their due estimation And saith Origen We have need to bring the Scriptures for witness for our Meanings and Expositions without them have no credit the discussing of our Judgements must be taken ONLY of the Scriptures Thus you see the Fathers were not of your mind that the Readers of their Books should not try them by the Scripture but the contrary and that as we find them consenting to or dissenting from Scripture not one another as you teach accordingly they advise us to believe or not believe them As I have said it is a cloudy way to appeal to Councils and Fathers so you now prove my saying true for I alledged Augustine as being opposite to you and your Church touching the meaning of Matth. 16. Upon this Rock c. and first you tell me I read him not but I must tell you I read him after a Scholar sufficient and though your reading differ something from his yet they both destroy the received Opinion of your Church concerning that Text for if Christ be that Rock as you confess Augustine there teacheth then it cannot be meant positively of Peter and so not consequently of your Popes My quotation out of Chrysostom in Ps 22. you invalidate by telling me that Book was not writ by him And this I find to be the usual way of Learned-men when the passage alledged is clear and convincing then a suspition must be cast upon the Book c. I could instance the best part of a thousand Books Epistles c. which are intituled under the names of the Antient Fathers amongst which as you observe is reckoned the Book of Dynis the Areopagite which I alledged in my Rejoynder And do not these things contribute something towards the proof of my Assertion namely That it is a cloudy way to appeal to Fathers and Councils to decide Controversies in Religion If then your way be cloudy mine must needs be clear unless you can assign a third way opposit to both for undoubtedly there is a clear way to decide Controversies You again prescribe me a way to find the meaning of the Fathers and that is to explicate their obscure places by such as are plain c. But by your leave we can neither know which of their speeches are obscure or plain without some rule whereby to know this And now what can supply this our necessity For example Augustine is sometimes read affirming the Sacrament to be the real Body and Blood of Christ otherwhiles he is read directly opposit to this And how can you or any body else tell which of these sayings is clear or obscure fith none must be permitted the use of his reason by you in this Controversie and how he should judge according to Faith I know not sith you as yet debar us of that by which Faith NOW cometh namely the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as contained in the Scriptures PAPIST Something you would say for this living Voice of the Church you once had required as necessary to resolve Differences in Religion but this signifies nothing in our present Query for after all your shifting I cannot perceive that you make use of her Authority in point of Faith which is our Qu. but only to take up other quarrels by exhorting reproving c. and in this also it seems you will be your own Judge whether she follow Christ or no. Three things you affirm in relation to the Churches Authority 1. That she is to rule her self according to Scripture which no body denies 2. That the Church in former Ages is not to be a Rule for after Ages to rule themselves by because she could not foresee the Controversies that rise up afterwards What if the same Errors be revived now which in their times were condemned is not the Judgment of the Church in those dayes a safe President for us to condemn the same Errors Besides Is it not evident that the Pastors of the Church the nearer they were to Christ's time were the better able to judge of Christ's Doctrine You say 3dly That the Church is to be no Rule for those that are out of her communion A strange Assertion As if a clear light as the Church is in holy Scripture with so many marks to know her by as Unity Sanctity Universality Miracles c. were not a good means for him that gropes in the dark to find out his way Look well upon these marks and you will find them to agree Only to the Roman Catholick Church and to no upstart Congregation and consequently that you ought in all reason to give her the hearing in matters of Faith and to have recourse unto her as to the pillar and ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. which place you let slip and this under pain of being accounted a Heathen c. Matth. 18. for though this place doth point out chiefly the obedience which Members of the Church owe her in point of Discipline as you say well enough yet hath it no small force in our present Debate since those that will not hear her Voice when she ecchoes out the Voice of God may well be esteemed by her as a Heathen And in your own sence I suppose you will have your proviso That the Church is to be obeyed only when she ruleth according to God's Word of which you will be Judge too So in conclusion all comes to this That you and your spirit must be Judge of all Disputes And then have not I reason to ask again since I or any body else may challenge as large a share in the Spirit and right Reason as you who shall take up the Quarrel And is not my comparison here very pat That there must needs be as great confusion in your Church as in a Kingdom where every one were left to decide his own case This was not the old way as you may see Deut. 17. 8 9. and Malach. 2. 7. which places you had no mind to take notice of and yet you charge me for letting pass your Instance of St. Stephen concerning the Libertines Alexandrians c. which makes nothing at all for your pretended Evidence of God's Word For though his Judgment might be well taken in expounding Scripture as being full of the holy Ghost and confirming what he said by Miracles as the Scripture tells us he did yet this is not your case for I think you will not arrogate so much to your self What you say of Christ and his Apostles vindicating their Doctrine out of Scripture is very true and our Church doth the same but it is not true that either Christ or the primitive Saints were alwayes wont to send their Proselytes to the Scripture to regulate their Faith Did not Christ himself send St. Paul to Ananias for instruction Had you been of his counsel you would have rather wished him to look into the Word of God and see there what he was to do And when there arose a Debate even in the Apostles dayes about
Christ to be the Pillar of Truth so as that she was never so over-clouded with error but that she hath enjoyed the fruition of that Promise Matth. 16. in some good measure ever since it was made Nor shall she ever so close with the gates of Hell as by general consent and full authority to dissert that Faith which having Christ for its object is the Rock she is built upon and therefore you see I hold the Church cannot err in some sense and indeed he that holds the contrary must for ought I see raze out that Promise Matth. 16. and many other And yet nothing from all this accrues to the Papal Church of Rome I alledged Stephen as defending the Truth by the authority of Scripture Only c. Nor can it be groundedly imagined that had it been the mind of God that such as are not of the Church should be summoned to her Tribunal Stephen being full of the holy Spirit the leader into all truth would have omitted the use of that means but he knew that such authority the Church had none as I shewed from 1 Cor. 5. What have I to do to judge them that are without do not ye also judge them that are within And therefore he could not mention any such power And though Stephen did many wonders among the People yet at this time when he so powerfully vanquished his adversaries he did none at all but only overcame them by the assistance of the Spirit speaking in the Scripture c. I desired you to shew me but one Instance where ever any of the Primitive Saints did appeal to the Church of which they were present Members as Judge between them and such as never received their Doctrine but you have not done it nor indeed can it be done As I shewed that Stephen appealed to Scripture ONLY c. so I also shewed That it was the way of Christ and his Apostles frequently to vindicate their Doctrine against such as were not of their Church by appealing to the Scriptue especially amongst such as owned the Scripture this you confess and also you tell me that your Church doth the same But this cannot be true of All your Doctrine because you have told me That many Points of your Faith are resolved without the written Word of God or else you never answered my first Antiquery which demandeth What Controversie in Religion you can resolve without the written Word of God And in your Answer you assigned The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son Sabbath Infant-Baptism and MANY OTHER POINTS OF FAITH and I shall shew anon that we have it pro confesso from your Champions that there be some Points of your Faith which is not GROUNDED UPON nor MENTIONED IN the SCRIPTURES and therefore your Church cannot vindicate such Points of her Faith and Doctrine by the Scripture Although Christ sent Paul to Ananias for instruction yet it followeth not that we must take Romes instructions without Scripture Is there no difference between the time that now is and then was Much of the Scripture if not all the New Testament was then unwritten Again Ananias was immediatly sent of God If you are so sent prove it to us as Ananias did by shewing the Miracle of restoring Paul's sight If you are not so sent to what purpose do you alledge this Text I believe I might form you a monsirous Consequence here PAPIST You that will not trust the Churches Judgment lay down four wayes of resolving Doubts The first To argue it out till Truth prevail But if we must argue only out of Scripture and be our own Interpreters of it there can be no end of arguing as I have often shewed The second To appeal to God as the two Tribes did Josh 22. A rare way to end Controversies to look for Miracles in our Disputes The third To appeal to Scripture and right Reason But if I challenge them to be on my side who must take up the difference The fourth To cast Lots But though the Apostles did it who certainly were inspired to do so yet must not we presume to tempt God or to look for the like Miracles or to build our Faith upon such doubtful events BAPTIST You here wrong us to say that we will not trust the Judgment of the Church for the Church truly and universally taken we do credit as her that is appointed of the Father to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth of which Church we take the Prophets and Apostles to be the principal Members and so in all Points of Faith to be credited in the first place But if by Church you mean the Papal Church of Rome I confess we dare not trust her Judgement at least not in all that she saith for example these following 1. Your Church tells us That it is not needful for the Scriptures to be read to or by the Laity in a tongue which they understand and that though they Pray after another in Latine though they understand not what they say yet such prayer is sufficient Rhem. Test Annot. in 1 Corinthians 2. Your Church tells us That the Sacrifice of your Masse is available to take away or obtain remission of sins by the work wrought Con. Trident. Sess 22. That the whole Masse is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and whoso saith it is only a commemoration of Christ's Death c. is accursed Con. Trent 3. Your Church holds That such as deny that the real Flesh and Blood of Christ is in the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament ought to be burnt to death 4. Your Church holds and tells us That Images and old clothes of Saints ought to be worshipped with religious Worship 5. That men are AS FULLY Justified by good Works AS THEY ARE DAMNED BY evil Works 6. That it is unlawful for Ministers of Christ to Marry 7. That the Scripture doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation To omit many other these are Points of your Churches Judgment which we dare not trust till by you or some other proved to be Truths I assigned the use of Lots as lawful in some doubtful cases to end Controversies and for proof I quoted Acts 7. and this you will not allow for two Reasons 1. Because you say the Apostles were inspired to use them but were it so as that you cannot prove yet it cannot be denied but we may do some things which they were inspired to do for the Holy Ghost was to lead them into all Truth and they were to lead us into the same Truth by their Example and Doctrine Joh. 16. 13. 1 Cor. 11. 1 2. And be it here observed That the Holy Ghost led those our Teachers to ordain the Ministry by Prayer and laying on of Hands Acts 6 and Acts 13. which practice of theirs is a good president to act by a president I say for this practice is not expresly commanded in Scripture no more than the use
the necessity of Circumcision Act. 15. did they not assemble the Church and so pronounce Sentence conciliariter with a visum est Spiritui sancto nobis BAPTIST It is here worth noting how you dispute beyond the due bounds of the Query which as it concerns you Papists and us Baptists hath no relation to the Differences which arise in the Church as such and indeed you go amiss in this matter throughout the whole Discourse Here you seem to acknowledge that the Church ought to rule according to Scripture but you will allow me to judge whether she do so or not But I answer that there is a Judgment of Science as well as a Judgment Authoritative the latter I know cannot be exercised by me nor any other Member of the Church because this Power lyeth in the Church as imbodied together but the former to wit a Judgment of Science or Knowledge is particular to each individual and so my self if a Member of the Church am allowed the exercise thereof even in matters of Religion 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak to wise men judge ye what I say The Apostle doth not here give any wise man at Corinth leave to judge of that which he said so as to censure what he had delivered yet he must exercise his understanding to judge of what Paul had said thereby to find out the verity of what was spoken But yet I do confess that our case and the case of Christians then do differ for Paul was a Foundation-layer a Master-builder so that the Members might not so well judge then as now yet the Church now is to build upon the Foundation which is laid already and you know that I have in my Rejoynder acknowledged that it very nearly concerns particular Members of the Church to have great regard to the Judgment of the Church when after serious debate they deliver their Sentence in any point disputable And further as touching your Church you tell me anon that even a Heathen may judge of the holiness of your Church by the Law of Conscience and then why may he not by the same Law judge your Church concerning her unholiness nay verily he must be able to speak both wayes or else he hath no Judgment And if a Heathen have this priviledge and ability then why not a man professing Christianity who hath not only the Conscience-Law but also the written Law of God by which he understands things more excellent Rom. 2. From all this I only conclude that each particular ought to have the free exercise of his Judgment in what he chuseth or refuseth sith without this he cannot chuse or refuse any thing with confidence nor to his comfort And concerning Controversies in the Church I do not see that in these dayes we are bound to follow the sentence of a multitude though assembled in Council SO as to hold their Sentence absolutely infallible for the promise of infallibility is not made to a certain select number of Bishops but to the Church taken collectively and we may remember that a great Assembly of Prophets in the old Church erred in Judgment with unanimous consent when yet the Lord had one Micaiah at home which understood the truth of his Will Wherefore I here conclude although the Members of the Church ought to weigh with great respect the things concluded of by their Pastors yet so may it be that they may swerve from the Truth whilst God clears it up by some particular rather than by such an Assembly And to this agrees very well a saying of Gerson If it should so happen that there should be a General Council assembled in which such a man were present as is well instructed If the greatest part should decline through Malice or IGNORANCE to the opposition of the Gospel such a LAY-Man may be objected against the said General Council And saith Panormitan In matters WHICH CONCERN FAITH the saying of a LAY-Man ought to be preferred before that of the Pope if his saying be more probable by better authority of Scripture than that of the Pope You often tell me that to appeal to the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures c. is not a sufficient way to decide OUR Controversies and that because you may challenge them to be for you c. To which I answer by retorting your Argument thus That which you call the living Voice of the Church to wit Volumns of Fathers and Decrees of Councils is therefore insufficient to decide OUR Controversies because your opposites do say they are for them and against you and now you must answer your own Query viz. Who must take up this Quarrel You answer that we must explicate them one by another the places which are obscure by such as are plain And then I still ask you why we may not as well agree our selves this way by the Volumns of the Prophets and Apostles I shewed before how you misapply that Text Matth. 18. and though the case is so plain as that you cannot defend your self yet you seem loth to decline your error and would fasten a very gross passage upon me namely that I should say That the Church is no Rule for those that are out of her Communion as not to be a light for such as grope in the dark A manifest wrong I only say and prove That those that are not of the Church are not within the power of her Discipline nor can she reasonably desire unconverted ones to appeal to her Judgment-seat in Controversies between them and her And I asked you If you would not scorn us if we should call upon you to appeal unto us as your Judges Whether we or you be the Church and not doubting but you would I concluded that it is equally absurd for you to desire us to appeal to you as our Judges But you may find it plain enough in my Papers That I do believe the Church SO to be a Rule to the world as to shew them the way of Life and so a good means for their Illumination and Conversion As for your three Texts 1 Tim. 3. Deut. 17. 8 9. Malachi 2. 7. As they do your cause no good so they do mine no harm I grant the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth and that she hath Power to hear and determine all Controversies among her Members as aforesaid and that it is the duty of the Members to enquire of their Pastors what is the way of God concerning them But what of all this Ergo The Papal Church of Rome is the only infallible Judge and Moderatrix of all Contention about Religion Ergo we must all appeal to the Papal Church of Rome as our Judge in this Question Whether we be of the Church or not though we be in doubt Whether she her self be a true Church or not yea though we are satisfied she is not Are not these Monstrous Consequences Be it here observed That I do believe the Church of
doings do only tend to the destruction of all Faith making every thing doubtful and the effect is the ushering in of all uncleanness on the one hand or if men miss this snare they are catched in another viz. to walk at random as their own or other mens fancy leads them This is evident by what we have seen in the Ranters on the one hand and the Papists and Quakers on the other Let us trace this matter a little further thus The Papists Traditions most if not all of which have been committed to Writing several hundreds of years ago must speak for themselves are unquestionable of themselves must challenge no ground but themselves to stand upon But the sacred Scripture which hath especial Promise from God for its preservation Psal 12. must have none of these high priviledges allowed it Is not this a most peccant Assertion Again Peter and Paul must be no Judges of Controversies in Religion as they speak to us in their Epistles but the Popes of Rome dead long ago and now only speak in their Writings yet they must be our infallible Judges in these Controversies The great Council of Apostles Elders and Brethren Acts 15. can be no Judge of any Controversie though their Decrees are yet extant among us but the Council of Trent who only speak in their Decrees must be our Judge and that so as from their Judgments no appeal can be admitted The Apostolical Council sends forth their Decrees in the Name of the holy Ghost and themselves and in those their Decrees they prohibit the eating of blood and strangled things c. But the Papal Councils will send forth a Decree directly opposite to this and yet sign'd with these powerful words Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis If we appeal in this matter to the Apostolical Council they may not be permitted to pronounce a Sentence decissive But from the sentence of the Papal Council we must in no wise appeal Can any thing be said more unworthily Thus then First the godly Reader may perceive That whether he be able to answer all the cunning Objections that men by reason of the long experience they have had in the wayes of deceit have found out yet he hath an Argument of NECESSITY wherewith to oppose their subtilty And Secondly he hath the advantage of all their own objections against themselves yea against their Church Tradition and all that they stand upon Being seasonably retorted upon them Wherefore I shall conclude with the Psalmist's words Psal 64. 5 6 7 8 9. They encourage themselves in an evil matter they commune of laying snares privily they say Who shall see them They search out iniquities they accomplish a diligent search both the inward thoughts of every one of them and the heart is deep But God shall shoot at them with an arrow suddenly shall they be wounded So they shall make their own tongues to fall upon themselves all that see them shall flee away And all men shall fear and shall declare the work of God for they shall wisely consider of his doings THE SECOND PART SHEWETH That the present Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ for divers important Causes or Reasons VVE have heard of how dangerous a Consequence that Papal Opinion is which leads them to set up their own Authority under pretence of their being the Church above the holy Scripture insomuch as they allow it no Authority till it be delivered to us for God's Word by their Church so that by this Doctrine we must find their Church before we can find the Word of God as it is contained in the Scripture Upon which Consideration we shall endeavour to shew That the present Papal Church is not the true Church of Christ and therefore what Power soever the Church hath yet they cannot have it Because they are not the Church of Christ The First Reason The present Papal Church of Rome cannot possibly prove her self to be the Church of Christ Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The First Reason maintained THe Consequence of the Argument no understanding man can deny for unless a party pretending to be the Church of Christ can some wayes sufficiently prove that they are his Church they cannot reasonably blame any body that refuses so to account of them And for the Antecedent namely that it is impossible for the present Papal Church to prove her self the Church of Christ it is evident from this ground viz. They make both the Scripture and all other Writings depend on their Church for their Authority and therefore they must prove themselves to be the Church without the help of any authentical or authoritative Writings which thing is impossible for them to do Being thus divested of the help of all Records as is more fully shewed above there remains now nothing for them to lean upon but their own Evidence or the Tradition of their Fore-fathers not that which is contained in any Records but only that which hath been delivered by word from man to man c. But alas what Tradition is this they speak of Not the Tradition of the Church to us till the persons delivering the same be found to be the Church which as before they cannot be found to be without the Scripture And for their own Evidence that may not prove them to be the Church to those that contend with them it cannot avail them sith each party contending in this case will and may as reasonably as the Papists look that their own Testimony should be as available for these as the other for those It is as vain here to tell us they are the Church because the true marks of the Church do agree to the Papal Church and none else For first the true marks of the Church are confessed by the Papists to be found in the Scripture which Scripture they receive not but from the authority of their Church yea their present Church so that till the Scripture can tell us authoritatively which be the marks of the Church no Church can be found by those marks nor can the Scripture tell us of those marks authoritatively till Rome as a Church give it us for God's Word So then Rome must be found the Church before there be any marks to find her by which is impossible As for example To clear this matter further the Papists say That Holiness is a mark of the true Church But now set the Holy Scripture aside and how shall I know holiness from unholiness without the Scripture Here the Papists being in a strait rather than they will let the Law of God or the Scripture have the preheminence do Answer thus That we have a Law in our Consciences which dictates what is good and what is otherwise and by this Law even a Heathen may judge our Church holier than any other Congregations of Christians What a miserable plunge of Heathenism or Quakerism are they brought to here How do they know
cause why the Church requireth chastity in the Clergie and forbiddeth not only fornication but all carnal copulation even in lawful wedlock is to the end that God's Priests be not divided from him by the clogs of Marriage but be clean and pure from all the fleshly acts of copulation And this doctrine they teach from 1 Cor. 7. where if you reade the 4 5 6 7. verses you may easily learn the quite contrary Doctrine Again They teach from 1 Tim. 3. 2. That none shall Marry that come into holy Orders And that if any of the Clergie in other Countries had been permitted in times past to enjoy their Wives yet they now declare it to be against the Apostles Rule And this they say is the Sentence of the Council of Nice But surely Paul's words are clear contrary for he saith A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife having his Children in subjection c. In further proof of this matter it is upon Record That Greg. 7. An. 1070. did enforce Ministers by Excommunication to leave their Wives And Vrban 2. Anno. 1066. Decreed That it might be lawful to make the Ministers Wives bond-women And Fox recordeth That it was made Felony by the Act of the Six Articles for Ministers to marry Wives Fox p. 1135. And this cruelty Bellarmine defends by a saying of Jerome That a Bishop begetting Children shall be condemned as an Adulterer Now whereas I say they forbid Meats c. I do not mean that it is not meet for the Church to Fast and Pray and in such a sense to forbid meat But for their Church to forbid one kind of meat above another as that we may not eat Eggs in Lent and divers other creatures which God hath created to be received of such as believe For the true way of Fasting is a total fasting for the time unless necessity deny And truly the Papal Fast of Lent is in a manner no Fast which allows the drinking of Wines and the eating to the full of such delicacies as do inflame the flesh as much as Eggs c. which yet the Papists by no means will permit men to eat For my Author tells me That they make the eating of Eggs in Lent a damnable sin Fox p. 1043. I might fill much Paper about their forbidding meats But to proceed The Eighth Reason The present Papal Church of Rome is Mystery Babylon Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The Eighth Reason maintained 1. I Know that generally all that dissent from Rome do account her as in her present state to be Mystery Babylon And truly for my part I have considered of this matter and I find it is so clearly meant of Rome that even the Papists do not wholly exempt her from this Name Yet they deny that Rome as now considered is Mystery Babylon only say they it is to be referred to Rome in her Heathenish estate But thus I reason 2. If the present Papal Church of Rome be not Mystery Babylon then either the Papists or some body else can shew us a People which better deserves that title But this no man can do so far as yet I have learned and therefore as yet I must say The present Papal Church of Rome together with her Daughter Churches is Mystery Babylon And for further proof in this Point I thus reason 3. The present Papal Church hath the Marks of Mystery Babylon therefore she is Mystery Babylon I prove it thus One Mark of Mystery Babylon is a Regiment over the Kings of the Earth Rev. 17. The Woman which thou sawest is that great City which reigneth over the Kings of the Earth This Mark the present Papal Church of Rome hath above all other Witness the Papists own Books T. B. End to Controv. chap. 26 27. where he sets up the Pope above all Kings and Emperors and plainly calls the Popes Kings and Monarchs and the Papal Church he terms an invincible Empress c. Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is great Riches and wordly Pomp. That Rome in her present Church-state hath this Mark her Doctor T. B. is my witness So is Helen Geog. p. 192 193. and Napier Rev. 9. which Authors shew her Riches even of the Clergy only to be quite out of the reach of the best Arithmaticks to pass an Entrado upon it Add to all other witnesses that of Expeperience and it will shew us That when their Church had her domination in this Land they knew where the best Ground lay as the Ruins of their Abbeys do evince Compare all these with Rev. 18. and see if they do not agree Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is She sits upon Nations Tongues and Peoples Rome hath this Mark T. B. in his End to Controversies chap. 26 27. Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is She enslaves the Souls of men and is drunk with blood Now that the Papal Church of Rome hath this Mark I need only to refer my Readers to those large Histories of Sleidan Fox and Benzo the Italian Lastly As I noted it is confessed by the Papists That Mystery Babylon Rev. 17. 18. chapters is meant of Rome only they think to free themselves from the force of that blow by telling us That it 's meant of Rome in her Heathenism and under the persecuting Emperors But this is but a poor shift as may appear by shewing That the Antients do write against Rome as Mystery Babylon after the persecuting Emperors were down for the Papists say That Constatine put an end to the Persecution when he was converted which was about the year 300 and a few odd years at which time the Papists say That Rome was given up to the Pope 1. Jeroms who lived about the fourth hundred writing to Eustoch Marcelus doth apply these words to Rome viz. Fly out of Babylon let every man save his own Soul for Babylon is fallen and is become the Habitation of Devils Yea he saith further as he is quoted by the Protestants That Rome IS the Babylonical Harlot according to the Revelation of St. John appointed for the birth of Antichrist which there should arise and exercise all tyranny and from thence should deceive the whole world with his wicked Wiles And Augustine is most clear in this matter in his Book of the City of God where he calls Rome another Babylon in the West And Babylon in the East first Rome and Rome of Italy second Babylon Willing men to consider That in the beginning of the City of God which was in Abraham's time the first Rome that was Eastern Babylon was builded in Chaldea And about what the first Babylon was destroyed lest the City of God should want her Enemy the second Babylon which is Rome in Italy was erected Chrysostome saith Antichrist shall invade the vacant Empire of Rome and assay to draw unto himself the Empires both of God and man Thus it seems that Rome was accounted Mystery Babylon four or five