1. Exception.

The Author tels us page 81 and 82. That Hiſtorians ſay, the yeere 40 • . was the yeere wherein the Beaſt received his deviliſh power and ſeat in the reigne of Phocas the Emperour. This being the firſt root of the Account, deſerves throughly to be examined, as being of greateſt influence into the preſent controverſie. I ſhall therefore debate it fully, wherein we might have made a more ſhort cut; if the Author had told us who are thoſe Hiſtorians, and where they ſay ſo. I have upon this occaſion peruſed variety of Hiſtorians: but all that I have met with do make the Hiſtory of Phocas at leaſt 200. y. later.

In the fourth Book of ancient Hiſtory, which out of ſeveral Authors treats of the Roman Emperours for above 700. yeeres after Chriſt, I finde but one Emperour Phocas mentioned, and no other of that or the like name; & concerning him I there read thus: That Mauricius the Emperour being by dreame forewarned of a conſpiracie againſt him by Phocas a Commander of ſome forces in the borders of Sarmatia, this Mauricius ſent for his ſon in Law Philip, and acquainted him therewith: Philip wondring at it, told the Emperour that he knew the man, namely Phocas, to be one that durſt not attempt ſuch a deſigne; as being too fearfull, though wicked enough to do it; to which Mauricius replyed, that he had the more reaſon to take heed of him, becauſe thoſe which are fearfull, when once they aſſay wicked enterpriſes, know not how to give over, but act with the more cruelty: & ſo it proved in the event; for this Phocas murdered the Emperour Mauricius and his three ſons, and then being choſen Emperour by that wicked Army whoſe leader he was, did at the inſtance of Pope Boniface the third, appoint the ſeat of Rome to be the head of all Churches.

Szegedin in his Looking-Glaſſe of the Popes, writes thus. Boniface the third, was by Phocas the Emperour (who was an adulterer, parricide, and Tyrant) confirmed chief and ſupreme over all Biſhops.

Doctor Favour in his book of antiquity, p. 436. writes thus. This Myſtery of iniquity, in the dayes of Phocas the Emperour that had murthered his Maſter Mauricius, and uſurped his crown, began to work more ſtrongly. For Boniface (Biſhop of Rome) obtained of Phocas, that the Church of Rome ſhould be the head of all Churches.

This is the ſubſtance of what Hiſtorians ſpeak concerning the preeminence of the Roman Biſhops obtained in the reigne of Phocas, and in this we agree, but the difference lies concerning the time, which M. Cary affirms to be in the yeere 404. and I finde to be in the yeere 604. or rather a little after; for though Phocas might have begun his reign in 604. yet the donation of the ſupremacy to Boniface, might well be after that yeere, which I the rather aſſent to, becauſe our induſtrious Countrey man Barns the Martyr tels us in his Treatiſe of the lives of the Popes, that Sabinian predeceſſour to Boniface, lived under Phocas the Emperour, and for this he cites Platina and Volaterranus; and Pareus alſo in his Marrow of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory, makes Phocas's grant of the ſupremacy to Boniface the third, to be after the firſt yeer of his Empire.

I ſhall now for the ſatisfaction of the Reader, ſet down what I have met with in other Authors, word for word, with directions to the places where they may turn to them, which take as followes.

In the ſtate of the Church, tranſlated out of French into Engliſh, page 183. In the yeer 604. Phocas after he had wickedly ſlain his Maſter, was choſen by the unlucky Army whereof he had charge; a very ſlave of covetouſneſſe, who handled ſecret matters with Courtiers after the manner of the Perſians, and ſold the offices of Magiſtrates and judgements, dearly loved ſuch as tormented the people by rapine and extortion: this is he who firſt ordain'd that Rome ſhould be the chief of all Churches.

In the Treatiſe of the lives of the Popes written in Spaniſh by Cyprian Valera, and tranſlated into Engliſh, pag. 34. In the 605. year died Sabinianus [whoſe ſucceſſor] Boniface the third being Patriach of Rome, was made Pope by means of Phocas the Emperour, who was an adulterer, murtherer, and tyrant; a murtherer I call him, for that to make himſelfe Emperor (as he did) he murthered Mauricius his Lord and Chriſtian Emperor.

In Morneys Myſtery of Iniquity, pag. 117. Boniface the third in the yeer 605. to effect that which his predeceſſors had projected, took his advantage, ſeeing the Emperour Phocas on the one ſide diſpleaſed with Cyriacus Patriarch of Conſtantinople, becauſe he would not approve of his murders; and on the other, jealous the hatred of his dealings might happily cauſe Italy to revolt from under him: and thereupon he asked, and by the proffers which he made of his good ſervice obtained of him, that the Church of Rome ſhould thence forward be the head of all other Churches, and the Biſhop of Rome ſhould be called the Soveraigne and Univerſall Biſhop.

In Heylins Microcoſmus the fifth Edition, pag 179. Phocas having killed the Emperour Mauricius, his wife and children An. 604. to aſſure himſelf of Italy ready to revolt from ſo barbarous a tyrant, made Boniface the third Univerſall Biſhop, and head of the Church; before this time the Biſhops of Conſtantinople and Ravenna, did often diſpute with the Biſhops of Rome for ſuperiority; the ſeat of Religion commonly following the ſeat of the Empire, and the Biſhop of Conſtantinople prevailed ſo far, that with the permiſſion of Mauricius the Emperour, he took upon him the title of Univerſall Patriarch.

As for the yeer 404. which M. Cary builds upon for the Hiſtory of Phocas the Emperour, and his donation of the ſupremacy to the Church of Rome, I ſhall ſay this farther; that it may appear to any that have opportunity to ſearch into Hiſtories; that there was no ſuch Emperour as Phocas, in or neere that time, but the Emperours at that time were (according to Hiſtorians) Arcadius and Honorias. To cleere this yet more fully, I ſhall give you a Catalogue of the Emperours as I finde it in Heylins Microcoſmus, Edition the firſt, pag. 88. Italy continued a m mber of the Empire till the yeer 399. in which Theodoſius the great divided the Empire; to Arcadius his elder ſon he gave the Eaſtern, to Honorius the younger the Weſterne part of this Monarchy.

The Weſterne Emperors in the yeer 399 Honorius. 458 Severianus 4 • 5 Valentinianus. 462 Anthemius 454 Maximianus. 467 Oreſtes 473 Auguſtulus the laſt that ever kept his daily reſidence in Italy, a thing ominous, that Auguſtus ſhould eſtabliſh and Auguſtulus ruinate that ſpacious Monarchy. And pag. 219. the Conſtantinopolitan Emperours in the yeere 399 Arcadius 412 Theodoſius the 2d 454 Martianus 461 Leo 478 Zeno 494 Anaſtaſius 521 Juſtinus 528 Juſtinianus 566 Juſtinus the 2d 577 Tiberius 584 Mauritius 604 Phocas who made the Biſhops of Rome Popes, and heads of the Church.

As I have thus by a Liſt of the Roman Emperours proved, that Phocas his donation to Boniface the third could not be neer the y. 404. So I might in the next place ſhew the like by the Liſt of the Roman Biſhops; for Boniface the firſt of that name Biſhop of R me is placed by Hiſtorians after the yeer 404. and there were above twenty Biſhops of Rome ſucceſſively between Boniface the firſt and Boniface the third, as may appear by this Catalogue.

Boniface the firſt 1 Caeleſtinus 2 Sixtus 3. 3 Leo 4 Hilarius 5 Simplicius 6 Foelix 3. 7 G • laſius 8 Anaſtaſius 2 9 Symmichus 10 Hormiſda 11 John 1 12 Foelix 4 13 Boniface the ſecond 14 John 2 15 Agapetus 16 Sylverius 17 Vigilius 18 Pelagius 1 19 John 3 20 Benedict 21 Pelagius 2 22 Gregory the great 23 Sabinianus

Boniface the third, in whoſe time Phocas gave the cheifdome to the Roman Seat.

Having thus abundantly diſcovered the groſſe Error, which is the foundation of M. Cary's reckoning; who pretends to calculate the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes to a very day; I ſhall leave it to the head of prudence with the heart of charity to conſider, whence ſo groſſe a miſtake of 200 yeers could ariſe. I have caſt about in my thoughts to ſee how a miſtake of this nature could, in an Author of ſuch abilities, be interpreted more favorably then a wilfull miſreckoning; and two wayes I doe apprehend that poſſibly the miſtake might be entertained unawares. 1. Peradventure the Author might have read in ſome Hiſtory book, the yeer 404 miſprinted for 604. for miſprinting of one figure might happily fall out in ſome Copy pend of that ſubject; though I have not yet met with that miſprint in any one of thoſe Treatiſes, or in any of thoſe Editions, which I have ſought out and diligently compared on ſet Purpoſe. 2. Peradventure the Author might not have read the Hiſtory of Phocas; but only received it upon hearſay, and ſo ſhe might either have miſtook the Relator, or ſwallowed down the relators miſtake; and this later conjecture I look upon as the moſt probable in that it ſuits b • ſt with her own words; for ſhee doth not ſay, as hiſtorians write; but as ſay Hiſtorians. Thus have I given my Reader the beſt light I can, to furniſh his charity with a favourable conſtruction of the foreſaid miſtake, which may in part excuſe the Authors credulity, but will not be able to juſtifie her confidence, nor her cauſe; for, the correcting of this miſtake, if the reſt of her account hold good, wil make the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes to fall out 200. yeers later then ſhe counts for; namely in the yeer 1845. and this ſhall ſuffice for my firſt and principall Exception.

2. Exception.

The Author pag. 82. deducing from the aſtronomicall years, five dayes in a year, and one day every fourth yeer, for the ſpace of 1260. yeers, doth abate for it 18 yeers and almoſt in half: which if it be meane of aſtronomicall yeers (which are the yeers that ſhe doth ſubſtract) doth not amount to ſo much: for, five times 1260. dayes and 315. dayes put together, make but 6615, which is not 18. aſtronomicall yeers and a quarter, no nor half a quarter; for, it is but • 0. dayes over the 18. yeers.

3. Exception.

The Author pag. 82. from the yeer which in ordinary account is 1664 deducing 18. yeers and almoſt an half (for the difference betwixt the aſtronomical account, and the account which ſhe followes) tels us, that then the account will fall in the beginning of the yeer 1645. the falſehood whereof I ſhall thus diſcover: to the beginning of the yeer 1645. adde almoſt half a yeer, and it will be about the midſt of the yeer 1645. to which adde the 18 yeers, and it will be in the 1663. not in 1664. the deduction therfore of 18. y. and almoſt an half, though we ſhould begin the deduction from the very firſt day of the yeer 1664. will make the account to fall out after the midſt of the yeer 1645. which is about halfe a yeer later then M. Cary counts.

4. Exception.

The Author pag. 98. makes the time of the Witneſſes lying dead for three yeers and a half, to begin on the day when the War began in Ireland; which how it will ſtand with what the Author ſayes elſewhere, I know not, unleſſe we ſhould make the Saints in England to ly dead from the firſt day of the War in Ireland; which how rationall it is let indifferent men judge; & yet thus it muſt be upon her grounds: for, by the Witneſſes ſhe underſtands (at leaſt principally) the Saints in England; for thus ſhe explains her ſelf, pag. 87. as the War in England and Ireland was made by the Beaſt, ſo it was made by him againſt the Witneſſes, the Saints, and precious ones of Jeſus Chriſt; for that which is done againſt the moſt conſiderable number of Saints, is done againſt the whole; as being the way to prevaile over all. Now in England there are a more conſiderable number of the faithful ſervants and Witneſſes of Ieſus Chriſt, then in any Kingdom in the world, as one truly ſaid, England is the richeſt ſhip in the world; for God hath more of thoſe precious jewels in it, then he hath i • any other Kingdom in the world.

5. Exception.

The Author pag. 98. makes the fifth of April 1645. to be the day of the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes, wherein ſhe contradicts her own account, pag. 82. but, becauſe this exception hath affinity with the third, I ſhall ſay no more to it but this; that if ſhe had made her day for the Reſurrection of the Witneſſe a yeer later, ſhe would have agreed with her own account, which now ſhe doth not: for, her abated 18. yeeres and almoſt a half, added to April the fifth 1646. would have made the day to have faln out in the yeer 1664. as the 1260. added to her 404. makes up the ſame account.

6. Exception.

The Author pag. 98. makes the time of the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes, and the expiring of the time for propheſying in ſack cloth, to be all one, and ſo the time that the Witneſſes lye dead, muſt be three yeers and an half before the finiſhing of their teſtimony: which, how contrary it is to the Scripture, will eaſily appear, Revel 11.3.7. I will give power unto my two Witneſſes, and they ſhall propheſie 1260 dayes clothed in ſack-cloth, and when they ſhall have finiſhed their teſtimony, the Beaſt that aſcendeth out of the bottomleſſe pit ſhall make war againſt them, and ſhall over come them, and kill them. I ſhall here only inſert a paſſage out of Brightman on the Revelations, printed in the yeer 1644. his words in pag. 372. of that impreſſion, are theſe, Thi time of three dayes and a half beginneth not before the 1260. dayes be ended; for ſo it is ſaid afore, and when they have finiſhed. Beſides, the Prophets lay kild and unburied for theſe three dayes and a half, but the time of the 1260. dayes is the time of their propheſying in ſack-cloth; ſo that they can by no means be referred to the ſame time.

7. Exception.

The Author pag. 99. makes the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes to be an army buſineſſe, which I ſee no reaſon for, but rather reaſons againſt it; which I ſhall briefly propoſe in behalf of my Exception.

My firſt reaſon is taken from the context in Revel. 11. when the Witneſſes are in ſlaying, the ſlaying of them indeed is deſcribed as an army buſineſſe, ver. 7. in theſe words, ſhall make war againſt them, and ſhall overcome them, and kill them: but when the holy Ghoſt ſpeaks of the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes, it is in another ſtrain, ver. 11. and after 3. dayes and an half, the ſpirit of life from God entred into them, and they ſtood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that ſaw them. Here is no warlike word uſed; & though it is ſaid that a great fear fell upon others at the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes; yet it is not ſaid it fell upon the Beaſt that ſlew them, or upon their enemies; but it is ſaid indefinitely, it fill upon them that ſaw them: for ſuch an aſtoniſhing work of God as that in Ezek. 37. (whence the phraſes are taken) might cauſe a fear, though of a different kind, to fall upon all the ſpectators both friends and enemies: and though it may be granted, that a ſingular fear might fall upon their enemies, in reſpect of their great guilt in ſlaying of them, and the unexpected check to their inſulting over them when they were ſlaine; yet this fear might well be without an army, by ſome ſpeciall preſence of God ſhining forth in the Witneſſes. As after that Herod had beheaded John the Baptiſt, and Chriſts fame was ſpread, though Chriſt had no army with him, Herod was perplexed: and why did he fear? was it not becauſe it was ſaid by ſome, that John the Baptiſt was riſen from the dead? by ſome, that Elias; by ſome, that one of the old Prophets? as you may read Luke c. 9. v. 7, 8, 9.

My ſecond reaſon is taken from the deſcription of the Witneſſes, in Revel. 11. v. 4. under the phraſe of Candleſticks, and Olive-trees; the expoſition of both which might be taken from Zach. 4. where we ſhall finde expreſſions rather excluding then implying the aid of an Army; that Zach. 4. doth explain the later expreſſion, is acknowledged by M. Cary pag. 69. and pag. 70. in theſe words, Theſe two Witneſſes are the two Olive-trees; in that they are ſaid to be (the) two Olive-trees, it implyes it hath reference to ſome paſſages of Scripture, wherein there is a former mention of them. Now the place where they are mentioned is Ezek 4. ſo that Zechariah doth propheſie of theſe two Wineſſes, under the expreſſion of two Olive-trees. Now in that place, Zach. 4.4. we finde that the Prophet doth ask the Angel, what theſe be; and then the Angel makes this anſwer, this is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, ſaying, not by might, nor by power, but by my ſpirit, ſaith the Lord of hoſts; Who art thou O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou ſhalt become a plaine, and he ſhall bring forth the head ſtone thereof with ſhoutings, crying, grace, grace unto it. In this text thus cited by M. Cary, obſerve, how expreſly the aid of armies is excluded by a double barre, ver. 6. in theſe words, not by might, nor by power; where, by the way, it is obſervable, that the marginall note in our Bibles, inſteed of might, reads army.

8. Exception.

The Author pag. 99. for the reaſon why the fifth day of April 1645. ſhould be the day of the Witneſſes Reſurrection, layes down this; that the Parliaments army being new modelled, began then to march againſt the enemy, to which I have four things to ſay.

1. That the Author leaves us in a great miſt, to finde out ſo glorious a day as the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes; for ſhe tels us only in general of the new modeld armies beginning to march againſt the enemies; but whether the new model were then compleated, or but begun, ſhe tels us not; nor yet whether the maine body of the army began then to march, or ſome ſmall parts of it; nor, whether that part of the army which then began to march (if indeed any did then march) were at that time new modeld or not, nor whence they marcht that day, nor whether they marcht that day, nor upon what ſervice, nor under what ſpeciall Leader; nor any the like circumſtances, by which the truth of what ſhe affirmes might be tried.

2. Suppoſe it could appear by credible teſtimony, that ſome part of the army did march on April the fifth 1645. and that that party did march againſt an enemy, and that that party was new modeld before its march, and that they were the firſt forces that did march being new modeld: though all this ſhould be ſuppoſed to be true; yet this would be but a poor matter to make a day of Reſurrection: and I appeale to any indifferent perſons, whoſe judgements are for a martiall Reſurrection; whether many, and many paſſages might not be obſerved, both in this army ſince the new modelling of it, and in the Parliaments army before the new modelling, and in other armies in former ages, which might with better colour lay claime to the dignity of uſhering in the Witneſſes Reſurrection.

3. I have with much inquiſitiveneſſe endeavoured to finde out what particular paſſage might cauſe the 5 of April to be fingled out as the day of the Witneſſes Reſurrection, rather then any other day in April, or any other day in the whole yeere: and I can finde none beſides M. Cary that makes any mention of any paſſage in the army as on that day. I have, by me, three ſeverall Liſts of paſſages of the army in that yeere, and none of them doth mention the fifth of April, or ſo much as intimate any action, march, or motion, on that day. I have peruſed many other printed Liſts, and I finde not that day at all taken notice of in any of them; but other dayes in that moneth I finde mentioned with remarkable paſſages on them. And here I ſhall leave it to the Reader to judge, how likely it is that the Reſurrection of the Witneſſes, which ſhould fill the ſpectators with fear, could paſſe undiſcerned by thoſe, who have made it their work to obſerve the footſteps of Providence in the army, if indeed it were an army providence, and at that time, when the obſervations of ſo many were at work about the new model.

4. Maſter Sprigge, a man unlikely to deprive the army of any deſerved honour, and likely to know more of the paſſages of the army then M. Cary: in his large book called Englands Recovery; being the Hiſtory of the motions, actions and ſucceſſes of the army under the immediate conduct of his Excellency (then) Sir Thomas Fairfax, in that Treatiſe makes no mention (that I could finde) of that fifth of April, nor intimates any thing ſutable to what M. Cary relates in order thereto; but rather the contrary, ſo far as I can judge from theſe enſuing paſſages, which I ſhall give you in his owne words, Sir Thomas Fairfax having with much modeſty accepted this command, immediatly applies himſelf to the diſcharge of it; it was the firſt of April ere his Commiſſion was granted, and the third of April he went from London to Windſor, to ſee and perſonally to aſſiſt in the framing of a new army. His Excellency continued at Windſor from the third to the laſt of April in that worke, the difficulty whereof might well account for this time, if it had been a longer ſpace; conſidering that beſides the fitting of the trains for the field, and the attendance of the 〈◊〉 from London, which with the old that continued, were to make up the ••… ſigned number, an entire new form was to be introduced into the whole army the forces that remained of the whole army being not only to be recruited, bu •… to be reduced into new companies and regiments, as if they had been new ra • ſed, pag. 9. and afterwards pag. 15. the firſt of May his Excellency began hi • march with the whole army, in this firſt march of the new model, &c.

Now Reader weigh impartially what thou haſt read, and ſo I leav • it to thine own judgment to determine, whether the pretended demonſtration of M. Cary be more then a partiall fanſie, and whether her ſingle opinion be not maintained with more then ſingle miſtakes, if thou art one who wilt own the truth in theſe times; Farewell, and pray for the faith and patience of the Saints.