your dispute a great deale the better because I see and finde you willing to discouer euery thing truly to conceale nothing that seemeth to make for their profession and religion But I greatly desire a sound answere to this great and mightie reply for our learned Diuines doe thinke it vnanswerable and altogether insoluble Remig. I answere first that the Iesuite S. R. or Robert Parsons if you will citeth this reason or testimony out of S. Cyprian but corruptly and falsly as in the reply to his pretensed answere to the downe-fall of Popery it doth and may appeare Secondly that it is a very childish reply vnworthy to be aleaged of any learned writer for these are S. Cyprians words ad quos perfidia accesâ—â—m habere non potest They know not them to bée Romans to whom falshood or deceiptfull dealing can haue no accesse or with whom falshood and crafty dealing can finde no place or comfort Now this answere is as much to the purpose for prouing that the Popes faith cannot faile as if I should demand of M Fryer Parsons how farre it is to London and it should please his grauity to answere a poke full of plums For first S. Cyprian speaketh of the Romans indefinite whom he commendeth to bée so honest so sincere and so vpright in all their procéedings that the false reports and vniust allegations of disobedient persons can find no help or comfort in their Tribunals or Consistorie-courts Now Robert parsons to make a shew of the Popes falsly pretended prerogatiue in matters of faith doth first of all corruptly set downe these words to S. Peters chaire for these words in the text ad qâ—os Romanos to which Romans then he falsly setteth downe false faith for the word perfidia in S. Cyprian which there signifieth not false faith but â—â—lshood and deceiptfull dealing as if S. Cyprian had sayd it sâ—illeth not for the Romans are so wise so sincere and so vpright in all their procéedings that no false reports or deceitfull allegations can haue any place or finde any refuge in their Courts Now I pray you heartily to censure the case and cause indifferently was this honest dealing of your Iesuite to change the word falshood into false faith as if forsooth Saint Cyprian had meant that the Popes faith cannot faile when indéede S. Cyprian as we haue heard doth vtterly renounce that hereticall and damnable position viz. that the Popes faith cannot faile For if S. Cyprian had beléeued that position and withall had gainesaid and withstood the Popes definitiue and iudiciall sentence hee should both in the iudgement of other holy Fathers and in his owne conscience haue bin a flat Hereticke But neuer did any holy Father or yâ— Church of God so repute him Pope Stephanus with a Councel of al the Bishops and Priests of Italy defined flatly against rebaptization which decrée of Councel with the Popes assent thereto Saint Cyprian scorned and contemned stil defending his former opinion constantly Yea he was so farre from acknewledging yâ— prerogatiue in Popes which they of latter dayes challenge to themselues that he would not take Pope Stephanus for his superior or to haue any iurisdiction ouer him but termed him proud ignorant blinde and naughty as is euident to such as read his Epistle to Pompeius Out of which procéedings I note these memorable points First that he knew what the Pope and his Councel had decreed Secondly that he iudged a Romish Councell to be of no greater force then a Councell African Thirdly that he iudged the councell of Italy to bee of no greater force for the Popes consent then was the councell of Astricke for his owne consent Fourthly that prouinciall Councels are of no greater authority for the Popes confirmation then for the confirmation of another Bishop The third Reply Theoph. Cardinall Bellarmine telleth vs that the Pope defined the controuersie indeede but not as a matter of faith and consequently Saint Cyprian could not bee an Heretique albeit hee withstood the decree of the Pope Remig. What a Religion is Popery what a man is Cardinall Bellarmine shall we make him another Pope shall we admit euery thing hee saith for and as Christs holy Gospell I knew the man right well before he was Cardinall and I thinke no Angell hath spoken to him since I fit so be let him worke myracles for confirmation thereof The Pope vtterly disliking Saint Cyprians opinion and déeming it repugnant to Christs Gospell did for that end conuocate all the cleargie men of Italy that the controuersie might be derided and the truth thereof made manifest to the world And yet saith Bellarmine he defined it not as a matter of faith The controuersie was about rebaptization and consequently either flatly with the Gospell or flatly against the same If it were flatly with the Gospell then erred the Pope and his Councell egregiously if it were flatly against yâ— Gospell and the Pope so decréed it then decréed he against it as against a matter of faith or else opinions and doctrines against the Gospell are not against the Catholike faith but the truth of the matter is this viz. that if the Papists graunt as of necessity they must graunt S. Cyprian to haue withstood and contemned the Popes iudicial and definitiue sentence for all that euer to haue béene reputed an holy man and learned Father it will fallow of necessity that the Pope hath no such authority and prerogatiue as he a long time falsly hath vsurped and still tyrannically pretendeth to haue And therefore the Iesuited Cardinall déemed it the best course for the continuance of his Popes falsly pretended prerogatines to tell vs that though the Pope defined the controuersie yet did he not define it as a matter of faith and so Saint Cyprian could he no hereticke because hee withstood no decrée of faith as if forsooth it rested in the Popes power to make matters of faith and herefie at his good will and pleasure Theoph. This your answer doth yeeld great solace to to my heart for our great masters beare vs in hand that whatsoeuer the Pope decreeth the same must we receiue and beleeue as an vndoubted truth and their dayly practise is correspondent thereto for whosoeuer shall denie or gainesay the Popes decree who is with vs as another God shall vndoubtedly be burnt as a conuicted Heretike Bellarmines answere seemeth indeed to bee nothing else but a plaine tricke of Legerdemaine as is his like conceite and doctrine concerning his Popes double person But good sir doth not the Euangelist tell vs that Christ built his church vpon Saint Peter and that hell gates shall neuer preuaile against it the words seeme very plaine Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my church and Hell gates shall not preuaile against it Obiection second Theoph. Christ built his Church vpon Peter ergo his faith caÌ„not faile the antecedeÌ„t is proued by Christs own
aduersaries arguments plainely resolutly confesseth the doctrine which I defend In one place hee hath these expresse words me thinkes he plainely auoucheth he speaketh of Saint Austen that God hath procured euery thing to be cléerely written which to know is necessary for euery mans saluation In another place hee hath these words what things soeuer are necessary are manifest out of scripture Now sir what man can thinke our Iesuite to bee in his right wits that thus woundeth himselfe with his owne weapons for he doth not onely grant that euery thing necessary for euery mans saluation is manifest in the scripture but withall that euery necessary thing is cléerely written in the same and consequently he granteth vnaware against himselfe either that to beléeue the holy Bible to be the pure word of God is a trifle a thing of small moment and not at all necessary to saluation which if the Papists doe they must perforce condemne themselues and vtterly ouerthrow their Romish faith or else that the same is plainely and cleerely set downe in the holy Scripture the cause is cléere I hope I haue said enough Theoph. All the world knoweth old and yong rich and poore learned and vnlearned that to know and beleeue the holy Bible to be Gods word is so necessary to saluation as none without it can be saued It now remaineth for my full satisfaction and resolution in all points of Catholike doctrine in controuersie that if I know how to answere the Papists concerning one point of doctrine wherwith they neuer cease to charge you your profession I would think my selfe able to answere and confound all Papists in the world and to perswade all indifferently affected persons to abhorre and detest late start-vp popery world without end Remig. Let me know I pray you heartily what yâ— point of doctrine is wherewith our aduersaries so surcharge vs and our profession conceale nothing from me that any way troubleth your conscience for doubtlesse I am most willing to vndergoe any paines for your instruction in the truth Theoph. They charge you to hold teach that the best liuer among you sinneth in the best act he doth which seemeth a doctrine so strange irksome to all godly eares as my selfe caÌ„not but detest the same for if we can do nothing but sinne we must perforce condemne all good workes all preaching all teaching and all holy conuersation Remig. I wonder that any liuing wilcharge our Church with such vnsauory doctrine Theoph. Your aduersaries affirme with open mouthes so disgracing you and your profession as much as in them lieth that this is a generall receiued axiome with all your Deuines Iustus in omni opere bono peceat The iust man sinneth in euery good worke he doeth and that all euen our best workes are sinne Remig. My selfe though most vnworthy of that sacred name am one among the rest Howbeit I am so farre from beléeuing or defending that doctrine that I vtterly renounce the same in the sense formerly by you auouched For the exact examination of which proposition by them te armed our Maxime or Axiome let vs dispute the question pro contra as we haue done the rest CHAP. 6. Of the state of the regenerate with the particular adiuncts of the same Remigius THis proposition which séemeth to trouble you more then a litle the iust man sinneth in euery good work may admit a double sense and meaning viz a rigorous and a fauourable interpretation Iâ— we interprete it according to the rigour of the words the sense must be this the iust man sinneth euen in the best worke he doth which sense I willingly graunt is not onely straunge but with all very irksonâ—â— to all Christian eares howbeit if it may finde a fauourable interpretation the sense and meaning will be this the iust man sinneth whiles he doth the best worke he can which sense is most Christian sound Catholike Apostolicall and consonant to the holy scriptures But here ye must marke seriously that it is one thing to sinne in doing a good worke an other thing to sâ—me while the same good worke is a doing Iheoph This your distinction as it is very subtile so is it also right iovous comfortable to mine heart it affordeth me a kind of glimmering though no ful insight into the question Remig. He that will exactly know the truth of this question must apâ—ly distinguish the quadruple state of man First his state before sinne vntill his fall Secondly his state after sinne vntill his regeneration Thirdly his state after regeneration vntill his glorification Fourthly his state after glorification world without end In the first state albeit man sinned indéede and thereby made both himselfe and his posterity subiect to eternal torment yet was he so created of God his maker that he might haue liued without sinne for euer and aye In the second state man can doe nothing that good is but sinne continually In the third state man by Gods grace and great mercy is enabled to do good though not wholly to â—schew sinne saue onely according to the measure of his regeneration In the fourth state man is so confirmed in grace that he cannot sinne world without end Which distinction being well marked and remembred we shall easily vnderstand that albeit man can neuer be without sinne in this life but adde sinne to sinne continually yet may he by the grace of regeneration do good workes euen while he sinneth mortally Theoph. It seemeth to mee a thing impossible that man shall be able to do any good worke while he sinneth damnably Remig. It is a generell receiued axiome with all skilfull Logicians that true things must be graunted falsâ— things denied and ambiguous things distingushed which being true as it is most true indéede if we shall distinguish regeneration aright the truth of this intricate question will soone appeare viz. that one may aswell both sinne and do good at one and the same time as he may at the same time be both a father and a sonne Theoph. Our Papists contend with might and maine that howsoeuer we distinguish regeneration yet shall man in his iustification be freed from all sinne and consequently he cannot sinne mortally in the best act he doth Remig. The Papists erre grosly about regeneration whilest they doe not vnderstand the same aright according to the holy scriptures or they beare the world in hand that euery iustified person is fréed from all sinne in his soule and onely subiect to sinne materially in his body which if it were true as it is most false then doubtlesse could not the regenerate man commit mortall sinne while he doth his best workes Theoph. The Apostle seemeth to stand on their side when he telleth vs that the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and it is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place where he affirmeth himselfe to serue the law of God in his
be too chargeable to you if I tarry long with you Remig. I liue as you sée like a scholler and kéepe but a sparing diet if you can content your selfe therewith I shall ioy thereat For I know assuredly that our mercifull God who fréely without my deserts sendeth me al things necessary for my bodily sustenance and who hath also fréely promised not to suffer a cuppe of cold water giuen in his name to passe at any time without reward will neuer sée or suffer me to want things necessary to my selfe for bestowing Christian hospitality vpon my neighbour for his sake yéeld therefore your serious attention and ye shall behold these thrées things as cleare as the nooâ—e day viz. the false and erroneous faith of your Bishops of Rome their most brttish and deâ—estable liues and their interrupted and most uncertaâ—â— succession as which is so mingled and mangled or rather so defaced and vtterly extinguished that no man can tell what indéede to make thereof Of which thrée points while I shall distinctly discourse I would haue you to put forth plainly and at large all such doubts as any way doe trouble you for that I hold the best course for your full satisfaction and confirmation in the truth of the true auncient Cathalike and orthodore faith CHAP. 2. Of the false and erroneous faith of the late Bishops of Rome Theophilus VVE at Rome hold it constantly for an article of the Chatholike faith that our Popes and Bishops are the successors of S. Peter and therefore can they not erre in faith or doctrine no more then S. Peter could for whose faith Christ prayed that it should neuer faile Remig. How the late Bishops of Rome are S. Peters successors it shall be shewed God willing in the chapter of succession Let vs now vnfold and sincerely examine the faith and doctrine of some speciall Popes in particular for the view and consideration of a few will be a sufficient tryall for all the rest Theoph. I must needes yeeld thereunto for we hold it a part of the Catholike faith that Christs prayer was effectuall for all S. Peters successors alike so as if any one of them can be conuinced to haue erred we cannot safely relie and ground our faith vpon the rest Remig. That the Bishops or Popes of Rome as ye call them may become heretikes yea that they haue béene heretikes de facto it is a thing so cleare as I shall not neede to stand long vpon the same for many popish decrées and Papall constitutions tell vs that Popes may be deposed when and so often as they swarue from the true faith and become heretikes indéede which decrées and constitutions must perforce presuppose that the Popes may be heretikes indéede for otherwise they should be frustrate and to none end at all one popish Canon and decrée hath these expresse words the Pope iudgeth all and must be iudged of none vnlesse he swarue from the faith and be an heretike another Canon hath these words sheepe which are committed to their pastor may neither rebuke him nor in any wise accuse him vulesse he depart and forsake the faith these are the words of the Popes owne Canons I doe alledge them truely as I meane to do all the reste whatsoeuer I shall speake of the Popes themselues or of any popish writer which I proteste vnto you once for all as I will answere the saine at the dreadfull day of generall doome Now we sée by these Canons that the Popes may be heretikes and in the case of heresie be censured controlled and condemned Theoph. I heartily thanke you for this your Christian protestation it fully perswadeth me that I may safely giue credit to all your allegations and asseuerations whatsoeuer you say of our Popes Popish writers and their Faith and Doctrine But can yee name any Pope indeede that hath been an Heretique or an Apostate from the Faith our honorable and learned Cardinall the Iesuite Bellarmine statly denieth it Remig. Pope Anastasius Pope Honorius Pope Iohn and others haue beene Heretickes Vignerius Melchier Canus Alphonsus and Adrianus all foure famous and learned Papists and one of them Adrianils sometime Pope himselfe doe affirme it and defend it for a constant and vndoubted truth Nicholaus de Lyra a famous Popish Frier so learned a man that Sir Thomas Moore called him a great Clearke as he was indéede preueth euidently that the Church doth not consist in men by reason of power or dignity either Ecclesiasticall or Secular and this is the ground and foundation vpon which hée buildeth his assertion because saith Fryer Lyra many Princes and Popes and others of the inferiour sort are sound to haue swarued from the faith and to haue béene flat Apostataes Yea Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Bishop and religious Fryer in that very booke which hée deliuered to the Pope himselfe behold the force of truth confirmeth this mine assertion in these expressed words Papa hereticus aut Apostata c. The Pope being an Heretique or Apostata may bee deposed by a generall Councel and the reason is because as none can be a Prelate of any religion which is not professed in that religion so neither can he be Pope that holdeth not the faith oâ— the Church Thus you see it cléere euen by Popish famous Doctors the Popes owne decrées such 〈…〉 none can be better that the Bishope of Rome may forsake the Christian faith teach false Doctrine and become flat Apostataes Yea that de facto the same hath béene verified of sundry Popes in very déede Theoph. Our Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Catholiques tell vs that our Pope is a double person priuate and publique that as he is a priuate person hee may thinke speake write and hold erroneous opinions false doctrine and whatsoeuer else yet this notwithstanding that the Pope as he is Pope and a publique person can neuer erre in any matter of faith nor iudicially define any thing against the truth This our famous Dominican Fryer Dominicus de Soto setteth downe in these expresse words quamuis Papa vt Papa c. Albeit the Pope as Pope cannot erre that is to say cannot set downe any errour as an article of our faith because the holy Ghost will not that permit neuerthelesse as hee is a priuate person he may erre euen in faith as he may do in other sinnes Remig. This indéede is the ground and foundationo all Popish faith and doctrine that the Pope may erre as a priuate man but not as Pope and publique person for this cause doth M. Watson tell vs in the name of all the secular Priests in their conflict against the traiterous Iesuits that as the prudent Gréeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober and Bishop Crostrate from Pope Adrian priuate to Pope Adrian publique and as sumus pontifex in cathedra Petri so may the secular Priests the Popes deuoted vassals notwithstanding any decrée
and contemning the same Remig. I answere first that neither of both doth follow of necessity the reason is euident because things méerely adiaphora and indifferent of their owne nature may be vsed or not vsed as it séemeth good to the supreme magistrate For example sake whether Kings Quéenes be annointed at their Coronations or not it is méere extrinâ—ecall to their sacred soueraignty as who are as perfect Kings before it as after the same and consequently though our Church haue reiected such ceremonies as vnprofitable or not necessary at the least yet doth shee not condemne other reformed Churches which vse and still reteine the same after the simple vse and manner of the first inst tution thereof all leuity superstition and opinion of necessity set apart Secondly that though our Bishops were consecrated in popish maner with oyle and Chrisme and by the Popes authority yet neither did nor could such externall rites frustrate and euacuate their ministeriall dignity for to vse your Schoole-termes many things are done validè which are not done licitè if the Iesuites and Iesuited papists deny this they must condemne many of their Popes as it is already proued Thirdly that the abolishing of néedles ceremonies superstitiously abused can no wayes preiuâ—ice the lawfull and true calling of our Bishops Theoph. All Bishops and Priests made by them are receiued as true Bishops of you but Bishops and Priests made by you are but meere Lay-men with them which seemeth an euident argument that true Bishopes are onely made by the authority of the Pope Remig. I answere first that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is but like the authority of other Patriarkes as it was defined by the first famous generall Councell vnder Constantine the great Secondly that the famous generall Councell of Constantinople which was celebrated in Anno 681. granted the Bishope of Constantinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and to excell in all Ecclesiasticall affaires as the Bishop of Rome saue onely that the chief Patriarchall seat was reserued to him for order-sake and peaceable gouernement of the Church For as Rome was the chiefe seate of the Emperour and therefore called Caput mundi so was the Bishop there for the honor dignity of the Empire to which all the world paid tribute in the daies of Augustus Caesar reputed the chéefest Bishop of the visible Church Thirdly that the Bishop of Romes authority was so farre from being superiour to the Emperours who was euer called the Emperour of Rome that no Bishop there for the space of 684. yeares could haue and enioy any iurisdiction vnlesse the same Bishop were confirmed by the letters pattents of the Emperour This point of doctrine which is of great consequence is already proued and that euen by the testimony of many learned and famous Papists Fourthly that neither the Popes authority neither Oyle nor Crisme nor any other Popish ceremony either is or can be any essentiall part of the Ecclesiastical ministery and consequently that the Papist must néedes be condemned either of too too grosse ignorance or else of extreame malice whilest they reiect our Ministers and repute them méere Lay-men and that for the want of a few curious and vnprofitable ceremonies which are not onely meere extrinsecal to the function but withall superstitiously abused euery where Fifthly that the Papists condemne themselues in their owne practicall proceedings whiles they admit our Sacrament of Baptisme by our Ministers administred and withall reiect as méere Lay-men our Ministers of the same For as they supply the accedentall ceremonies in the one so may they do also with as great reason in the other Wherefore I conclude that as our Church sheweth both charity and wisedome in admitting their Bishops and Priests so doth their Church shew both malice and ignorance in refusing ours And that is all indéed that truly can be inferred of their senslles and péeuish refusall albeit many silly simply seduced papists neither doe nor can so conceiue the matter This my answere is yet confirmed by another Popish practicall vsage They reiect our Ministers because they want their popish beggerly ceremonies and for all that they grant their owne Ministers to be true Priests still euen after they haue degraded them and taken all their ceremonies from them Marke well what I shall relate for it is a wonderment of the new world The Papists tell vs and it is a speciall article of late popish faith that if a popish Priest come into a great market place where there is great store of wheate-bread though a thousand or moe loaues in number and then and there looking on the same bread shall pronounce these words hoc est corpus meum this is my body with intention to consecrate the same then forthwith euery loafe of the sayd wheat-bread is made Christs body and per concomitantiam as their Schooles terme it God almighty so as the people are bound by popish faith and lawes to adore the same loaues euery loafe as the sonne of the euerliuing God trial here of was once made a Rome as my self being in Rome heard from the mouth of a Iesuite For as the Iesuite reported to me and I haue reason to credite him in such a case and cause a Priest being degraded and designed to dye for his homely qualities as he passed in the stréete by a bakers shop beheld a great quantity of wheat-bread and recited these words hoc est corpus meum and then told the people that he had coÌ„secrated the same bread so desiring once to be auenged of the Pope and his godlesse Popelings Wherupon consultation was had out of hand among the learned there and sentence resolutely â—â—en by the Pope that euery loafe was God almighty After which sentence so clearkely pronounced the bread was carryed away with great solemnity and such reuerence and adoration exhibited to the same as was due to the sonne of the euerliuing God Now if Popish Priests can this doe euen after their annointing and greasing taken from them yea after their deare Pope hath degraded and after his best maner vnpriested them they haue no reason doubtlesse to say that our Bishops cannot performe the function of true Bishops séeing our Bishoppes are consecrated of popish truly made Bishoppes though without Popish vnprofitable and superstitiously abused ceremonies This resolution is soundly deduced out of the very bowels of Popish faith and religion Theoph. What was not that religion popish which your nation receiued at their first conuersion from Paganisme did not Pope Gregory affect their conuersion by sending Augustine Melitus â—ustus and others into England how then can yee for shame â—ay our Popes Cardinals and Iesuites deny that faith religion which your natiue country embraced and beleeued at your first receiuing of the Christian faith how can yee contemne and condemne those Popes who bestowed such inestimable and precious treasures vpon your country Would
to God I could soundly answere this reason Remig. Listen well to my discourse and you shall God willing be able to confute it with all facility this is the answere First that our nation first receiued the faith iâ— the time of Vespasian Emperour of Rome about 70â— yeeres after Christs sacred Incarnation by the preaching of Christs holy Apostle Symon Zelotes Secondly that if it be true which Freculphus writeth the Brutans had receiued the faith of Christ about the yéere 6â— by the preaching of those twelue which Philip the Apostle sent into this land whereof Ioseph of Aramathâ—a was the chiefe Thirdly that about the yéere 1â—9 Elutherius then Bishop of Rome at the request of King Lucius the sonne of Coâ—lis sent Faganus and Deruuianus into Britaine to baptise the said King and his people and to instruct them in the faith of Christ. Fourthly that séeing the Brutanes had béene subiects and tributaries to the Romans aboue 600. yéeres it is no rare thing that Gregory the chiefe Bishop of the Romans should send preachers into England with the good liking of Ethelbert then King of Kent for it is euery Christians duty to doe what in him lieth in such a case Fifthly that the name Pope is a Gréeke word which signifieth father and in the auncient Church was common to other Bishops with the Bishops of Rome which you may finde proued at large in a little booke intituled the triall of the new religion Sixthly that in the time of this Gregory and long after the faith and doctrine of the Church of Rome was in good case though in some part steined with some corruptions neither is it blame worthy either in Bishop Gregory that sent it or in King Ethelbert that receiued it that our nation had then the Church seruice in the Latin tongue for as the prouerbe saith necessity hath no law besides that the Roman language was then in the Latin tongue and so to them their vulgar tongue and they altogether ignorant of the language of our nation for of old time as Nicholaus Lyranus that learned popish Frier telleth vs euery Church had diuine seruice in her mother and vulgar tongue of which subiect I haue written at large in the suruey of popery and no maruell if our Church receiuing the Church seruice in the Latin tongue though vpon necessity for that the Romans were ignorant of the Saxons language did a long time reteine the same for though it were a fault comparatiuely a small one would to God our Church had neuer béene steined with greater corruptions one thousand yéere are fully expired since Gregory was the Bishop of Rome since which time most intollerable abuses superstitions errors and flat heresies haue crept into the Church of Rome which is all that our Church hath abolished still constantly reteining as pure and inuiolable the old Roman faith and religion Theoph. You told me that the visible Church both may erre and de facto hath erred and the same as you haue soundly proued by the testimonies of best approued popish writers may fitly and truly be verified in many late Bishops of Rome but how any Church can be inuisible which is the Church say you that cannot erre I doe not yet vnderstand I pray you take some paine for my better instruction in that behalfe Remig. True it is that euery particular Chuch is visible in it selfe for all men women and children euery one in his corporall consistence are visible as experience teacheth vs and for all that this is a true and most constant position that that Church which cannot erre inuisible for the true aâ—d exact knowledge whereof you must distinguish in man two things his externall corporeity or corporall consistence and his internall election in Christ Iesus Man considered the former way is visible indéed euery child can discypher the case but the latter way he is inuisible and knowne onely vnto God or to those to whom he reuealeth it Theoph. I seeme now to haue a glimmering of the question though no perfect insight into the same I pray you vnfold the case distinctly and declare it by some familiar examples if it may be Remig. At such time as the Prophet Elias made his complaint in Santaria that he onely was left alone an Oracle from heauen answered him in this maner I haue reserued to my selfe seuen thousand men which haue not bowed the knée to Baal By which diuine Oracle it is euident yâ— seuen thousand persons were inuisible to Elias and all the same visible in themselues at one and yâ— same time Do yée now vnderstand the case Theoph. I seeme to conceiue it by vertue of your former distinction They were visible as men but inuisible as the children of God for that Elias knew not their faith and election in Iesus Christ. Remig. You conceiue it aright Iudas Iscariot as he was a man was visible both to the rest of the Apostles and to others who for all that as he was a traytor was visible to God alone for which cause the Apostles were astonished when they heard that one of them should betray Christ their Lord and Maister The Apostle confirmeth the same when he saith the foundation of God remaineth sure and hath this seale the Lord knoweth who are his the faith and conscience of the elect to God-ward is vnknowne to men and so to them they are inuisible though visible in their owne persons Theoph. I must needes yeeld to this as to a manifest truth but are not all members of the which Church beleeue in Christ and hold the catholike faith as we do Remig. All that professe externally the Catholike faith are members of the visible Church and must be reputed for such so long as they are not cut off from the Church by the iust censure of excommunication But Gods elect onely are the true Church that is to say that mysticall body whereof Christ Iesus is the mysticall head Gods elect onely are that Church to which Christ promised his inuisible presence to the worlds end Gods elect only are that Church which is the pillar of truth and cannot erre But the reprobates neither are nor can bee that mysticall body whereof Christ is the head for our Lord Iesus is so farre from being their head that he hateth all those that worke wickednesse and wil put them from him with a sharp ve vobis at the generall doome Gods elect onely are the bride betrothed to our Lord Iesus the Bride-grome betwéene whom there is such an inseparable vnion as no power create vpon earth or in heauen is able to dissolue the same Theoph. God reward you for your great paines which you haue taken herein for his names sake and my good you haue so resolued me in these most intricate difficulties of christian religion that I stand at vtter defiance with the late start-vp Romish faith and doctrine highly reuerencing the old Roman