and publique person cannot erre and therefore that they are to bee censured for Heretiques whosoeuer will not receiue and beleeue as articles of the Christian faith whatsoeuer the Pope defineth iudicially and publiquely as sitting in Peters chaire Remig. This lately coyned diabolicall distinction of the Popes double person with the circumstances wherewith it is adorned may fitly be tearmed a trick of Legierdemaine wherewith many haue béene seduced a long time For when the Pope is charged and plainely conuicted to haue decréed false and erroneous doctrine to bée holden for articles of the faith then the Pope and his Iesuites with their Iesuited broode tell vs peremptorily and as it were violently enforce vs to beléeue it that such decrées procéede from the Popes Holinesse as a priuate man but not as a publique person What a thing is this if the Pope decrée any thing how absurd soeuer it be and affirme the same to be his iudiciall sentence out of Peters chaire then the same must be holden and be beléeued for an article of faith and to be as true as the Gospell of Iesus Christ and he that will not so hold and so beléeue must be burnt for an Heretique for all this no Scripture no generall Councell no holy Father no learned Popish Writer for yâ— space of 1400. yeares after Christs sacred incarnation my life and saluation I gage for the tryall can be truely produced or alleaged for the confirmation and clearing of such Popish dotage or rather of such diabolical heresie and neuer-inough detested villany Theoph. Your words doe penetrate and touch the very bottome of my heart but is it possible that you can prooue and iustifie this your assertion if you can this performe popery is confounded and striken dead I therefore pray you for Christs sake to proue this point so soundly and cleerely as I may be assured of the truth thereof Remig. M. Doctor Gerson Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris a famous papist and one of the principall deuines in the general Councell of Constance deliuereth the truth to the view of the christian world in these expresse words concluditur ex hac radice duplex veritas prima quod determinatio solius Papae in his quae sunt fidei non obligat vt precise est talis ad credendum alioquin staret in casu quod quis obligaretur ad contradictoria vel ad falsum contra fidem Out of this roote is concluded a double truth first yâ— the resolution or determination of the Pope alone in things belonging to faith as it is precisâ—ly such not confirmed by a generall councell doth not tie or bind a man to beléeue it for otherwise the case might so fal out that one should be bound either to beléeue contradictories or else falshood against his faith Againe in another place the same doctor and great learned man hath these expresse words in causis fidei non habetur in terra iudex infallibi is vel qui non sit deuiabilis a fide de lege communi praeter ipsam Ecclesiam vniuersalem vel concilium generale eam sufficienter repraesentans in causes of faith there is no infallible iudge vpon earth or which cannot swarâ—e from the faith by the common course of Gods procéeding sauing the vniuersall Church or a generall councell Many like testimonies this learned writer hath which I let passe in regard of breuity for that I déeme these twaine so cleare and so sufficient as they will perswade euery indifferent reader for first we sée plainely by M. Gersons resolution that no Christian is bound to beleue the decrée definition determination or resolution of the Pope as he is barely and precisely Pope or Bishop of Rome without yâ— assistance of a general councell Secondly that the Pope may erre both priuately and publickely in the resolutions of faith aswell as their Bishops and ministers of the Church Thirdly that there are but two infallible iudges vpon earth concerning matters of faith that is to say the whole Congregation of the faithfull and a generall Councell lawfully and sufficiently representing the same which resolution of this learned man I admit with heart and voyce as most Christian sound orthodoxe and consonant to the holy scriptures generall Councels holy fathers and best learned papists M. doctor Fisher late Bishop of Rochester and a popish canonized martyr deliuereth his opinioÌ„ in these expresse words nec Angustini nec Hieronymi necalterius cuiâ—sâ—â—bet auctoris doctrinae sic Ecclesia subscripsit quin ipsilocis aliquotab ijs liceat disâ—entire naÌ„ in noÌ„nullis ipsis locis se plane monstrarunt homines esse atque nonnun quam aberrasse the Church hath not se subscribed either to the doctrine of Austen or of Hierome or of any other author or writer but that she may sometime dissent from their opinions for themselues haue plainely shewed themselues to be men and that they wanted not their errors The Iesuite Bellaâ—mine so deare to the Pope for his writing that he gaue him a Cardinals hat wrote in this manner sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare posâ—unt aliquando errant inter se quandoque dissentiunt vt nesciamus quinam eorum sequendus sit without doubt all Bishops seuerally may erre doe sometime erre indéede doe also sometime so dissent one from another that we cannot tell which of them we may safely follow By the verdit of these famous learned papists we sée M. Gersons doctrine plainely confirmed for albeit they name not the Pope yet must they confesse perforce that he is implyed in their words or else that he is no Bishop at all which is a thing not impossible by popish faith though I affirme it not Iacobus Almaynus Gulielmus Ockamus Thomas Waldensis Iosephus Angles with many others I might alledge but I déeme these sufficient Two things I will adde for your better satisfaction herein the one that this weightie point of doctrine was most soundly handled and throughly debated in the councell of Constance where it was concluded that a generall councell is aboue the Pope that a generall counsell may depose the Pope that the same councell de facto deposed Pope Iohn the 23. of that name and that the Pope as a publike person may both be an heretike and decrée hereticall doctrine The other that the councell of Constance was holden and celebrated in the yéere of our Lord God 1415. and that M Gerson was a famous diuine of the same councell both beholding with his eyes and hearing with his eares him selfe not being mute in the interim thrée Popes Iohn the 23. Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. deposed by the same councell and the constant resolution of the councell against the Popes fasly challenged priuiledges as namely that the Pope as Pope and as he is a publike person neither is nor can be an infallible iudge in matters of faith Theoph. These things are wonderfull which you
was the Bishop of Rome yea he both sharply reproued him and scornefully condemned his definitiue sentence and decrée Theoph. I see not how this proceeding of Saint Cyprian can proue that the Pope may erre Iudicially in matters of faith I beseech you take the paines to explicate the same more at large Remig. Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a learned man and an holy Bishop in his life time as also a most glorious Martyr being dead Now in regard of his great learning he could not haue béene ignorant of the Popes rare priuiledge in noterring in matters of faith if either the holy Scriptures had taught it or the learned Fathers of that age had beléeved or receiued it and in regard of his piety and rare vertue he would reuerently haue yéelded to such a singular prerogatiue and haue giuen the glory to the sonne of God the author thereof if any such thing had béene done vnto him Yea if the Bishop of Rome had beene Christs Uicar generall and so priuiledged as our Iesuites and Iesuited crew beare the world in hand he is that is to say that hée could not erre in his iudiciall definitions of faith then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue béen a flat heretique and so reputed and estéemed in the Church of God For if any Christian shall this day do or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publickly deny yâ— Popes sayd falsly pretéded prerogatiue of faith in any place Country territories or dominions where Popery beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must be burnt at a stake with fire and faggot for his paines Theoph. God reward you for your trauaile I see it now as cleerely as the noone day For S. Cyprian both knew the Scripture right well and also what was the publike faith of the Church in his time so if either the Scripture had taught it or the Church had beleeued it hee would neuer haue withstood it but reuerently haue yeelded thereunto But sir our Doctors haue much to say for themselues would God it might please you to heare and answere the same at large Remig. I will both willingly heare them and soundly by the power of God confute the same For I know right well before I heare them from your mouth what possibly they are able to say in their owne defence CHAP. 3. Of sundry important Obiections which seeme to proue the Popes prerogatiue of faith Obiection first Theophilus CHrist prayed for Peter that his faith should neuer faile ergo the Bishop of Romes faith cannot faile nor the Pope erre in his iudiciall decrees for seeing Christ constituted a Church which should continue to the worlds end he prayed not onely for S. Peters person but also for all that should succeede him in his Chaire at Rome Remig. I answere first that many learned Writers doubt greatly not onely of his supposed Chaire but euen of his being there Howbeit because all the holy Fathers and learned Writers of the auncient Church doe with vniforme assent affirme Saint Peter to haue béene Bishop of Rome I willingly admit the same as a receiued truth Secondly that albeit Christ prayed for S. Peters faith as also appointed his Church to continue to the worlds end yet doth it not follow thereupon that what priuiledge soeuer he obtained by prayer for S. Peter the same must redound to all those that lineally succéed in his place or chaire for no Scripture no Councell no Father doth so write or so expound Christs prayer Thirdly that Christ prayed for the faith of the whole Church or for Peters faith as he did represent the whole church which is all one in effect This I proue by sundry meanes First because Christ himselfe doth so expound himselfe in these words I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen mee for they are thine I pray not for these alone but for them also which shall beléeue in me through their word Christ prayed aswell for the rest of his Apostles as hée did for Peter and a well for all the elect as for his Apostles and consequently séeing Christ directed not his words to Peter as to one priuate man but as to one representing yâ— whole Church it followeth of necessity yâ— whatsoeuer Christ did or said concerning Peters faith the same perforce must be vnderstood of the faith of yâ— whole Church which faith shall neuer faile indeede Secondly because Iohannes Gersonus a famous Popish writer affirmeth constantly as we haue seene already that there is no infallible Iudge vpon earth in matters of faith sauing the vniuersall Church or a generall Councell lawfully assembled and sufficiently representing the same which doctrine though procéeding from a Popish penne I willingly embrace and reuerence as an vndoubted truth Thirdly because S. Austen applieth Christs prayer generally indifferently to all the whole Church Quid ambigitur c what doubt is there did hée pray for Peter and did he not also pray for â—ames Iohn to say nothing of the rest it is cléere that in Peter all the rest are meant because he saith in another place I pray for these O Father which thou hast giuen me and desire that they may be with me where my selfe am Lo S. Austen vnderstandeth Christs prayer for Peter of the whole Congregation of the faithfull and hée proueth it by Christes owne explication in an other place of the Holy Gospell Fourthly because Origen a very learned and auncient Father affirmeth in a large discourse vpon Saint Matthew that all things spoken of Peter touching the Church and the keies are to be vnderstood of all the rest and the collection or illation of Origen is euident euen by naturall reason for as that learned father profoundly disputeth if Christ prayed not aswell for the rest as he did for Peter of small credite were a great part of the holy scriptures a reason doubtlesse insoluble for all Iesuites and Iesuited popelings in the world for if they could faile in their faith they could also faile in their writing and yet that they could not so faile was by vertue of Christs prayer Fiftly because Panormitanus the Popes skilfull Canonist his religious Abbot his renowned Arche-bishop and his Lordly Cardinall for he was all foure telleth vs plainely and peremptorily that Christs prayer was for the whole congregation of the faithfull these are his expresse words pro hac tantum Chrstus in Euangelio â—ruit ad patrem ego rogaui pro te and for this he speaketh of the whole faithfull congregation Christ onely prayed to his Father in the Gospell when he said I haue prayed for thée Peter that thy faith faile not Behold and marke well and then yéeld your indifferent censure when Christ saith the famous papist Panormitanus prayed that Peters faith should not faile he prayed for the faith of the vniuersall Church whose faith shall neuer faile indéede the same Panormitanus proueth his opinion
directly and strongly by many textes of the Popes Canonâ—aw Sixtly because al the doctors learned diuines of the most famous vniuersity of Paris marke well for this Argumâ—t striketh dead doe expouÌ„d Christs words in S. Luke euen as I haue proued out of Cardinall Panormitanus that is to say that Christ prayed for the faith of the whole Church or for Peters faith as he represented yâ— whole Church which is all one in effect this this is such a deadly wound to the Pope to all his popelings as all medicines in the world are neuer able to cure the same this is it which M. Gerson Chauncellour of the same vniuersity and a famous dispâ—ter in the councell of Constance published to the world in a printed booke whose words we haue heard already that the Bishop of Rome may erre in matters of faith and doctrine aswell as other Bishops their brethren and that there is no infallible iudge vpon the earth in matters of faith saue onely the congregation of the faithfull and a general councel sufficiently representing the same Here I would haue you M. Theophilus to obserue seriously these points with mée which if you shall doe all partiality set a part you cannot but abhorre and detest late start-vp popery these are the obseruations First that all which the Pope and his Iesuites can possible say on the Popes behalfe why he cannot erre iudicially in matters of faith is euen this and nothing else that Christ prayed for S. Peters faith and his successors Secondly that not one doctor two or thrée but Austen Origen Panormitane together with all the great learned diuines of the vniuersity of Paris doe with vniforme consent and swéete harmony expound Christs prayer to be made for the whole congregation of the faithfull Thirdly that all the learned doctors of the said vniuersity are papists and consequently that they say or write nothing against the Pope but what the zeale of truth vrgeth them vnto Fourthly that all the learned diuines of Paris an vniuersity for learning and knowledge renowned throughout the Christian world doe this day as euer in former times hold constantly and both Christianly and zealously desend the same viz That the Bishops of Rome both may erre and de facto haue erred in matters of faith and that Christs prayer was onely for the whole Congregation of the faithfull Fiftly that the said vniuersity was euer so farre from beléeuing this heresie that the Bishop of Rome cannot erre iudicially in matters of faith as also from interpreting Christs prayer for any prerogatiue of his faith or of his successors that it publikely condemned Pope Iohns publike error in faith and that with the sound of the Trumpets yea with the Kinges royall assent and in his presence their expresse words and the Popes heresie we haue heard at large already The first Reply Theoph. Cardinall Bellarmine who is as it were the Popes owne mouth telleth vs constantly that Christ in his prayer obteyned two priuiledges for Peter the one that his faith should never faile the other that neither Peter nor any in Peters seate should euer teach false doctrine and consequently he inferreth that albeit the Bishops of Rome may erre as priuatemen yet neuer iudicially in matters of faith Remig. I answere first yâ— Bellarmine bringeth nothing for his opinion but his own bare imagination and therefore that it is lawfull for vs barely to deny it till he with reason be able to proue it which forsooth will be ad Calendas graecas Secondly that the same Bellarmine telleth vs else-where that the word of God is the rule of faith and that the written word because it is the rule hath this prerogatiue that whatsoeuer is contained in it is of necessity true and must be beléeued and whatsoeuer is repugnant to it is of necessity false and must bee reiected wherein he vnawares confuteth himselfe and iustifieth mine assertion for the Scripture telleth vs euery where that all Bishops eâ—re and both deceiue others and are deceiued theÌ„selues The Prophet Dauid sheweth it plainely when he affirmeth all men to bee lyars The Prophet â—eremy cryeth aloud that the Gentiles in the end of the world shall come and fréely confesse that their forefathers inherited lyes and vanity Saint Paul confirmeth the same when he telleth vs that onely God is true and euery man a lyar The Prophet Malachie reproueth thâ— Priests of the law for their manifold errors Yée are gone saith he out of the way ye haue caused many to fall by the law yée haue broken the couenant of Leui. The Priest and the Prophet sayth Esay haue erred by strong drink they are swallowed vp with wine they haue gone astray through strong drinke they faile in vision they stumble in iudgement They shal séeke a vision of the Prophet saith Ezechiel but the law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the Elders The heads saith Micach iudge for rewards and the Priests teach for hire and the Prophets prophesie for money Her Prophets saith Sophoâ—e are light and wicked persons her Priests haue polluted the Sanctuary they haue wrested the law What erred not Terrullian Montanizing Cyprian Rebaptizing Origen Corporizing Nazianzen Angelizing Eusebius Arrianizing Lactantius Millenizing Saith not Iohn Fisher that famous Popish Bishop that we may iustly dissent from the Iudgement of Austen Hierome whosoeuer else and yâ— because they â—aue shewed themselues to bée men and not to haue wanted their errours Doth not Cardinal Bellarmine fréely grant that all Bishops doe so dissent sometime one from another that we cannot tell which of them we may safely follow All these assertions are so true as no one of them can be gainesayd and consequently if the Popes of Rome be men and not women as Pope Iohn if they bée Bishops and not Pilates they both may erre and de facto haue erred as we haue séene already And Cardinall Bellarmine must either bring some scripture diuine and Canonicall which assureth vs that the Popes faith cannot faile or else to giue vs leaue howsoeuer he dealâ— with his Iesuited vassals to beléeue him and his Pope at leysure But indéed no Scripture no Councell no ancient Father no approued History of the Church can bée produced by any one or al Papists in the world that saith the Bishop of Romes faith cannot faile or that the faith of him who succeedeth in the seate of Peter can neuer faile The second reply Theoph. You haue sayd very much against the infallibility of the Popes faith howbeit the learned Papists think they haue a reply which cannot easily be answered They hold that Saint Cyprian affirmeth resolutely that false faith can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire which if it be so then cannot I perceiue how the Popes can erre in matters of faith for you freely admit that the Bishops of Rome are Saint Peters successors there sit in his seate or chaire and I like
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
howbeit for my further satisfaction let me tel you that one of your authors Nauclerus by name vtterly denieth the story as I haue heard Remig. I make a conscience I thanke my Lord God humbly for it to deale sincerely in all my writings and with you in this our Christian conference wishing heartly that the papists would doe the like I haue euer dealt so truely and vprightly against the papists in all my writings as I now in my old and decrepite age I am ready to take it vpon my saluation and to seale the truth thereof with my blood Concerning your report of Nauclerus you shall truely heare his owne words and that done yéeld your censure according to the truth after that this Nauclerus had told a long tale in the fauour of our Woman-Pope so to couer and hide the nakednesse of his holinesse at the length he resolueth with himselfe and concludeth the controuersie in these expresse words Sed etsi fuit verum nulli tamen ex hoc salutis emeâ—sit periculum quia nec Ecclesia tunc fuit fine capite quod est Christus ait Antoninus nec enim vltimi effectus Sacramentorum quae illa conferebat deficiebant eis qui debite accipiebant scilicet gratia licet mulier non sit susceptibilis Characteris alicuius ordinis nec conficere Eucharistiam etiam de facto ordinata possit nec absoluere a peccato vnde ab ea ordinati erant iterum ordinandi gratiam tamen Sacramentorum Christus supplebat in recipientibus dignâ— ignorantia facti inuincibili eos excusante But although it were true no man for all that susteined any losse of his saluation because euen then the Church had still an head which is Christ as Antoninus witnesseth neither did they who deuoutly preached the Sacraments which he ministred want the lâ—st effects thereof which is grace albeit a woman be neither capable of any Character of order neither able to celebrate the Eucharist or to absolue from sinne whereupon such as receiued orders of her were to be ordered againe neuerthelesse Christ supplied the grace of the Sacraments in those that receiued them worthily inuincible ignorance of the fast excusing them thus you sée the opinion and verdict of your owne deare Doctor Nauclerus that famous papist who hath said for the credit of your Pope what possibly he could deuise now deliuer your censure in Gods name according to the truth Theoph. I will confesse the truth I obserue out of this testimony of our reuerend and learned histriographer these memorable points of doctrine First that Nauclerus hath emploied his whole industry and all his wits to defend the Pope from shame and dishonour if it possibly could be done Secondly that Antoninus their reuerend Archbishop and canonized Saint is of his opinion Thirdly that Christ is the head of the Church and that therefore the Church wanted not a head in time of the woman Pope if euer there were such a monster in the world Fourthly that popish succession is as vncertaine as the weather-cocke howsoeuer my selfe and others haue hitherto beene seduced therewith and I humbly thank my Lord God that by your most Christian instruction as by an instrument appointed by him for that end I nowe at the last behold the same Remig. Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam it is no small comfort and solace to mine heart that Gods holy spirit doth so mightily worke in you you haue obserued well the doctrine of Nauclerus though some thing may fitly be added thereunte Two further points of great consequence are implied in the doctrine of Nauclerus the one that it is this day doubtfull which of their romish Cardinals and Bishops be rightly ordered and whether they be meere Lay-men or Priests the other that the Cardinals popish Priests and lay people of Rome did for many yéeres commit flat idolatry Theoph. These points could I neuer haue considered in his doctrine God reward your paines emploied for his sake but what are not the Cardinals and Priests in the Church of Rome truely and lawfully consecrated in their functions Remig. I speake not generally and absolutely of the consecration of the Cardinals Bishops and Priests in the Church of Rome fit occasion will be offered hereafter to speake more precisely of that point of doctrine the question is now of those particular Cardinals Bishops and Priests who were consecrated for such in the time of the Woman-pope Iohn for as the Popes owne deare Doctor Nauclerus telleth vs all such as were ordered by the Woman-pope were to be ordered again as being but méere Lay-men Theoph. I am at my wits end what to say or thinke of the Church or Pope of Rome Remig. What I am sure you remember the old receiued Maxime Vbi Papa ibi Roma vbi Roma ibi Ecclesia Catholica where the Pope is there is Rome and where Rome is there is the Catholike Church So as the Pope is Rome the Catholike Church Christ himselfe and all Theoph. I cannot indeed but remember the same it is so frequent and vsual in euery learned Papists mouth But alas alas the remembraÌ„ce thereof doth this day wound me at the very heart for hitherto I haue beene taught to hold it for a constant truth that the Catholike Church the Church of Rome and the Popes holinesse were all as one that is to say that the Popes faith was the faith of the Church of Rome and the faith of the Church of Rome the faith of the Catholike Church militant heere on earth Remig. It is very true which you say and this approued Romish Maxime confirmeth the same for when the Pope and his Popelings tell vs that the Church cannot erre then do they meane that the Pope cannot erre and when they speake of the Catholike Church then they euer meane of yâ— Church of Rome of such Churches as iump in faith with the Pope So then we must iump with the Collier and say we beléeue as the Church beléeueth and the Church beléeueth as we beléeue for by this learned answere if Cardinall Hosius writ truly we may ouercome the diuell but when all is said done we must beléeue we cannot indéed tell what for when yâ— Pope saith thus and thus you must beléeue if then he speake as a priuate man my faith is wan and no faith indéed for as a priuate man he may erre and so both deceiue himselfe and me as we haue séene already and yet alas for pitty these two articles I must hold for an vndoubted truth which agrée together as Yorke and soule Sutton First that the Pope may erre and become an heretike Secondly that I am an Hereticke vnlesse I beléeue as he teacheth me if he speake as a publike person This notwithstanding I may not to dye for it examine the Popes decrées whether they procéed from him as hée is a priuate man or as a publike person for in so
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
religion and so much of late Romish faith and doctrine as is consonant and agreeable to the same But for all this the Papists seeme to haue strong reasons for their vnwritten traditions which indeede are so strong as my selfe know not how to answere them Remig. Doubt nothing in this behalfe God of his mercy will illustrate your vnderstanding in this difficulty as he hath done already in the rest but for this subiect I haue written so largely thereof in two seuerall bookes viz. the downe fall of Popery and the Iesuits Antepast that I am altogether vnwilling to handle the same a fresh Theoph. I haue read both those bookes they doe content me exceedingly howbeit some obiections may yet be made against the doctrine there deliuered which my selfe am not able to confute I therefore would humbly intreate your paines not for a new discourse thereof which I hold needlesse but for a fuller and plainer explication of some especiall doubts wherewith our learned papists troubleme Remig. Propound them in Gods name by whose holy and powerfull assistance I trust to returne them to the Popes vtter shame to the and euerlasting confusion of al Iesuited papists that shall obstinately beléeue or defend the same CHAP. 5. Of Popish vnwritten traditions Theophilus I will still by your fauour argue as a papist on the behalfe of the papists that so I may more cleerely haue a souÌ„d insight into the truth you Protestants for so we vse to terme you beare vs in hand that the scripture or written word of God conteineth all things necessary for mans saluation but our learned and religious Cardinall Bellarminus assureth vs that the truth is farre otherwise and that many things necessary for mens saluation are onely knowen and receiued by tradition and what he writeth is the Popes ownefaith and consequently the faith of the whole Church for he dedicated his bookes to the Popes holynesse who highly commended and approued them that he made him Cardinall though before but a poore Fryer for his paines Remig. I answere first that I know your Cardinall right well and willingly acknowledge him to be learned as also religious and â—ealous after the manner of his sect but in such sort as Paul was before his conuersion Secondly that your Cardinal doth often acknowledge the truth vnawares against himselfe as doe your other Iesuits one onely assertion I will now cite out of the Iesuite S. R. Robert Parsons is the man in his pretensed answere to the downefall of popery these are his expresse words where if by diuina eloquia we vnderstand holy writ as Bell translateth and Saint Austen séemeth to meane me thinkes he plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be cléerely written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation the same teaceth Saint Syril saying not all things which our Lord did are written but what the writers déemed sufficient as well for manners as for doctrine that by right faith and works we may attaine to the Kingdome of Heauen and Saint Chrisostome what things soeuer are necessary are manifest out of scripture this is our Iesuites owne tale in the best manner he can vtter it whiles he bestirreth himselfe more then a little to answere my booke the downefall of popery out of whose confession and frée graunt such is the force of truth I obserue these memorable and golden lessons First that euery thing necessary for euery mans saluation is contained in the holy scriptures Secondly and this is a thing to be admired comming from a papists mouth that euery point necessary for saluation is plainely and cléerely set downe in holy writ Thirdly that God himselfe appointed all necessary things to be cléerely written Fourthly that Saint Augustine Saint Chrisostome and Saint Cyrill are of mine opinion Fiftly that the Iesuite vnawares iustifieth that doctrine which he puposely laboureth to ouerthrow for as our Lord Iesus said to Saul it is hard for him to kicke against prickes Theoph. The Iesuite S. R. when you rightly name Parsons graunteth all things to be written which are necessary for saluation but not which are necessary for faith and doctrine these are his owne and expresse words for surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary and this conclusion teacheth Saint Austen when he saith that those things are written which seemeth sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull where I note saith S. R. that he said not which seemeth sufficient to Christian faith but which seemed sufficient to saluation because fewer points suffice to saluation then the Christian faith containeth thus writeth the Iesuite in flat termes freely graunting the scripture to containe all things necessary for saluation but not all things necessary for faith and doctrine Remig. I answere first that the Iesuite granteth as much as I desire when he graunteth the holy scripture to containe all things necessary for our saluation for doubtlesse if all things necessary for saluation be written in the scripture it followeth of necessity that no vnwritten tradition is necessary for the same Secondly that noting is or can be necessary for the Christian faith but the same is also necessary for saluation for otherwise it would follow which no Christian may anouch that a man may be saued without the Christian faith but S. Athanasius in that créede or summary of faith which the Church of Rome receiueth and highly reuerenceth affirmeth resolutely that whosoeuer beleeueth not stédfastly euery iote of the Christian faith shall perish euerlastingly Thirdly that whosoeuer hath the holy scripture hath all things necessary for his saluation Fourthly that séeing the Christian faith by popish doctrine contaïneth many points not necessary for saluation it followeth of necessity that many points of popish so supposed Christian faith are néedlesse in very déede and for that respect with some other our Church of noble England hath abolished the same with spéede for we are the true reformed Catholikes who hold constantly the old Roman religion in euery point but the late start-vp Romish faith is fully replenished with curious sophistications friuolous diâ—â—â—â—â—ns vain inuentions counterfeit myracles grosse errors palpables herâ—stes intollerable superstitions méere foolishnesse and flat leasings Theoph. It is nowhere siad in scripture saith the Iesuite S. R. that all the bookes chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonicall are truly Canonicall and Gods pure word without the mixture of mans word and yet is this a point of Christian faith yea hereupon depend all the articles which we gather out of the scripture this is that inuincible Bulwarke saith Parsons which no Protestant can euer batter downe while the world shall endure Remig. I answere first that by our Iesuits doctrine as
words following For if his faith could faile then should hel gates indeede preuaile against him Remig. I answere that Christ did not build his Church vpon Peter I proue it First because the words are changed both in the Greeke which is the fountaine ana originall and also in the romish approued Latin translation which onely must be beleeued and followed by the decree of their Tridentine Councell for the alteration of the word insinuateth significantly an alteration in the sense If Christ had meant to build his Church vpon Peter he would haue said vpon this Peter and not vpon this Rocke And it is not to the purpose to say that Christ spake in the Hebrew of Syâ—â—ack tongue for we haue the originall in Gréek from S. Iohn who being full of the holy Ghost would neuer haue changed the words but to insinuate expresse a different sense and meaning if as Christ had said thou art a Rocke by name and my selfe a Rocke by nature and indéede so strong so permanent so inuincible that hell gates cannot preuaile against it Upon this Rocke therefore of thy consession will I build my Church against the faith of which Church neither hell nor the Diuell shall euer preuaile Secondly because the Apostle affrmeth constantly that no man can lay any other foundation then that which is laid which is Iesus Christ Christ therefore speaking in S Mathew of the Rock of the Church doth by the word Rocke annotate himselfe not S Peter for we see that S Paul doth so expound Christs words whose interpretation may fitly be gathered out of the circumstances of the text in S Mathew either is it to the purpose to cite out of the Reâ—elation of S. Iohn that the wall of the City which he behold had twelue foundations and in them the names of the twelue Apostles of the Lambe for the Apostles were but partiall and mutable foundations but Christ is the totall and permanent foundation of the Church neither can any City wall or other thing haue moâ— total foundatios then one neither yet can the twelue foundations make for Peters prerogatiue â—â—y thing at all for seeing the foundations were 〈◊〉 in number precisely assigned by the vision to the twelue Apostles without distinction oâ— limitation it followeth byâ— necessary 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈…〉 for this â—eâ—peâ—â— doe the holy fathers vsually write that what 〈…〉 Christ spake or did to Peter concerning the Church he spake it 〈…〉 〈…〉 th◠〈…〉 in the name of the â—ho◠〈…〉 conâ—â—â—-â—â—th my expositionâ— Tâ—â—s Petrus c. thou art Peter â—uch Christ and vpon this Rocke which thou hast confessed vpon this Rocke which thou hast acknowledged saying thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God will I â—uil◠〈…〉 Churchâ— that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God will I build my Church vpon my selfe will I build thée not my selfe vpon thée Fourthly because S. Chrysostome iumpeth with S. Austens interpretation in these words columnae quidem c the Apostles are the pillers because by their vertue they are the strength of the Church they are the foundation because the Church is built vpon their confession when the Lord saith thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church Fiftly because S. Hylary is consonant to the other holy fathers these are his words this faith is the foundation of the Church by this faith hell gates shal not preuaile against it this faith hath the Keyes of Heauen Sixtly because the receaued Popish glosse vpon this text vnderstandeth by the Rocke Peters faith the confession which he made Seuenthly because Panormitan and Syluester two very famous 〈…〉 are both of the same opinion Out of this discourse I obserue these points for your better instruction First that Christ is the Rocke vpon which Peter is built that Christ is the Rocke vpon which the Church is built that the Sonne of God is the Rocke vpon which the Church is built Secondly that the Apostles are called the foundation because as testifieth S. Chrysostome the Church is built in their confession when the Lord saith thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church Thirdly that the confession pronounced for â—â—der sake by the mouth of one euen Peter by name was the ioynt confession of them all the Church is built in their confession marke well these words of the â—â—lded mouthed doctor S. Chrysostome they are words of great importance they proue the controuersie so sufficiently as no euasion can take place they proue effectually that whatsoeuer was said to Peter touching the Church was meant of the whole Congregation of the faithfull for as Peter spake and answered in the name of the whole Church so Christs demaunds answeres and promises were made and intended for the whole Church for as S. Chrysostome truely saith Peters confession was made in the name of all the Apostles and consequently in the name of the whole Church when he pronounced Christ the Sonne of the liuing God and euen so Christs answere and promise was made to Peter as appeareth by the circumstances of the text in the name of the whole Church and I may not forget to adde hereunto the ioynt-testimonis of all the learned diuines of Paris who as we haue heard already vnderstaÌ„d al things spoken to Peter in Church matters to be meant of the whole Church as when he prayed that Peters faith should not faile he then prayed for the infallibility and perpetuity of the faith of the whole Church all both the holy and auncient fathers and also best approued popish writers our Iesuites and Iesuited popelings only excepted doe willingly subscribe hereunto Obiection 3. Theoph. Christ commanded Peter and onely Peter and that three seuerall times to feede his sheepe Ergo Peter onely Peter had the ordinary charge and gouernement of Christs sheepe and consequently all Priests all Bishops all Arch-bishops all Patriarkes receiue their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope as from Saint Peters successour Remig. I answere that all Christs shéepe were committed to all the Apostles ioyntly and seuerally aswell to Paul the rest as to Peter yea rather to Paul though he were none of the twelue then to Peter for hee saith of himselfe that the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed to him euen as was the Gospell of Circumcision vnto Peter and consequently since all Christians now were Gentiles then yâ— Pope if he wil néedes haue a superiority ouer all his brethren yâ— Bishops must perforce reduce his succession from S. Paul for this policy perhaps it is that the Pope euer ioyneth Saint Paul and Saint Peter together whether it be in giuing pardons or other faculties whatsoeuer I proue the proposition First because Christ committed the charge of all Nations to all his Apostles alike without any priuiledge or restriction more or lesse to one rather then to another Secondly because Christ for edification sake
be yâ— true the pure word of God who saith that al things which the Prophets haue written are true and the pure word of God an he deny any particular that granteth all Theoph. He cannot doubtles do it for he that granteth the whole must perforce graÌ„t euery part of the whole euen as he that granteth God to haue made all things must of necessity grant him to haue made euery particular thing whatsoeuer hath any essence or beeing in the whole world Remig. You haue granted enough though no more then the truth for the full refutation of our Frier Iesuite I haue proned as ye know out of the expresse Scripture of the new Testament that all things written in the law of Moses in the bookes of the Prophets in the Psalmes in which thrée as also somtime in the law the Prophets and other sometime in the law onely all the old Testament is comprised are the pure word of God and consequently the Canonicall scripture For if we beléeue not the bookes of Moses neither will we beléeue Christs owne words as it is already proued Theoph. But our sesuite perhaps will say that there are sundry Canonicall bookes in the old Testament besides these which you haue named Remig. What the Iesuiticall Fryer Parsons will say small account is to be made for as his deare brethren by popish profession haue written of him he is a monster of mankind a notorious lyar the wickedest man vpon the earth begotten of someâ— Incubus and depending vpon the Deuill of hell this and much more of like homely qualities the secular Priests haue confessed of Parsons that vnfortunate Rector of the English Colledge in Rome and this they haue done in their printed bookes lately published to the view of the whole world this honest man Parsons hath lately published the pretensed answere to the Downefall of Popery but his backe is so pittifully broken with the said Downefall alas poore Fryer I am sory for thy heauinesse that his neighbours thinke he cannot liue any while Yet I hope which is my smal comfort in such a distressed case that the Popish secular Priests will sing a ioyfull dirge if not a blacke sanctus for his soule But woe is me that my natiue countrey-men at Rome haue such a gouernour set ouer them now to your obiection out of Parsons I answere thus First that yâ— scripture saith plainely that Christ interpreted all the scriptures which spake of him and consequently all the Canonicall bookes of the old Testament for no booke Canonicall can be named which maketh not some mention of our Lord Iesus Secondly that both our sauiour his Apostles and all the auncient fathers did euer comprise all the old Testament in the lawe the Prophetes and the Psalmes it cannot be denied Theoph. The scripture saith not that Christ interpreted all the scriptures that spake of him but that he interpreted out of them those things which they spake of him Remig. I answerâ— first that Christ interpreted Gods word but not the word of man Secondly that in interpreting that which was of him else he did in effect interprete the whole Thirdly that in interpreting and peâ— consequens approuing those things which were of and concerning himselfe he did indéede approue commend and authorise the whole for as Saint Austen and other holy fathers tell vs and the Iesuite doth yéeld thereto if any part of the holy scripture should be false we could haue no certainety of the rest much lesse could we ground our faith vpon them Theoph. You haue soundly proued the scripture of the old Testament to be Canonicall euen by the expresse words of the new Testament but what text of scripture can proue the new Testament to be Canonicall and the pure word of God without the mixture of mans word is this possible to be done Remig. It is not onely possible but very easie to be done I proue it First because the Gospell which is the whole new Testament is conteined in the old Testament for Saint Paul plainely testifieth that he was set apart to preach the Gospell of God which he afore had promised by his Prophets in the holy scriptures Secondly because the same Apostle constantly auouched to the Elders of Ephesus that he had shewed to them all the councell of God Thirdly because the selfe same Apostle affirmeth in an other place that he taught nothing but the law of Moses and the Prophets neuerthelesse saith he I obtained helpe of God and continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and to great saying none other thing then those which the Prophets Moses did say should come to passe Fourthly because Saint Paul testifieth to yonge Timothy that he knâ—w the holy scriptures of a childe which are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus By these testimonies and authorities two things are â—léered the one that all the bookes of the old testament deliuered by Moses to the Iewes are Canonicall and the pure word of God able to make vs wise vnto saluation the other that all Saint Pauls doctrine and consequently of the other Apostles for he taught all the councell of God which was all the doctrine of all the rest in substance was conteined in Moses and the Prophets and this is confirmed by the Apostles words to King Agrippa which are these O King Agrippa beléeuest thou the Prophes I know that thou beleuest Lo Saint Paul knew that Agrippa beléeued the law and the Prophetes and commendeth him for the same I therefore conclude that the holy scripture it selfe doth proue it selfe to be Canonicall and the pure word of God Theoph. The Papists say that we receiued both the old and new Testament from them and not from the Iewes Remig. I answere first that the primitiue and Apostolicall Church receiued the old Testament from the Iewes and that the Apostles were onely the publishers of the new Testament not of the old Secondly that we beleue the old Testament to be Canonicall scripture neither for the testimony of the Iewes though they deliuered it and were the publishers thereof neither yet for the authority of the Church of Rome or of any other Church in the Christian world Thirdly that we beléeued it to be the pure word of God and Canonicall scripture because Christ so pronounced of it long before the Apostles were confirmed in the truth Fourthly that the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings doe enforceâ—â—â— to aâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 the holy Bible that which is in very many places the pure word of man Theoph. How is this possible haue not the Papists the holy Bible Remig. The old Testament which is the pure word of God is in the Hebrew tongue and the new in Gréek but the late popish Councell of Trent which the Iesuits and all Iesuited Papists haue admitted commaundeth â—â—raitly to vse onely their Latin vulgata editio which the Apostles did
neuer read or sée much lesse did they authorise it for Canonicall scripture and the pure word of God and consequently albeit they haue both the Hebrew and the Gréeke locked vp in their studies and Libraries yet for as much as they preferre their owne vulgar Latin translation commonly called Saint Hieromes and cruelly bind and tie all diâ—â—nes to â—sâ— the same in all schooles and pulpits and no textes sentences or allegations to be admitted saue onely out of the same it followeth by an ineuitable consequente and necessary deduction that their Canonicall so supposed Bible is not Canonicall but in very déede the word of man this is confirmed because the Papists this day violently obtrude for Canonicall sundry bookes of the old Testament which are not in the Cannon of the Hebrewes neither yet deliuered to the Church by Christ or his Apostles Theoph. I now remember a straunge saying of the Iesuite Parsons viz that many parts of the Bible were doubted of long after the death of the Apostles which argueth to me that their vnwritten traditions are fallible and their doctrine new Remig. The Popes religion Chaugeth euery day by reason of new reuelations made vnto his Holinesse but from whence they came wheather from Heauen or from hell that cannot I tell let the reaâ—er iudge this I am assured of that their owne learned maisters cannot agrée about their reuelations Melchior Canus a learned Popish Bishop affirmeth constantly that the Church hath no new reâ—elations in matters of faith but the Popes minorite Fryer Tâ—telmannus otherwise a learned man indéede telleth vs an othertale viz. that many mysteries of diuine truth are daily reuealed to the Church euery day more and more and thus by reason of their Popish feined reuelations the late Romish faith doth daily encrease aboue mans expectation and is as like the old Roman religion as Yorke is like soule Sutton I will now make an end of this question referring you for the rest to the Iesuites Antepast where you may find at large concerning this subiect whatsoeuer your heart can desire but before I end the conference let me aske you a merry question what will you say if for a parting blow with the Iesuite Parsons I proue out of his owne printed booke as also out of the Iesuiticall Cardinal Bellarmine euen in that booke which he dedicated to the Popes holinesse with which booke he so pleased the Pope that he made him Cardinâ—ll for the same that all the bookes Chapters verses and sentences which are admitted for Canonicall are actually proued in holy scriptur to be truly Canonical Gods pure word without the mixture of mans worde which for all that is that mighty point of faith which the said two Iesuites and all Iesuited Papists contend with might and many to be an vnwritten tradition of the Church Theoph. What will I say Is that your question I will tell you both what I will say and doe I will say you haue done that which to this day was euer thought impossible and this I promise to cause the same to be written in Marble with golden Letters and to put the stone in Saint Peters Church at Rome In Perpetuam rei memoriam Remig. Be attentiue and marke well what I deliuer for I trust by Gods helpe to proue it most substantially these are the expresse words of S. R. or of Robert Parsons that Trayterous and brasen faced Iesuite First conclusion is all such points of Christian faith as are necessary to be actually beléeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually coÌ„teined in scripture either cléerely or obscurely these are Parsons words I neither adde any thing chaunge any thing nor take any thing away the Iesuite Bellarmine hath these expresse words These obseruations being marked I answere that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessary for all men which the Apostles preached openly to all the vulgar people but that all other things are not written These are the Cardinals words I cite them most sincerely I hold it a damnable sinne to bely the Diuel Out of these testimonies I gather very plainely that all things which euery one is bound to beléeue are actually conteined in the holy scripture and consequently yâ— all the bookes chapters verses sentences which are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonicall Gods pure word without yâ— mixture of mans word which conclusion for all that is it that both our Iesuites and all their cursed Iesuited broode doe violently impugne Theoph. The Papists would seeme to frustrate your conclusion because they onely beleeue it for the testimony of the Pope and Church of Rome Remig. They would gladly séeme indéed to doe many things which they are not able to performe But the truth is as I haue said thus both briefly pithily I proue the same Whatsoeuer is necessary for euery Christian the same is contained in the scriptures of the Apostles but the knowledge of all the Bookes Chapters Uerses and Sentences admitted for Canonical to be truly Canonicall and the pure word of God is necessary for euery Christian ergo the same is conteined in the Scriptures of the Apostles The conclusion of this argument cannot be denyed because it is a perfect Syllogisme in the first figure and in the third made called Darij The proposition is confessed both by Cardinall Bellarmine and by the Iesuite Parsons You haue heard their expresse words truly alledged as themselues in printed bookes haue set them downe so then the difficulty if there be any at all resteth in the assumption viz. if to know the holy Bible to be Canonicall and the pure word of God be necessary for euery Christian which being a fundamentall point of religion is so cleere and so apparant to euery one as methinkes it is a néedlesse labour to take in hand to proue the same But I proue it first because the knowledge of the holy Gospel euery part thereof is necessary to euery on s saluation Secondly because the Papists themselues doe euer vrge the same as a necessary point of faith and saluation so often as it séemeth any way to make for their vnwritten traditions Thirdly because all the articles of faith deduced out of the sciptures depend thereupon for these are the Iesuite S. R. his owne words yet this is a point of the Christian faith yea thereupon depend all the articles we gather out of Scripture Thus disputeth our Iesuite in his pretensed answere to the Downe-fall of Popery after he hath bitterly many times denyed that the holy Scripture doth shew it selfe to be Gods word but the force of truth is so mighty in operation the while of malice he striueth against it he vnawares confoundeth himselfe and pleadeth for the truth in very déed Fourthly because the Iesuite S. R. vrged and as it were deadly wounded with the sharp pikes of his
he doth Remig. True it is that the best liuers on earth are great sinners and that they may iustly be damned to hell for the same For as S. Austen saith grauely Woe to the best liuer on earth if God iudge him his mercy set apart But hereupon can it neuer be concluded that the iust man sinneth in euery worke he doth Theoph. The best workes of the regenerate are vnperfect and consequently the regenerate man sinneth in the best worke he doth Remig. Your consequence doth not hold the reason is at hand viz. because euery imperfection neither doth nor can make a good act euill for although imperfection be so linked and chained with sinne in yâ— regenerate that whersoeuer it be found there is sinne also in the same subiect yet is not that sin in the act well done but either in some other act euill done or else in the omission of that which ought to be done Let vs take an example for the illustration of the truth and question now in hand and let vs suppose that S. R hath lent 40. pounds vnto T. B. to be repaid vpon May-day next at which day yâ— said T. B. bringeth onely 30. pounds being all yâ— he possibly can prouide In this ease the debtour tendereth an vnperfect paiment to the Creditour Howbeit he doth not wrong the creditour in bringing him 30. pounds but the iniury is done in not bringing more Theoph. He wrongeth his creditor by his vnthankefulnesse in that he doth not bring him the iust summe which he borrowed Remig. The Creditor is wronged indéed yet not in yâ— paiment of the 30. pounds but in the non paiment of other ten pounds Imperfection is euer cheyned with sin as is already sayd yet the sinne or wrong done in this case to the Creditor is not in the 30. pounds truly paid but in the ten pounds remaining vnpaid For example sake A seruant receiuing of his maister ten shillings to be distributed to the poore giueth onely eight shillings thereof to them and reserueth two shillings to himselfe In this case the seruant trespasseth generally yet not in distributing eight shillings a part of his charge but in kéeping back two shillings which he should haue giuen For when a seruant is commanded to do althing which hée doth onely in part but not wholly the offence is not in that which he doth but in that which he leaueth vndone Euen so is it in the question now in hand For the lowly Publican sinned not in smiting his breast and in asking mercy for his sinnes The Mid-wiues Shiphrah Puah sinned not in that they feared God and disobeyed yâ— kings wicked commandement Moses sinned not in sâ—aying yâ— Idolaters at Gods appointment Hanna sinned not in powring out her soule before the Lord. Rahab sinned not in receiuing the spies peaceably Dauid sinned not in coÌ„fessing his sinnes when Nathan the Prophet reproued him for the same Peter sinned not in wéeping bitterly for his sinnes Cornelius sinned not in fearing God praying continually King Asa sinned not in doing right in the eyes of the Lord. King Ezechias sinned not in cleaning to the Lord and in not departing from him Iosias sinned not in turning to yâ— Lord with al his heart with all his soule and with all his might Paul full of the holy Ghost sinned not in reprouing Elimas the sorcerer for peruerting the right waies of the Lord neither yet in hating the sinne which he could not auoide Abel sinned not in offering a greater sacrifice then Caine by which he obtained Gods owne testimony that he was righteous Abraham sinned not in obeying God when he was called neither in offering vp his onely sonne when God commanded him so to do Iob sinned not in being vpright and iust in fearing God and eschewing euill Zacharias and Elizabeth sinned not in walking in all the commandements of the Lord without reproch S. Stephen full of the holy Ghost and ready to giue his life for the truths sake sinned not in calling on God and saying Lord Iesus receiue my spirit Dutifull subiects sinne not in praying dayly for their Soueraignes for holy writ pronounceth it to be good and acceptable in the sight of God All which and many other like testimonies which in regard of breuity I now omit do proue and euidently conuince that though the regenerate sinne while they do their good workes yet do they not sinne in doing the same for it is one thing to sin in doing the worke another thing to sin while the worke is a doing Theoph. Your discourse hath fully satisfied me in this intricate and difficult question I perceiue your distinction to be as true as it is subtile the ignorance whereof hath brought no small ruine to the Church of God howbeit sundry mighty obiections may be made against the same which by your fauour I shall propound as they come to my mind Obiection first Theoph. It seemeth to many a thing impossible that a man while he sinneth should do good Remig. It is no more impossible then it is for the same man to be a father while he is a sonne Theoph. The same man cannot be both a father and a sonne at one and the same time in one and the same respect but in diuerse respects though at the same time Remig. True that is and I desire no more the holy Apostle decideth the controuersie in these golden words I my selfe in my mind serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne here the chosen vessell of God doth plainely expresse and liuely lay open before our eyes that himselfe both did good workes and also sinned while he did the same though not in the same respect for to serue the law of God is a right good worke but to serue the law of sinne is a great offence yet both these the Apostle did at the same time though not in the same respect for as he was regenerate he serued God truly but in the vnregenerate parts both of body soule or flesh and mind which with the Apostle are all one he sinned damnably Theoph. How can the Apostles act be vnperfect and yet without sinne Remig. I haue so plainely vnfolded this difficulty already that I greatly admire how you can bee ignorant thereof imperfection though it bee euer chained with sinne in the regenerate doth not for all that connotate his act well donebu teither some other act euill done or else the â—mission of the act that should be done For example Saint Paul when he serued the law of God in his mind did a good act though vnperfectly and sinned not in doing the same howbeit at the same time he sinned perfectly in seruing the law of sin neuerthelesse his imperfection consisted not in seruing yâ— law of God which was an act pleasing God who neuer is or can be pleased with sinne but it consisted in seruing the law of sinne which was perfectly an act no way pleasing God