold and ſpeak thereof as he doeth, and yet ſtill to reteyne it?

Ibid.29. But it is juſt vvith God thus to confound him, vvho as he beganne vvith notorious errour and blaſphemie, ſo ſtill proceedeth in like maner. Here before, at firſt he ſaid, the baptiſme had in the church of Rome, is a falſe ſacrament, & lying ſigne, not true baptiſme, but an idol, a fiction, a falſe baptiſme, an accurſed and deteſtable ſacrament; not the ſigne and ſeale of Gods covenant, but Babylons baptiſme, ſuch as were the ſacrifices & ſacraments of Babylon, & the other heathens, &c. Animad. p. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, &c. His proceeding alſo is in like ſort: pag. 95, 96. And now dravving to an end, he ſaith againe, that it is not true baptiſme, but as the operation of poyſon, or fretting of the gangrene, &c. pag. 100. Hovv much better had it ben for him to lay his hand on his mouth, and vvith humblenes to learne to put difference betvveen the church it ſelf, & the apoſtaſie thereof; betvveen Gods ordinances themſelues, and Antichriſts corruptions commingled withal: then thus to tread in Nebuchadnezars ſteps, who burnt the Temple of God, vvhen the apoſtate Iewes had polluted it: which the Lord notvvithſtanding ſtill eſteemed to be his, and therefore tooke on him the vengeance of his Temple. 2 Chron. 36, 14, &c. Ezech. 8, &c. with Jer. 50, 28. and 51, 11. The ſame God ſtill liveth for ever: let this man therefore feare before him: hovv ever he regard not (as he should) vvhat he ſpeaketh afore men: ſpecially if he can cary it away vvith any pretence or applauſe.

Ibid.30. And what pretence hath he here to beare him out in this matter? Can a ſcab or gangrene (ſaith he) performe any action of a naturall body or member? But if M. Iunius lived to returne him anſvver, he would keep him to the point in hand, and ſoon ask of him again, Can a body that hath a ſcab or gangrene performe no actions of a naturall body? And what can M. Ainſw. anſvver hereunto, but it will be againſt himſelf, what ever pretence or colour he ſet upon it?

31. Beſides if Hymenaeus and Philetus, ſpoken off by the Apoſtle, were p. 193Miniſters (though haereticall, ſchiſmaticall, apoſtaticall, &c.) vvho teaching errours, their word did eat as a cancker or gangrene: 2 Tim. 2, 17, 18. vvould M. Ainſ. therefore conclude (as here he doth) that the baptiſme miniſtred by them vvas not true baptiſme, but as the fretting of the gangrene,Ibid. &c. How then ſaid he before, * that he vvas farr from Cyprians errour, who held that it is not baptiſme that is miniſtred by hereticks or ſchiſmaticks; ‘‘Animad. p. 71.and that it is to be renounced and rejected, and accounted as profane. Cyprian. Epiſt. 70, 71, 72. &c. Or would he, that men should not hauehave true baptiſme? or that they should ſtill reteyne the fretting of a gangrene? &c. Or what vvil he ſay, if he doe not diſtinguish betvveen their doctrine of errour, and their other actions, eſtate & miniſterie, othervviſe conſidered? Likevviſe when the apoſtate Ievves are by the Prophets compared to braſſe, yron, lead, tinne, droſſe, reffuſe, and ofſcouring, &c. Jer. 6, 28, 29, 30. Lament. 3, 45. Eze. 22, 18, 19, 20. vvhichwhich cannot doe the actions of the body of a man: will he therfore ſay, that the circumciſion had in Iudah, was not true circumciſion, & that no actions of the Prieſts or adminiſtration of that church, could poſſibly be the actions of the body, of the Church, neither of Chriſt: hovv ever they were conſidered, and difference put betvveen the church it ſelf and Gods ordinances on the one hand, and their own corruptions and apoſtaſie on the other?

32. But why ſpeaks he not alſo of the ſimilitude of the plague or peſtilence, uſed likevviſe by M. Iunius? doth he perceiue,Ibid. that the papacie may well be accounted the plague of that church, & yet be diſtiinguished from the church it ſelf: euen as iniquitie everie vvhere is juſtly eſteemed the plague of churches, cities, kingdomes, and common weales, and yet is diſtinguished from them notvvithſtanding?

33. And why paſſeth he over M. Iunius his other ſimilitudes of the Dropſie, and Conſumption? Hath he no shift or colour there againſt?Ibid. Doth he ſee it to be undeniable, that theſe are accidents of the body, and not the body it ſelf: and that therefore difference is to be put betvveene theſe diſeaſes themſelues, and betvveen the bodies affected therevvith? Why then doeth he not likevviſe diſcerne it in the other? And why doth he not yeeld thereunto? Is it becauſe he cloſeth up his eyes, leaſt he should ſee, and hardeneth his heart, leaſt he should underſtand? So in deed hauehave many done, both teachers and people, euen in Iſraell heretofore, and that alſo from time to time: Whom the Lord therefore punished accordingly, blynding their eyes, & making their heart fat, & eares heavy: leaſt they should ſee vvith their eyes, and heare vvith their eares, and underſtand with their hearts, and convert and be healed. Eſa. 6, 9, 10. with Matth. 13, 13, 14, 15. and Act, 28, 25, 26, 27.

34. Where he againe denyeth any calling to be in the church of Rome,Animadv. p. 100. I hauehave diſproved it here before, pag. 188. And vvhere he asketh how God doth call in that church of Rome: Let him aske it of ſuch of his follovvers, as hauehave heretofore ben of the Prieſts and members of that church, how they vvere called; and that ſo as they left that eſtate: whether it was by p. 194immediate revelation from heauen, or by ſome meanes here on earth; & whether it was by the word of God, or without it? Let him tel us, whence the Proteſtants & Churches reformed of late, did come: vvhether from the church of Rome, or no: and hovv they were firſt called there? Yea let him tell us, vvhere and how himſelf and his other follovvers (younger then the former) had their calling? If he ſay, in the Church of England, or by any of the Miniſters or Members there: let him remember how he eſteemeth of that church, and of the hierarchie there reteyned: yea that he accounteth that Church alſo, not to be the church of God, but to be Babylon, vvithout the covenant of God, not having true baptiſme, nor any part of Chriſts miniſterie at all, yea nor Chriſt himſelf for their Mediatour, &c. But to let theſe alone: let him tell us, vvhether he think that God called any by thoſe Prophets and Angels, that are ſpoken off, Rev. 11, 3. &c. and 14, 6, 8, 9. or by the Prophets and Saints, ſpoken off, Rev. 18, 24. alſo vvho be the people of God, and by vvhom they are called out of Babylon, that are ſpoken off, Rev. 18, 4. and vvhether none of them were of the church of Rome, & in the Miniſterie, yea & in the hierarchie thereof, vvhen God did call them,Here note the caſe alſo of Gregorie the great bishop of the church of Rome it ſelf, whom M. Brightman thinks to be the Angell ſpoken off, Rev. 8, 13.Rev 8:13 or others by them, &c. Finally, let him tell us what he thinketh (in this behalf) of Robert Groſted, Bishop of Lincolne, about the yere 1293. of Archbishop Cranmer, & Bishop Ridley, of late yeres: of John Wickleſſe, who lived and dyed Parſon of Lutterworth in Leyceſter shier, about the yere 1400. and many others in England and Scotland. Alſo of Iohn Huſse, and Ierome of Prage, in Bohemia; Of Franciſcus Petrarcha, Ioannes de rupe ſciſſa; Conradus Hager, Martin Luther, and others in Germanie: Of Waldus, Gulielmus de ſancto amore, Farell, and others in France: Of Arnoldus de villa nova, Diazius, and others in Spain: Of Ierome Savanarola, a Monk; & Silveſter, a Frier, vvith others in Italie. For all which and exceeding many moe, ſee their hiſtories in the Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs.

Ibid.35. Note alſo, that theſe men doe not acknowldge the church of Rome, (in any of the cōſiderations or reſpects shevved by M. Iunius) to be the body of Chriſt, Yet for the terms them ſelues, euen particular perſons, and theſe other alſo may thus be called, being rightly underſtood.the houſe and Temple of God: no, though the Apoſtle himſelf ſay, as M. Iunius alledgeth, that the man of ſinne ſitteth in the Temple of God: 2 Theſ. 2, 4 and yet they acknovvledge that Chriſtian people, men or women, being joyned in covenant, and having no miniſters or Officers, (one or other, better or vvorſe) are called in the Scriptures, the body of Chriſt, the houſe, city, and kingdome of God, that may alſo receiue in, and caſt out of the church: and (as ſome ſay) may miniſter both Sacraments and Cenſures, &c. though yet they shew not in the Scriptures, vvhere a people vvithout Officers are ſo termed, and did ſo vvalk. The differences that are among themſelues and others hereabout, I ſtand not upon: vvhiles one ſaith & admitteth one thing, and others another. That vvhichwhich moſt now I look unto, is the grounds held generally among thē, & the aſſertions of ſome more particularly; together alſo with this mans pleading in ſome things thereabout. Anim. p. 24, 25, 26. &c. & 45, 46, 47, &c. & that yet they yeeld not this to churches in apoſtaſie, having officers.

36. Where M. Iunius purpoſely ſetteth himſelf, to ſatiſfy the demaund p. 195of ſuch as‘‘See before p. 184, 185. aske, [hovv it can be the church vvherein the papacie is:] and sheweth [a double conſideration of all particular churches, as they are among men: the one on Gods behalf, the other on ours: &c.] M. Ainſ. (beſides that””Animad, p. 100, 101 he paſſeth by exceeding many things of ſpeciall moment) coming to ſpeak of the one of the ſaid conſiderations, he doth not ſo much as mention the other: Neyther this onelyonly, but omitting both it, & the further declaratiō of them both; layes hold on a ſentence that comes a good while after (vvithout due regard of the other betvveen) and then reaſoneth thereabout, as he thinketh to be beſt. Where, ſtill the Reader may obſerue, that al his exceptions ariſe partly on this that he regardeth not the ſeverall reſpects or conſiderations noted by M. Iunius, partly becauſe he confoundeth as all one the Man of ſinne, and the Temple of God, alſo the Beaſt, and the Church, &c. Now touching the miniſterie here ſpoken off, what difference M. Iunius obſerved betvveen the Miniſterie ſimply conſidered, and the hierarchie growen in that Church upon it, himſelf could beſt hauehave shewed. This particular here is evident, that in one reſpect he acknovvledgeth the hierarchy to be [an order or eſtate of apoſtaſy in the church, an accident or evil grovven up therein, as the dropſie, conſumption, or gangren in the body:] in another reſpect he eſteemeth the miniſterie of Gods holy things to be there: (though exceedingly corrupted.) As for example, be it that he meant of the miniſterie of Baptiſme, &c. Which let this oppoſite now ponder again, and ſee, whether he muſt not come either thus to conſider with diſtinction thereabout, or become an Anabaptiſt.

37. Where he denyeth againe Gods calling to be in that church:Animad. p. 101. I hauehave handled it here before, p. 188. & 193. &c. Yet ſeeing he urgeth it ſo often, let us bring his reaſons here to the tryall. He alledgeth, that Paul ſaith, God will ſend them that perish, ſtrong deluſion, that they shal beleeue lyes, 2 Theſ. 2, 10, 11. Therefore (ſaith M. Ainſ.) God calleth not the church of Rome, by his ſpirit & word: nor any in that church, or by any of them in that eſtate. (For ſo alſo he muſt conclude, for the point in hand.) Novv vvhat a conſequent is this? Might he not alſo thus conclude againſt Iudah in apoſtaſie: that God did not call that church, nor any in it, or by any of them in that eſtate: alledgeing vvithall, Ier. 5, 30, 31. and 6, 28, 29, 30. Ezech. 13, and 14 chap.

38. Againe he alledgeth that the Apoſtle ſaith, Strong is the Lord God which will condemne Babylon, Rev. 18, 8. and with the ſpirit of his mouth will conſume that lawleſse one, 2 Theſ. 2, 8. Therefore (ſaith M. Ain.) God calleth not the church of Rome with his spirit: nor any in it, or by any of them in that eſtate: which he affirmed here alſo before. Animad. p. 98, 99, 100. As if there vvere no difference to be put betvveen the Temple of God, and that lawleſſe one, 2 Theſ. 2, 4.8. nor betvveen the people of God, and Babylon, Rev. 18, 4, 8. Or as if Gods work were all one, concerning the one, and the other.

39. And (ſaith he) whereas they cal the Scripture the publick record of that holy mariage between God and her: the Scripture ſhewes no ſuch mariage, Ibid.but doth defy her as an harlot: Rev. 17, 1. Where is the record (ſaith he againe) that Chriſt was ever maried to the Beaſt that came up from the bottomles pit? Rev. 17, 8. I anſwer, The p. 196Scripture sheweth record of the mariage of that church, the church of Rome. Rom. 1, 7, 8. & 7, 4. & 16, 19. And himſelf did acknowledge it before, more then once (pag. 84, and 98.) hovv ever he doe now call for declaration of it. Neyther is it any thing that he ſaith, God doth defy her as an harlot, Rev. 17, 1. For (beſides that he putteth no difference between Babylon, and the church or Temple of God) what will he ſay to Iſrael, yea to Iudah alſo and Ieruſalem, in this behalf? Thinks he not, that God alſo defyed thē as harlots, Jer. 3, 8, 11. with Eſa. 1, 21. and 57, &c. Hoſ. 2, 2 — 5. and Ezec. 16, 2, 3, 4 — 35, &c. and 23, 2 — 45. will he therefore ſay, that the Scripture shewes no record of their mariage with God? What then ſaith he to Exod. 19, 4, 5, 6. and Ezech. 16, 8. (vvhichwhich places himſelf here before alledged, for a covenant with al the earth, p. 97.) what alſo to Eſa. 50, 1. Ier. 3, 1. Ezech. 23, 4. But it exceedeth all, that he blusheth not to aske, Where is the record that Chriſt was ever maried to the beaſt that came up from the bottomles pit? Rev. 17, 8. To the Beaſt! That Chriſt vvas ever maried to the Beaſt! Did M. Iunius ever ſay ſo? Or thinks he, that ever it entred into his thought? Did not M. Iunius ſpeak expreſſely of the Church? Will this man never learne to put difference between the Beaſt and the Church? betvveen the Man of ſinne and the Temple of God? Is it not unſufferable, that he should thus abuſe not onelyonly M. Iunius and our ſelues and his Readers all, but euen the Scripture it ſelf alſo? Said not himſelf euen novv, that it is moſt ſtrange that men should publish their ovvn eſteemings, without any word of God to warrant them? Animad. p. 101. And did he not very sharply rebuke M. Sm. heretofore, and count it blnydnes, impiety, abuſe of the word of God, blaspemy, deceit, and dotage, when he applied the Court without the Temple, and the things ſpoken thereabout, to the aſſemblies of Antichriſt, to Antichriſts Church, &c. M. Ainſw. defence of Scrip. p. 12, 13, 14, 15. Will he now thus think of his owne dealing, or cenſure himſelf in like ſort, vvho applieth to the Beaſt himſelf, the things that are ſpoken of the Church: yea that confounds the Beaſt, and the church, as all one? Which vvhat is it els, but to confound Antichriſt the Man of ſinne, and the Temple of God, as all one: and this alſo then, vvhenas they are purpoſely and expreſſely diſtinguished, the one from the other?

Animadv. p. 101. 10240. Moſt ſtrange alſo it is, that he ſaith Gods calling is no more in the church of Rome, then among the heathens. Which I hauehave convinced before, pag. 188, & 193. &c. And can he ever vvarrant this by the word of God? As for D. Fulks teſtimonie, I obſerue it, & agree to many things in it: although he might hauehave ben better adviſed, then vvithout any limitation to ſay they taught the people nothing els, but to pronounce certaine Latin words, &c. And where he ſaith, there were many thouſand pariſhes in England, that in 60 yeeres never heard ſermon in their life: this shevveth the corruption of that age and eſtate: but will it therefore follow, that neyther in thoſe parishes, nor in any other, either of England, or othervvhere, agreeing vvith the church of Rome in their profeſſion & conſtitution, God called any to know him in Ieſus Chriſt? What vvill he ſay, if of later dayes, ſynce the Pope vvas abandoned out of England, there be ſome parishes that hauehave not had any p. 197ſermon among them, in 20 or 30 yeres (or let us ſuppoſe, it vvere 50 or 60 yeres:) vvill he therefore conclude, that there is no more calling neyther in thoſe parishes, nor othervvhere in the church of England, then among the heathens? D. Fulk, if he lived, would diſclayme ſuch collections? M. Broughton ſaith, Millions of millions of Romes clients are ſaved. Brough. on Rev. 13, 18. pag. 203. And vvhat M. Iunius his judgment is, vve ſee here. And many moe might be alledged. But to let them alone: let this man conſider between God and his own ſoule, where himſelf and his follovvers (of one ſort and another) had their calling, if his aſſertions here, or his other opinions (not unknowen) touching the churches aforeſaid, be true.

41. Where M. Iunius vvould make the matter plain by a ſimilitude frō Jer. 3. of a woman committing adulterie, whom her huſband is willing to pardon, Animadv. p. 102.and ſtil to reteyn for his wife, of his owne goodnes and mercy towards her, though not according to her deſert, who hath broken the band of wedlock on her part, &c. he neyther mentioneth nor anſvvereth (as he should) the ſeverall reſpects purpoſely noted by M. Iunius. And touching pardon, excluding it wholly, that vvhichwhich the Apoſtle ſpeaketh expreſſely and particularly of the Man of ſin, and of them that periſh, becauſe they receiue not the louelove of the truth, &c. 2 Theſ. 2, 9 — 12. that he applieth (for excluſion from pardon, and certain condemnation) to the vvhole church of Rome, and ſo to all the members thereof (vvhether particularly, or more generally conſidered) & that for al ages, that eyther hauehave ben, are or shall be, ever ſince the man of ſinne and that lavvleſſe one, was ſeated there.

42. He denyeth that this harlot (the adulterate church of Rome) was ever Chriſts spouſe, otherwiſe then as all the world was by our firſt parents Adam & Noe. Ibid.If this be ſo, how then hath she broken the covenant of wedlock betvveen Chriſt and her, if she were never in it? Hovv can she be called a vvhore, in reſpect of Chriſt, any more then the heathens that never knew God in Chriſt? How can she be ſaid to be in apoſtaſie & defection from Chriſt, if she never vvere in the faith and way of Chriſt? How ſaith himſelf othervvhere, that the Weſt churches (of which he knoweth the church of Rome to be one) were for their apoſtaſie delivered by God into the hands of that falſe horned beaſt, Antichriſt: euen as Iſraell and Judah of old, for their like ſinnes, were delivered into the hands of the Aſsyrians and Babylonians. Animadv. p. 84. Or vvill he ſay, that Iſraell and Iudah (with whom himſelf compareth theſe Churches) never were the spouſe of Chriſt, otherwiſe then al the vvorld was, by our firſt parents Adam and Noah? No marvell, if he think there is no calling in that church, any more then among the heathens: if this vvere ſo as he ſaith. And no marvell, if he ſay, the baptiſme had in that church, is not true baptiſme, but an idol, & nothing in the world, a lying ſigne, & execrable ſacrament, &c. Hearken again ye Anabaptiſts: what notorious reaſons M. Ainſ. hath for you: and tell me, if ever any among your ſelues came to this conceit, to think that the church of Rome now adulterate, this harlot never was the spouſe of Chriſt otherwiſe then as all the world was, by our firſt parents Adam and Noah. And hang downe your heads (if M. Ainſ. ſay right) all ye proteſtants and p. 198reformed churches; yea and reverſe your writings, all‘‘M. Calvin Luther, Broughtō, Whitaker, Raynolds, Iunius, Polanus, Piſcator, &c. ye the godly & learned writers of this later age, who in all your pleading and leaving of the church of Rome, hauehave ſtill inſiſted upon this, as a mayne ground, that she is an adultereſſe, at this day, committing vvhoredome againſt Ieſus Chriſt, both by idolatrie, and by other apoſtaſie and iniquitie; for which you hauehave left her, and ſtill doe thus plead againſt her. For eyther your plea is not good and ſound, or M. Ainſ. anſvver is frivolous, and his aſſertions here notably erroneous.

Animad. p 102.43. He ſaith moreover: This is not the church of Rome to whom Paul wrote, Rom. 1. but another of vvhom he prophecied, 2 Theſ. 2. She ſucceedeth in the ſame place, as the night ſucceedeth the day. The church in Pauls time came from heauen, Rev. 21, 2. and is long ſince gone to God: this came up from the bottomles pit, Rev. 17, 8. and thither ſhe muſt returne. She is of another religion, the daughter of a ſtrange God. Thus M. Ainſvv. anſwereth M. Iunius in ſuch ſort, as if one (upon occaſion of like queſtion in Iſraell, in the time of Ieroboams or Manaſſes apoſtaſie) should hauehave ſaid, This is not the church of Iſrael, to whom Moſes wrote, and gaue Gods lavves, Deut. 31, 24, &c. but another of whom he prophecied, Deut 32, 5, 6, 15. &c. But the Scripture teacheth us better to underſtand things then thus, as he doth. The Pſalme ſpeaking of Iſraell in former and later times, ſaith, The Lord turned the ſea into dry land: they vvent through the flood on foot: there did we rejoice in him. Pſal. 66, 6. And (vvhichwhich commeth nearer the cauſe in hand) Hoſeah ſpeaking to Iſraell in apoſtaſie, in the time of Ieroboam the ſecond, ſaith: God found Iacob in Bethel, and there he ſpake vvith us. Hoſ. 12, 4. Were it not vayne novv for one to except and ſay, Iacob vvas long ſince gone to God: this people of Iſraell was novv of another religion, the daughter of a ſtrange God, &c. And as for the church of Rome it ſelf, vvhere M. Ainſ. ſaith: It vvas another of vvhichwhich Paul prophecied, 2 Theſ. 2. then that to vvhichwhich he vvrote, Rom. 1. he should remember vvithall, that in the ſame place Paul ſaith, the myſterie of iniquity did then already vvork, &c. 2 Theſ. 2, 7. Now I ask, where that myſterie now vvrought in Pauls time, and vvhere the Man of ſinne (there ſpoken off) came to be exalted and ſeated: whether at Rome or not? If he ſay at Rome, let him conſider with himſelf, vvhat vvill follovv thereupon. If he ſay, it was not there, let him then shevv us ſome other place in Pauls time, where that myſterie of iniquitie did then work, and came aftervvard to be ſeated, & that alſo in the Temple of God: noting vvithall, vvhat now letted for a time till it vvas taken out of the way: whereof the Apoſtle likevviſe ſpeaketh in the ſame place, 2 Theſ. 2, 4, 6, 7. I could alſo tell him, that the ſpeach & queſtion now is not eyther of particular perſons in this or that age, or of ſeverall churches (as he would by his anſwers dravv it unto) but of one & the ſame church, diverſly conſidered, according to the divers reſpects that are to be obſerved thereabout from time to time. And hereunto he muſt keep, if he wil anſwer M. Iunius. Otherwiſe if he will needs be wandring, let him wander ſtill on, till he come to anſvver M. Iunius othervvhere.

Ibid.44. And note vvithall, how he ſaith here, that the church of Rome to p. 199whom Paul vvrote, Rom. 1. is long ſince gone to God. Yet othervvhere he ſaith, The Church of Rome, as Paul ‘‘Rom. 11, 20, 21, 22.Rom 11:20Rom 11:21Rom 11:22forewarned, was for unbelief cut off. Animad. p. 84. Novv whom and vvhere did Paul thus forevvarne? was it not the church of Rome, to whom he wrote? and was it not in that Epiſtle which he wrote unto them: vvhichwhich himſelf here citeth for confirmation thereof? And wil he then make it all one, to goe to God, and to be cut off for unbelief? Or will he novv for his ovvne plea, admit of divers conſiderations to be had of one and the ſame church, in divers reſpects? If not, hovv vvill he reconcile theſe things, and clear himſelf of contradiction?

45. His perverting of the Scripture, and applying to the church,Animad. p. 102. that vvhichwhich is expreſſely ſpoken of the Beaſt, Rev. 17, 8. into vvhichwhich here again he runneth, I hauehave shevved before. As alſo, hovv‘‘See before pag. 113, &c. the Ievves being enemies in themſelues, yet are beloved for the Fathers ſakes, Rom. 11, 28. obſerving thereby a divers conſideration to be had of perſons & things, according to divers reſpects: as M. Iunius alſo doth in this place, where he alledgeth it. To which if M. Ainſvv. vvill not keep, let him follovv on his owne wandring courſe.

46. Where he ſaith, If the Jewes are beloved for their good fathers ſakes: Animad. p. 102.then Rome (vvhy ſaith he not, the church of Rome) may well be hated for her evill fathers ſakes. For who were her Fathers, but the Gentiles, Sodomites, and Egyptians, Rev. 11, 2, 8, 18. not the Saints in Rome: for ſhe is not of their faith and ſanctity: If he meane this of the city of Rome, he ſpeaks not to the point in hand. If he meane it of the church of Rome, what will he anſwer if vve alledge thoſe ſayings of the Prophets, who ſpeaking of the Iewes, euen of Ieruſalem & Iſraell, ſay: Thus ſaith the Lord God unto Ieruſalem, Thy birth and thy nativitie is of the land of Canaan, thy Father vvas an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. Ezec. 16, 3. And again: Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Iſraell, ſaith the Lord? Amos 9, 7. Will he ſay, that Ieruſalem and Iſraell therefore vvere not ever the spouſe of Chriſt, any more then the Hittites, Amorites, and Ethiopians? Or vvill he admit of no other conſideration novv of Iſraell, in any reſpect, but onelyonly aske, as here he doth, Who vvere their Fathers, but the Hittites, Amorites, and Ethiopians, Ezec. 16, 3. and Amos 9, 7. not the Patriarks and Saints in Iſrael; for theſe vvere not of their faith and ſanctity? Or vvill he yet learne to leaue off his cavilling, and by theſe occaſions thus offered by himſelf, to conſider and ſpeak of perſons and things diverſly, in divers reſpects? Or vvhat will he anſvver hereunto? What ever it be, let him take it as an anſwer to himſelf: and in deed againſt himſelf, and for us.

47. But he ſaith, there is not ſo much as likelihood, Ibid. p. 102 103.that this church is the naturall poſteritie of the Saints in Rome: becauſe that beſides the blooody perſecutions in thoſe times, there hauehave ben many changes of the Romane ſtate, and great commotions & troubles, by the Gothes, and Vandals, in the yere of Chriſt, 414, 454, 546. and aftervvard again by the Saracens, &c. And vvhat then? The ſtrangers, that came to Iſrael (whether in times of ſynceritie or of apoſtaſie) were of the church of Iſraell as vvell as the Ievves, and ſo to be eſteemed, though they were not p. 200of the ſame naturall poſteritie with them. 2 Chron. 15, 9. and 30, 25. vvith v. 5, 6, 7, &c. and vvith Lev. 16, 29. and Numb. 9, 14. Beſides, doeth he think that the bloody perſecutions in thoſe times, cut of the whole church of Rome? Himſelf vvill not ſay it. Al hiſtories vvitneſſe othervviſe. See but the Acts and Monuments in the ten firſt and great perſecutions, with the hiſtories there follovving. And where he ſpeaketh of the many changes of the Romane ſtate, and great commotions, and troubles by the Gothes and Vandals, &c. theſe ſpecially concern the Romane ſtate (as himſelf here ſpeaketh) touching the city & Empire of Rome, vvith the territories & juriſdiction thereof: whereas our queſtion is onelyonly of the church of Rome.

But be it applied to the church, which alſo went through all that great and generall calamitie: yet let us remember, how Ieruſalem & Iudah of old vvere taken by Nebuchadnezar, the city and temple burnt, the land left deſolate, the people of higher and lovver eſtate, ſome ſlaine by the ſvvord, ſome perishing vvith famine and peſtilence, others caried away captiue into Babylon, and ſo remayning in captivitie, ſeuenty yeres: yet God in the midſt of his vvrath remembring mercy, ſtill preſerved a remnant: vvhom afterward he called out of Babylon (Ier. 51, 45 vvith Rev. 18, 4.) And in all the changes and calamities of that people, yet is their eſtate ſtil to be looked upon, as being the ſame people, though living in ſeverall ages, & differing greatly one frō another, both in their religion, & other condition, diverſly conſidered. Neyther is it to be neglected, that in all theſe chaunges and troubles ſtil they continued circumciſion among thē, and vvere ſtill continued under the covenant of God, though themſelues brake it many vvaies, and vvalked unvvorthy of it. Pſal. 89, 30— 34. Ezec. 16 chap. Which likewiſe is to be obſerved concerning the Church of Rome, and other churches of Chriſtians in apoſtaſie, in the midſt of all the changes and calamities, vvhereunto they hauehave ben ſubject diverſly. Neyther can this man himſelf shevv, that ever the church of Rome ceaſed to be, ſynce it vvas firſt planted, but that it hath continued ſtill (eyther in ſyncerity, or apoſtaſie) euen to this day: Nor can he shevv, that the Lord hath yet put them out of his covenant, and giuen them a bil of divorce; or that they hauehave left off to baptize in his name, &c.

And yet further (if vve mark it vvel) M. Ain. his anſvver about this matter, is much like as the Papiſts giuegive themſelues. When the Papiſts are urged vvith this, that Rome is the ſeat of Antichriſt the Beaſt, ſeing it is the city that is built on ſeuen hilles, whereof Iohn ſpeaketh, Rev. 17, 9. they anſvver, that in deed††Rhem. Annot. on Rev. 17, 9.Rev 17:9 Rome of old ſtood on ſeuen hilles: but**D. Saunders, &c. the city is now gone from the hilles, and ſtandeth in the plain of Campus Martius, & the Pope ſitteth on the other ſide of the river, upon the hill Vaticane, &c. As if by reaſon of theſe chaunges, Rome were not Rome ſtill, nor theſe Popes the ſucceſſours of the other Popes that vvere before, &c. In like ſort, when M. Ainſ. is urged with this, that the church of Rome is become an harlot, &c. he anſwereth, that””Animad. p. 102, 103 th… harlot is not the church of Rome that was of old: it hath had many chaunges and … rations ſince, both in religion and the Romane ſtate, &c. As if therefore the church p. 201and city of Rome, vvere not the church, and City of Rome ſtill: though they be altered many vvaies, and in ſundry reſpects.

Many other things hereabout (if it vvere needfull) might alſo be obſerved: on vvhichwhich I purpoſe not to inſiſt. As, that by the invaſion and calamities vvhichwhich came upon Rome, & the vveſterne Empire, by the Goths and Vandals &c. may be underſtood the wounding of the Beaſts head, ſpoken off Rev. 13, 3. Now difference is to be put between the Church, and the Beaſt, as is aforeſaid. Beſides, euen the Beaſts head thus wounded, vvas alſo healed againe. Rev. 13, 3. And an head, now vvounded, novv healed, is ſtill the ſame head, though in ſeveral eſtate and condition. Moreover, his ovvne narration here (hovv ever it be underſtood and applied, whether to the church, or Romane ſtate of the empire &c:) is againſt himſelf. For if Alaricus with his Gothes did utterly vvaſt & deſtroy it: vvhat remayned for Genſcricus vvith his Vandals afterward to doe thereabout? Or if theſe did vvholly ſpoile and conſume it, what did Odoacer vvith another company there aftervvard? Or if theſe did effect an utter ruine, vvhat then did Theodoricus and the Oſtrogothes after that? And ſo may be obſerved of the reſt here ſpoken off, of Belliſarius vvith his army; of Totilas king of the Gothes; of the Saracens, &c. If he ſay, he ſpeaketh not of an utter deſtruction, it is the more againſt himſelf. Or if he meane it of an utter deſtruction, his ovvne narration croſſeth it, beſides the teſtimonie of all hiſtories. Yea thoſe very clauſes, where he ſaith, that Rome for a time remayned vvithout any inhabitant, man or vvoman, (and that, by the space of fourty dayes, though he mention not this particular) shevv that this vvas not an utter ſpoyling of them for altogether, but onelyonly for a time: and ſo is ſtill againſt himſelf.

Furthermore many of thoſe people, that made theſe invaſions, became Chriſtians themſelues, and ſo the church (in this behalf) vvas increaſed. Not to ſpeak how the very Catalogue of the Biſhops of the church of Rome, giveth evidence againſt him. Or vvill he ſay, that though there vvere Bishops of that Church, (vvhether better or vvorſe) yet there vvas not a church vvhereof they vvere Bishops? And mark, that in the particulars which here he ſpeaketh of, the firſt time that he noteth, is the yere of Chriſt 414. &c. Novv let him ſpeak therefore, vvhether till this time (and never after) there vvas at Rome, a church of God, under the covenant of God, having true baptiſme, or no.. If he ſay, there vvas not: to what end then is this particular narration of his, noting ſuch a yere, and ſuch a yere, &c. Is it not all in vaine? If he ſay, there vvas: then it vvas ſome hundreds of yeres after Pauls time, that yet ſtill it remayned the church of God; yea and long after that many great corruptions, and the hierarchie of Antichriſt alſo, had ſeazed upon it. How alſo will he shevve that now at this time (let him take any of the yeres that he nameth) it ceaſed to be the church of God, and to hauehave Gods baptiſme and covenant any longer?

Finally (to bring the truth more clearely to light, and the matter to a plaine iſſue) let him conſider with himſelf, and ſpeak directly & adviſedly, vvhether the church of Rome, that was eſpouſed to Chriſt, is become an harlot, or not? p. 202If he ſay, it is: himſelf vvill ſoone perceiue all his diſpute here to be vaine and erroneous. If he ſay, it is not: how then ſaith he othervvhere, that ſhe is fallen into Apoſtaſie like Iſraels? Animadv. p. 84. For did not Iſrael, being eſpouſed to the Lord, become an harlot? And was it not the ſame Iſrael, for the body of the church, in the account of the Lord and his Prophets (though not in the ſame particular perſons, at al times) that vvas both the one and the other: whether we look on the ten tribes, or on Iudah, or both? Eſa. 1, 21. Ier. 3 ch. Ezech. 16. and 23 chap. Hoſ. 2, 1 — 7. and 3, 1. and 12 chap. and 13, 4, 5. and 14, 1. Which is likewiſe to be obſerved, touching the church of Rome, and all other churches, in like eſtate, from time to time. Othervviſe the Papiſts one way, and the Anabaptiſts another way, wilbe confirmed in their errors, to the hardening of themſelues, & ſeducing of others more and more. And ſo let M. Ain. obſerue the fruit of his oppoſition of the truth, and rejoyce therein, but not vvith God.

48. His eſteeming of the ſtate of the church of Rome in apoſtaſie, to be but as the eſtate of the Iſhmaelites, and Edomites, alſo as Adoniſedek vvith his Amorites and Jebuſites in Ieruſalē, &c. is diſproved & cōtradicted by himſelf, when he maketh them like Iſrael and Iudah, in their apoſtaſie. Animad. p. 84. Neyther doth M. Iunius giuegive this reaſon vvhy he accounts thē the church of God, becauſe they are the naturall poſterity of the ſaints (though this is not to be neglected, being duly conſidered) neither becauſe they dvvel in Rome, where the godly lived heretofore. Theſe are things put in by M. Ainſ. himſelf: for what cauſe, himſelf knovveth beſt. M. Iunius knew, that there dwell Iewes at Rome, vvho are not of the church, and that the naturall poſterity of the Saints, may become Ievves, Turks, Pagans, and (as here he ſaid expreſſely)††See here before pag. 185. the church may at length ceaſe to be a church, when God ceaſeth to call it back, and takes away the evidence of their holy mariage, that is, the holy Scripture, out of the hand of the adultereſse, &c.

49. Where M. Ainſw. inferreth, that thus our reaſons from Iſraell, are alſo impertinent to the preſent eſtate of the church of Rome: Animadv. p. 103.he should remember, hovv himſelf ſaid before, that the typicall eſtate of Iſraell, is our **1 Cor. 10 6, 11.1 Cor 10:61 Cor 10:11enſamples: Animad. p. 87. & more particularly, the Apoſtaſie of the church of Rome, is like Iſraels. Animad. pag. 84: But contradictions are not uncouth with him, ſynce he beganne to turne himſelf into all colours, for the mainteyning (vvhat he can) of his errors and ſinfull courſes.

50. Aboue all, obſerue and remember, that now he ſaith, our reaſons from Iſraell, Animad. p. 103.might vvell ſerue for the times wherein Iohn lived, when the true churches were many of them apoſtate: Rev. 2, and 3 chap. Yet here before he ſaid, that Iſraell in their apoſtaſie were not the Lords people, or wife, nor under his covenant, &c. Animad. pag. 82. & that their ſacraments were falſe, and lying ſignes, &c. How then should our reaſons from Iſrael, ſerue for thoſe churches, which here himſelf calleth true churches: unles he wil ſay that true churches, & (in particular) thoſe churches in Iohns time, ſpoken of Rev. 2 & 3 ch. were not the Lords people, or wife, nor under his covenant: & that their ſacramēts were falſe, & lying ſignes, &c. If not, will he novv ſay, that the caſe of Iſraell in apoſtaſie, vvas like the p. 203eſtate of the churches aforeſaid, which here he ſaith were apoſtate: & that therefore they alſo were now the Lords people and wife, under his covenant, having true ſacraments, the ſignes and ſeales of Gods covenant, &c. Or ſeeing theſe churches vvhichwhich he ſaith vvere apoſtate, are yet by the Lord eſteemed golden Candleſticks, in the midſt whereof Chriſt novv vvalked, &c. Rev. 1, 12, 20. and 2, 1. will he ſo acknovvledge likevviſe concerning Iſraell, vvith whom novv he matcheth theſe Churches (that ſo he might the better, as he thinketh, exclude the church of Rome, from all compariſon therewith?) If not, hovv will he reconcile theſe things together.

51. Note alſo, how novv he acknowledgeth them to be true Churches, Ibid.which he ſaith were apoſtate: vvhereas ſtill throughout his diſcourſe and reaſoning, he denyeth apoſtate churches to be true churches. What now vvil his followers and favourites ſay hereunto, vvho can make no end of their odious exclamations, againſt others that ſpeak any ſuch thing: though it be vvith diſtinction, and upon juſt and needfull occaſion, for clearing the truth, and convincing of errour, &c.

52. What alſo will himſelf and his followers ſay to this,Ibid. that the churches which he ſaith vvere apoſtate, are by the Lord himſelf acknowledged for golden Candleſticks; and churches wherein Chriſt walketh; and their miniſters alſo to be ſtarres in the right hand of Chriſt, &c. Rev. 1, 11, 12, 16, 20. & 2, 1. &c. and 3, 1, &c. Will they now admit of a divers conſideration of the ſame churches, and of their miniſterie, and eſtate, in divers reſpects? If not, how vvill they reconcile their ovvne aſſertions and the Scriptures together, vvhichwhich are alledged by themſelues? Rev. 2, and 3 chapters.

53. Where M. Iunius commeth againe to a double conſideration of the church of Rome: one, as it hath all the divine things in the Scriptures, another as it hath them al corrupt, &c. M. Ainſ. (after his manner) paſſeth by ſundry things of ſpecial moment, vvhichwhich M. Iunius purpoſely noteth hereabout:Ibid. neither keepeth he to the points in hand, as he should: beſides that he ſpeaketh ſometimes of things granted by all; or taketh for granted things which he should proue, and which I hauehave before again & again diſproved: As namely, that ſtill he confoundeth as all one, the Church, and the Beaſt ariſen out of the bottomles pit: And, that he maketh the church of Rome to be the vvoman or city that (in Iohns time) reigned over the kings of the earth. Rev. 17, 1, 18. And where he ſaith, it is not properly the old church of Rome corrupted; but a nevv church ariſen out of the bottomles pit: vvhat meaneth he here by the vvord properly? Or doth he grant it improperly to be the old church of Rome corrupted? vvhy then ſaid he here before, that it vvas never Chriſts spouſe, othervviſe then as all the vvorld vvas, by our firſt parents Adam and Noah. Animad. pag. 102. And where againſt hath he diſputed all this vvhile? Not to ſpeak, how sharply he rebuked M. Sm. when he vvould diſtinguish betweene the worship of the Nevv Teſtament properly ſo called, and not properly. M. Ainſvv. Defence of Script. pag. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

54. But it is not the vvoman fled into the vvilderneſse: What then?Ibid. Difference is to be put between the inward parts of the Temple, and the outvvard; p. 204betvveen the parts of the Temple that vvere meaſured, & the parts that were left unmeaſured; betvveen the Temple of God, with the Altar, and worshippers therein, ſpoken off Rev. 11, 1. and between the court of the Temple giuen to the Gentiles, and the holy city trode dovvne by them tvvo and fourty moneths, as is ſaid Rev. 11, 2. If it be not one of theſe, shal it therefore be none of them? If it be not the inner part of the Temple, vvil it therefore follow that it is not the outvvard? Or is not the outward Court and city alſo the Lords, becauſe they are not the invvard parts of the Temple that are meaſured, but left out unmeaſured, and giuen to the Gentiles, and trode upon by them, the time appointed. This man himſelf doth here preſently after, acknovvledge, that the church of Rome, is the‘‘Animad. p. 104. court of Gods Temple invaded, and the holy city trode downe by the Gentiles, Rev. 11, 2. And othervvhere he teacheth, that the‡‡Defence of Script. p. 13, 14, 15. court of the Temple, & the holy city (ſpoken off, Revel. 11, 2.) did ſignify the Bhurch of God: and, that this alſo is the doctrine of all the Prophets: citing to that end, Pſal. 51, 18. and 87. and 122. Eſa. 60. Revel. 21. Where moreover he sheweth, that Ieruſalem is often called the holy city, Nehem. 11, 1. Eſa. 48, 2. and 52, 1. Mat. 4, 5. All which things lead us to look upon the Church of Rome, as being anſwerable to the Lords courts and city of Ieruſalem.

Beſides, vvhen vvas the time, that the woman fled into the wildernes? Was it in Conſtantines time (vvhen one vvould leaſt hauehave thought it, in ſuch a time of peace and outvvard flourishing of the Church) three hundred yeres after Chriſt: as‘‘M. Bright mā on Rev. 12, 6, 14, 15. & 11, 1, 2.1. &c. M. Forbes on Rev. 12 ſ. 10, &c.Rev 12:6Rev 12:14Rev 12:15Rev 11:1Rev 11:2Rev 12 ſome of good judgment doe write? If ſo it be underſtood, shall we then think there vvas no outward viſible church or Churches in the vvorld from that time, to this later age, for the ſpace of tvvelue or thirteen hundred yeres? Where then, and hovv were the Court of the Temple and holy city trode upon by the Gentiles, and that for the ſpace of two and forty moneths? Rev 11, 2. Where did Antichriſt now ſit in the Temple of God, all this vvhile? 2 Theſ. 2, 4. Or had not the Chriſtian apoſtate churches, baptiſme, and other ordinances of God continued among them (though with corruptions) al this time: as Iudah and Iſrael had circumciſion and other conſtitutions of God, in the time of their apoſtaſie?

If it be applyed to the times and invaſions of the Gothes and Vandals ſpoken of before: like conſequences vvill follovv, as upon the former: & ſomevvhat more, inaſmuch as theſe alſo waſted the churches of Africa: beſides all the ſpoile that they did in the weſt, as is aforeſaid. Or let this man himſelf name any time (vvhatſoever liketh him beſt) for the womans flight into the vildernes: and he shall ſtill find like conſequences, & other moe to follow thereupon. Finally let him conſider, where himſelf and his follovvers had their baptiſme? vvhether in any viſible Church of God, or not? And, vvhether the Lords ordinance of baptiſme hath not ben continued, and deduced from the Apoſtles, unto our dayes, through all the time and eſtate of the apoſtaſie aforeſaid?

Animadv. p. 104.55. Where he maketh the church of Rome anſvverable to the armie of Canaanites, Gentiles, Babylonians, Infidels, &c. to vvhom novv will he reſemble p. 205the wolf Antichriſt himſelf with his ſheeps skin and lambes hornes? keeping due proportion vvith the caſes ſpoken of in the Scriptures here cited by him ſelf? Mat. 7, 15. Rev. 13, 11. and 16, 16. Iudg. 5, 19. Rev. 11, 2. Pſal. 79, 1. &c. Ier. 51, 1, 2. &c. Lam. 1, 10. Or vvill he ſtill confound theſe, as all one: which he ſeeth M. Iunius doth purpoſely diſtinguish? Or will he needs contradict himſelf vvith one and the ſame breath, whiles here he maketh the church of Rome to be alſo the Court of Gods Temple, & holy city, invaded and troden dovvne by the Gentiles? Rev. 11, 2. Or finally vvill he not ceaſe to ſpeak M. Sm. language, vvhom, vvhen he applied this to the ſynagogue of Antichriſtians (as now himſelf doeth) he rebuked very sharply, as I hauehave shevved here before, pag. 133. and may be ſeene in his Defence of Script. pag. 12 — 15.

56. Why alſo ſaith he,Ibid. At firſt thoſe Gentiles invaded the courts of Gods temple, and trode downe the holy city, Rev. 11, 2. as if this had ben Gods court and city but at firſt, and that this invaſion and treading downe had ben ſoone done: when as in this very place, vvhichwhich himſelf citeth, it is ſaid, they were giuen to the Gentiles, and troden upon by them, for the ſpace of two and forty moneths, or (as is in the next verſe follovving) a thouſand two hundred & ſixty daies: whenas yet al this time they are ſtil the Lords court and city, though defiled and trode dovvne, as Ieruſalem and the Sanctuarie vvas, by the heathens of old. Pſa. 79, 1. Dan. 8, 9-13. and 11, 31. &c. And why moreover maketh he his inference thus, If that army of infidels …ere Gods true church, ſo is the ſynagogue of Antichriſtians: and not rather thus, If that city and ſanctuarie (though profaned and trode dovvne) was ſtill Gods true Temple and city, ſo alſo is the church of Rome: vvhichwhich is here compared thereunto?

57. When he ſaith, the Heathens in their altars, Ibid.temples ſacrifices &c. had the divine things of God among them aſwel, if not better, then hath the Man of ſinne & his vvorſhippers, in their ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and other manifold Idolatries: vvhy ſaith …e not, then hath the church of Rome in their Baptiſme, and other divine …hings of God had among them, though corrupted? Doth himſelf per…eiue, that thus his aſſertions would be plainely falſe, and not ſo deceiue …he ſimple, as now they do? Or ſeeth he not, that M. Iun. ſpeaketh expreſ…y of the church of Rome, and doth purpoſely diſtinguish betvveen it, & …he man of ſinne with his hierarchie? Why then keeps he not to the point in …and? Why confounds he things that differ? As if that circumciſion & …he other divine things of God, had in Iudah and Iſrael, though corruptly …ſed in the time of their apoſtaſie, were not to be diſtinguished frō their …olatries, vvhether in feaſts, ſacrifices, or other things which they had a…ong them, of their own forging and deviſing? 1 King. 12, 28 — 33. 2 King. …6, 10— 16. with 2 Chorn. 28, 2, 3, 4. and 33, 1 — 9.

58. Where‘‘See here before, p. 186. M. Iunius purpoſely anſwereth two doubts and difficulties, by …hich the minds of many are troubled: the firſt, vvhat vve are to judge of the members … the church of Rome; the latter vvhat the duety of them is, who are in that church, & …e the great corruptions thereof: M. Ainſ. paſſeth by the firſt, whereof ſpeciall p. 206regard should be had: and comming to the latter, he clippeth M. Iunius anſvvers (as he is vvoont) omitting divers things of vvaight: and having not vvhat to anſvver, ſets himſelf to cavil at thoſe words, where M. Iunius ſaith, [the duetie of thoſe that are in the popish church, and ſee the grievous corruptions of it, is ſuch as of thoſe children, vvhichwhich dwel with their adulterous mother, that is, to abhorre her ſinne, vvith ſpeach and ſigne to call her back from evill, to abſteyn themſelues there from, & in al things to cleaue to their father, &c.] Thus (ſaith he) it appeareth, that theſe our Oppoſites are returned to acknovvledge the vvhore of Rome, to be their mother, &c. But firſt, this is no anſwer to the point in hand. Hath M. Iunius here ſet downe that vvhichwhich is right and agreeable to the word of God, or not? If he hauehave, why yeelds he not unto it? If he hauehave not, vvhy doth he not confute it? Secondly, vvhy doth he not alſo inferre, ſaying, [Thus it appeareth, that theſe our oppoſites acknowledge the Lord God to be their Father, to vvhom in all things they are to cleaue, &c. Thirdly, may not godly Chriſtians (being in ſuch eſtate, and ſo demeaning themſelues, as M. Iunius ſpeaketh) acknowledge the adulterate church of Rome to be their mother, as the godly Iewes did acknowledge Ieruſalem, Iudah, and Iſraell, being harlots, to be their mother notwithſtanding? Eſa. 1, 21. with 50, 1. Jer. 15, 8. Ezech. 16, 3, 44, 45. and 23, 2, 3, 4, &c. Hoſ. 2, 1, 2. and 3, 1. &c. Laſtly, what church for their mother, had theſe men themſelues, vvherein they were borne and baptiſed, and with whom they lived, till they came to be thus perſvvaded as novv they are? Any, or none? Let them look about and tell us: and then ſee, what vvill follow.

Ibid.59. And vvhereas M. Ainſ. (to hauehave the more colour for his exception) takes hold of thoſe words, vvhere M. Iunius in other places before compared (he ſaith feigned) the eſtate of the church of Rome to be [as**Se before pag. 184. a body vvhichwhich lyeth ſvvollen vvith vvaters of the dropſie, or vvith poyſon, vvhichwhich had long agoe giuē up the ghoſt, if God by the medicine of his grace, &c. had not nourished and kept her warme:] Firſt, vvhy eſteemeth he theſe ſimilitudes to be but M. Iunius fictions? Are they not fit and pertinent, for the matter in hand? If not, vvhy hath he not diſproved them? Or are the ſimilitudes vvhichwhich M. Ainſw. uſeth himſelf, to be eſteemed but as fictions of his owne? When here before he compared the hierarchie of Antichriſt to the Egyptian boyles, and to the Image vvhichwhich Nebuchadnezar ſavv, would he hauehave it thought, that theſe vvere but his ovvne feignings. Animadv. p. 100. Or when‘‘D. Rayn. ſix Concluſions, in the fift of them: as they are printed in his Conference with Hart, pag. 650. D. Raynolds uſeth the ſame ſimilitudes, as M. Iunius doth here, vvill he ſay alſo, they are his fictions? But ſpecially, vvhy anſwers he not M. Iunius (if he be able) to the points in hand, neither here, nor in the other places aforeſaid? If they vvere but fictions onelyonly that M. Iun. feigneth, they might be the ſooner and ſoundlyer anſvvered. And beſides when M. Iunius ſaith, [she had long agoe giuen up the ghoſt, if God by the medicine of his grace and long ſuffering had not nourished her:] why leaues he out that vvord of Gods long ſuffering, and puts in for it, &c. was it ſo much or ſo long to write downe this clauſe, vvhen he wrote all the p. 207reſt? Or thinks he, that God hath uſed no long ſuffering tovvards that church, as he hath done towards other? Or vvould he, that the Reader should not obſerue it, becauſe it is againſt himſelf? But to proceed, let us heare, vvhat he inferreth upon the foreſaid ſpeaches of M. Iunius: Now (ſaith he) to leaue their mother thus on her ſick bed, as they hauehave done (‘‘My treat of the Miniſter. pag. 60— 62. diſclayming all Chriſtian duety unto her, vvhichwhich ‘‘My treat of the Miniſter. pag. 60— 62.is due to a true church in corruption) is but the part of unnaturall children. Whiles God doth nouriſh and keep her vvarme, vvill they quite abandon her? As if M. Iunius had not here purpoſely and expreſſely ſaid, [1. That**See here before, pag 186. the duty of ſuch as are in that church, and ſee the great corruptions of it, is as of children that dvvell vvith their adulterous mother. In vvhichwhich caſe, a wiſe ſonne vvill abhor and abſteyn from his mothers ſinne, and vvill vvith ſpeach and ſigne call her back from evill, and in all things cleaue unto his father: and while he can by reaſon of his mother, vvill cleaue unto her, next after his father: but when and vvhiles by reaſon of her, he cannot doe it vvith good conſcience, for the ſpirituall and bodily injurie of her, will then betake himſelf into the chamber or inner roome of his father, where alſo is the church, the mother of us all. Gal. 4, 26. Secondly, that this therefore is not a good conſequent, if one depart from this or that church, therefore he doth altogether depart from the church. Yea, that he doeth but trifle, that doth ſo from a particular, conclude univerſally, &c. Thirdly, that the duty aforeſaid, vvas religiouſly performed by our anceſtors, whō the popish tyrannie for ſome ages exerciſed, &c.] Which M. Iunius shevveth largely in ſundry particulars: as may be ſeene here before, pag. 186, 187. And vvhat now vvould theſe men hauehave more to be done? Would they, that ſuch as ſince hauehave ben borne and brought up in other churches, should returne to the church of Rome, & doe likewiſe? Or hauehave themſelues done the like to ſuch, as they hold to be true Churches in corruption? Or knovv they not, that vvhen Iudah and Iſraell became harlots, the Lord taught the godly, to plead vvith them, as vvith their mother, and yet to leaue and let them alone, and not to partake in their idolatries or other corruptions? Hoſ. 2, 1, 2. & 4, 1, 15, 17. Amos 3, 1, 2. vvith 4, 4, 5. and 5, 5. Mich. 6, 1, 2, 16. vvith Ezech. 23, 2, 3, 4 — 36. and Ier. 15, 19. & Eſa. 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18.

60.Animadv. p. 104. Where he ſpeaketh of the church of Rome being dead long agoe in her ſinnes Rev. 20, 5. vvith Epheſ. 2, 1.) he had alſo the like before, of apoſtate Iſraell being dead in their ſinnes, Hoſ. 3, 1. Animad. p. 70. Where let the Reader ſee, what I hauehave noted thereabout, here before, pag. 87, 88. &c. Beſides that if this death, be (as‘‘M Bright M. Forbes, &c. on Rev. 20, 5.Rev 20:5 ſome think) the apoſtaſie ſpoken off 2 Theſ. 2, 3. we muſt then remember vvithal, that this apoſtaſie is in the Temple of God 2 Theſ. 2, 4. like as there vvas apoſtaſie in Iudah and Iſraell heretofore: and that difference therefore is to be put between Gods temple, & the apoſtaſie it ſelf; as between Iudah and Iſraell, and their apoſtaſie; Ezech. 16, and 23. with 1 King. 15, 34. and 2 King. 21, 11. betvveen the Lords courts, & the Gentiles domineering therein; Rev. 11, 2. and betvveen Gods people, and the former and later Babylon, ſpoken off Jer. 51, 45. and Rev. 18, 4. And moreover p. 208alſo, that the dead (ſpoken off in the place here alledged by himſelf) liue againe and reigne with Chriſt after the finiſhing of a thouſand yeres, Rev. 20, 5. whereas he ſpeaketh of the church of Rome, as being gone long ſince, damned, and dead for ever. Animadv. p. 98, 102, 104. So as euen this Scripture, which himſelf citeth (if it be well obſerved) vvilbe found to be againſt himſelf: and that other place likevviſe which he citeth, touching another death (which may be underſtood of the plague) and the utter burning of Babylon with fire, when the ſmoke of her burning shall be ſeen to aſcend, as did the ſmoke of Sodome, like the ſmoke of a furnace. Rev. 18, 7, 8, 9, 18. with Gen. 19, 28. vvhichwhich the Scripture it ſelf referreth & applieth to the City, that great city, reſembled by Babylon, and Babylons deſtruction, that was of old: from vvhichwhich it shall never riſe: Rev. 18, 2, 19, 20, 21. with Jer. 50, and 51 chapt.

Which vengeance on that great city Babylon, the Lord God, that is ſtrong, will certainly take and accomplish. And then shall vve be ſo farre from mourning at her funeral, as we shal rejoice‘‘Rev. 18, 20.Rev 18:20 with the heuenly multitude, & ſing Hallelujah, when the Lord hath giuen””Gen. 19, 28.Gen 19:28 Sodoms judgment on her, and vve ſee her ſmoke riſe up for evermore. Rev. 19, 1, 2, 3. In the meane time, (touching the church, Temple, and people of God) as M. Iunius diſtinguishing betvveen the Temple of God, & the apoſtaſie of Antichriſt, helped forvvard the conſuming of the one, and prayed for grace & mercy to the other: ſo doe we alſo humbly beſeech the Lord, with mercy to behold and care for his church, and whatſoever belongeth thereunto; & dayly to call and deliver out of Babylon his people al, increaſing his mercies and graces upon them, to the edification of his church, the ſalvation of all his people, and the praiſe of the glorie of his grace for evermore. Amen.

And thus much concerning M. Iunius his treatiſe of the church of Rome. Where about I hauehave vvritten much more then at firſt I purpoſed: conſidering on one hand, how godly and learned he vvas, and being now deceaſed can not anſvver for himſelf; and on another hand hovv unworthily this Oppoſite hath dealt vvith him: vvho if he could hauehave anſvvered him, should hauehave done it ſoundly, remembring ſtil with whom he did encounter; if not, he should hauehave layd his hand on his mouth, & kept himſelf ſilent: and that vvould hauehave ben accounted unto him for wiſedome.

61. Together with M. Junius ‘‘Advert. pag. 113.was alledged alſo the teſtimonie of Amandus Polanus (another godly and learned man) vvho ſaid that Antichriſt muſt ſit in the Temple of God (2 Theſ. 2, 4.) not Jewiſh or at Ieruſalem, but Chriſtian, that is, in the Chriſtian church. Polan. on Ezech. 39. pag. 733. M. Ainſ. anſwereth He vvas miſtaken. Animadv. p. 104. 105The ſame, that Bellarmine and other Papiſts anſvver the Proteſtants hereabout. Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 3, cap. 13. Rhem. Annot. on 2 Theſ. 2. ſect. 11. Behold, vvhither M. Ainſ. now is caried.

Polanus moreover for further confirmation of his aſſertion, alledged Chryſoſtome, Theophylact, Ambroſe, Hilarie, Jerome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Auguſtine and Thomas Aquinas alſo: referring the Reader for their teſtimonies, to his Catholick Symphonie, chap. 24. Theſ. 3. And therevvithall vve adjoyned the p. 209teſtimonie of Keckerman (a good writer alſo of this age, who ſpeaking of the popiſh church, ſaith, It is not a pure church, but very corrupt, like as a rotten apple is in deed an apple, but corrupt: and as a man infected with the plague is a man, but not a ſound man. Keckerm. Praepar. ad ſacram ſynaxin. pag, 83.Ibid. Now M. Ainſvv. anſvvers all alike, that they are miſtaken, in judging of that rotten church. So (in his judgment) all are miſtaken hereabout, but himſelf and his follovvers; vvho are miſtaken moſt of all, and yet will not ſee and acknovvledge it, though it be shevved unto them.

62. Laſt of all, to countenance his cauſe the more (that I may uſe his owne vvords) he ſets it out vvith the name and judgment of††Animad. p. 105, &c many learned men, ſpecially of our ovvn countrey, M. Cartwright, M. Perkins, D. Fulk, D. Willet, and M. Bale, vvho are novv deceaſed (all of them, ſaue one:) to vvhoſe judgment in other things he would be loath to ſtand. So novv himſelf doth that, vvhichwhich here before he carped at, or blamed in us. Animad. p 98. For the men themſelues, they vvere in deed learned and godly: and to their writings, in many things vve condeſcend: but vvish that in ſome things they had ſpoken more adviſedly, and vvritten more ſoundly, then they hauehave done. To rip up particulars vvherein they erred, I am loath: having both reverend eſtimation of the men, and knowing that none liveth, vvho is not ſubject to erre in ſome things, ſeeing we al know but in part. 1 Cor. 13, 9. Yet that the trueth may better be ſearched out, and no vvay praejudiced by the names and judgment of theſe learned men: I hauehave thought it not amiſſe, briefly to note thus much touching the points in hand, and their ſayings here produced, being compared vvith other ſpeaches of theirs othervvhere: that if the Reader doe vvell mynd them, he shall find ſome of their aſſertions to be erroneous, & very grounds of Anabaptiſtrie, ſome to be doubtfully ſpoken by them, and ſome vvith croſſing of themſelues and one another; beſides that ſundry things which properly and directly concern the man of ſinne, they apply to the church and Temple of God it ſelf, not diſtinguishing things aright, as they might and should hauehave done: Which M. Iunius‡‡See here before, p. 184. noteth particularly, to be a ſpeciall meanes, whereby many are deceived hereabout.

M. Cartwright (he ſaith) vvrote that the children of Papiſts are not in the covenant of God. T. C. Reply 1, p. 173. How came himſelf then, and the reformed churches, under Gods covenant, being deſcended of Papiſts? Or vvere they baptized, before they vvere under Gods covenant? Or shall we think, that apoſtate chriſtians are not anſwerable to the apoſtate Iſraelites of Iudah and the ten tribes, among vvhom (in the time of their apoſtaſie) God continued his covenant, and circumciſion the ſigne thereof? Finally, how then is it true that D. Raynolds ſaith, though**D. Rayn. fift Concluſion: joyned with Harts conference, pag. 657. the Romaniſts hauehave greatly & grievouſly hurt baptiſme with their annoyances, yet the ſubſtance thereof, and as it were the life, hath ben preſerved whole and ſound through Gods mercy? If their children be not in the covenant of God, how hath the ſubſtance and life of baptiſme ben preſerved ſound among them by the mercy of God? But of this, I hauehave ſpoken ſufficiently here before, p. 28, 35, 58, &c. 121, &c.

p. 210M. Cartwright alſo (ſaith he) writes, that the church of Rome is no church. T.C. Reply 2. p. 146. How then is it the Temple of God, where Antichriſt ſitteth? 2 Theſ. 2, 4. or the Court of the Temple, and holy city, trode downe by the Gentiles, two and fourty moneths? Rev. 11, 2. And vvhy doth M. Perkins ſay (as here he alledgeth) that††In his expoſ. of the Creed, tit. church. Animadv. p. 106. it is no true or ſound member of the catholick church? According to M. Cartwrights ſpeach, he should hauehave ſaid, it is no member of the Catholick church at al. Or when D. Raynolds diſputeth, that the church of Rome is not a ſound member of the catholick church, doth he meane, that it is no member at all thereof? Hovv then ſaith he, that the ſubſtance and life of baptiſme hath ben preſerved whole and ſound therein through the mercy of God, as is aforeſaid. But of this alſo ynough is ſpoken here before, pag. 120, &c.

D. Fulk (he ſaith)**In his anſwer to the Counterf. Catholick. Art. 11. tels the Papiſts, that they hauehave nothing in deed, but the Synagogue of Sathan. Yet D. Fulk otherwhere anſwering the Rhemes Annotations on 2 Theſ. 2, 4. firſt tels the Papiſts, that††Sect. 11. the church of Chriſt is by the Apoſtle called the Temple of God, 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. 2 Cor. 6. Rev. 3, 12. wherefore (ſaith he, ſpeaking novv doubtfully) the Apoſtle meaneth, that Antichriſt ſhal ſit in the viſible church of God, or that which is ſo called and commonly reputed. And afterward, vvhen he hath shevved the judgment of divers auncient writers thereabout, tels the Papiſts plainly,””Ibid. ſect. 12. Thus you ſee by the moſt & beſt approved Authors judgment, Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the church of God. If then it be the church of God, hauehave they nothing in deed, but the Synagogue of Sathan?

D. Willet (he ſaith)‡‡Synopſis Papiſmi. Cōtr. 2. of the church. q. 5. par. 2. utterly denyeth that they are a true viſible church of Chriſt. But doe any of his arguments proue it? Let the Reader conſider, & mark it with judgment. Again he ſaith**Ibid. Cō trov. 4. q. 10. part. 5. 2 Theſ. 2. he ſhall ſit in the Temple of God, that is, the viſible church, that which ſometime vvas a true viſible one, as the Church of Rome, and after ſhould ſo be taken, reputed and challenged, as it is at this day by the Papiſts. Yet a litle after in the ſame place he ſaith, Paul speaketh not here, of any materiall Temple, but of the church of God: neyther doth S. Paul in this ſenſe refuſe to uſe the name of Temple, as 1 Cor. 3, 16. and 6, 19. and in other places. Now if the name of the Temple of God be ſo uſed by the Apoſtle in the other place of 2 Theſ. 2, 4. as it is here, in theſe places, 1 Cor. 3, 16. and 6, 19. and otherwhere: then it ſignifieth the church and Temple of God, not onelyonly that is ſo taken and reputed, but that is ſo in deed. For ſo in theſe other places it is underſtood. Moreover, when M. Willet proveth the churches of the Proteſtants, and namely the church of England, to be true viſible churches, he uſeth this for his firſt argument.††Ibid. cō trov. 2, q. 5 part. 2. That church which ſendeth ſorth Martyrs, as Chriſts faithfull ſouldjours, is the true church. This Propoſition (ſaith he) I think, is not doubted off: for out of the church there are no Martyrs. If this then be an undoubted argument, eyther he muſt shevv that the church of Rome affordeth no Martyrs againſt the Turks, and other profeſſed enemies of the Chriſtian faith: or if it do, he yeelds, it muſt needs be the church of God.

M. Bale noteth divers things, vvhichwhich””Image of both churches, in the Prof. apperteyn to the man of ſinne, & plainly shew, that the Pope is Antichriſt: As, vvhere he ſaith, The Pope maketh his boaſt, that he is the high Prieſt, he is of equal power with Peter, he cannot erre, p. 211he is head and spouſe of the Church, &c. But difference is to be put betweene the Temple of God, and Antichriſt the man of ſinne ſitting therein, &c. as hath ben often shewed here before, pag. 125, 137, 183, &c. Beſides, ſpeaking of the Turk, he ſaith, he will in no caſe grant Chriſt to be the ſonne of God, nor that he dyed here for mans redemption. Yet both theſe are acknovvledged by the church of Rome, as I hauehave shewed here before, by their ovvne profeſſion. Pag. 122.

Other things that might further be obſerved out of thoſe mens writings about the aſſertions aforeſaid, I will not inſiſt upon. It may ſuffice, that M. Ainſvv. himſelf ſaith here,††Animad. pag. 105. it is not to be marveled at, though vviſe and godly men be miſtaken, for in many things we ſinne all Jam. 3, 2. And good it were for this man himſelf and his followers, that they had this wiſedome and godlynes, in ſynceritie and humblenes of mind thus to think & acknowledge of themſelues, that they are miſtaken, and ſinne in many things: then would they not be ſo ſtif, and ſelf conceited in their fore-conceived opinions & former practiſes, euen vvhen better is shewed unto them, by the vvord of God.

Now having thus treated of the points aforeſaid, and of the underſtanding of that Scripture, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. touching Antichriſt ſitting in the Temple of God: I vvill by this occaſion yet further (before I conclude) annex herevvithall the judgment and teſtimonie both of auncient and later Writers, concerning theſe things, not naming all that might be alledged, but a few onelyonly of each ſort: as follovveth.

Teſtimonies of auncient Writers.

Chryſoſtome (ſpeaking of Antichriſt) ſaith, He ſhall ſit in the Temple of God, not that which is at Ieruſalem, but in the Temple of the church. Chryſoſt. homil. 3, in Epiſt. ad Theſ. 2.

Theophylact ſaith, Not in the Temple, which is at Ieruſalem ſpecially, but ſimply in the churches, and in every Temple of God. In 2 Theſ. 2.

Oecumenius hath likewiſe, He ſaith not the Temple of Ieruſalem, but the churches. In 2 Theſ. 2. Item Severianus apud Oecumenium, ibid.

Theodoret ſaith, He calleth the Temple of God, the churches, in which Antichriſt ſhall arrogate unto himſelf the chief ſeat. In 2 Theſ. 2.

Auguſtine ſaith, The Temple of any Idoll or Divell, the Apoſtle would not call the Temple of God. De civit. Dei, l. 20, c. 19. Whereof alſo ſee here before, p. 147.

Ambroſe likewiſe ſaith, So that in the houſe of God, he ſitteth in the ſeat of Chriſt. In 2 Theſ. 2.