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
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
he that can hinder sinne and doth it not is as much in fault as he that doth it Tullie that heathen Orator knew the same euen by the sole light of nature This being so which the Apostle confirmeth to bée true it followeth by a necessary consequence that Aaron was guilty of the Idolatry committed and albeit the text say not that he taught Idolatry vocally yet doth it plainly insinuate or rather fully expresse that he did it vertually and effectually For first when the people required him to make them Gods he did not reproue them but roundly consented to them where and when hee should haue vocally told them the Law the truth whereof by silence he bewrayed Againe the people sayd openly these be thy Gods O Israel which brought thée out of the land of Egypt and yet Aaron was so farre from preaching against that hereticall assertion that thereupon he built an Altar before the Calfe and proclaimed saying to morrow shall be the holy day of the Lord as if he had sayd your doctrine is my doctrine your faith my faith your opinion mine opinion I practically shew it in building this Altar before the Calfe and in proclaiming to morrow to bée holyday Thirdly the text saith plainely that Aaron made the people naked and consequently that he erred in his doctrine Fourthly because not the high Priest onely but all the Priests of the Consistory at Hierusalem together with the deuill Iudges were assigned to declare the Law vnto the people Lastly and this reason striketh dead because Caiphas the high Priest erred perniciously and taught most execrable blasphemy when he denied Christ to be the sonne of God A true Messias of the world for as soone as Christ had sayd hereafter shall yée sée the sonne of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and come in the cloudes of heauen The high Priest rent his cloathes saying hée hath blasphemed what haue we any more néed of witnesses behold now yée haue heard his blasphemy Theoph. I am fully satisfied in this point God for whose sake ye haue taken this great labour giue you reward for the same Now if it please you there is another question or two which I thinke vnanswerable I would willingly propound them if it may stand with your fauour Remig. I sée you desirous to know the truth and therefore I am not weary of any paines taken in that behalfe Let vs heare your supposed vnanswerable questions in Gods holy name for whose glory and your good I will answere sincerely as before Theoph. My first question is of the succession of the Popes of Rome for no Church is able truly to shewe their succession as the Pope his Cardinals and Iesuites tell vs saue onely the Church of Rome Remig. I hope in God though indéed it be not a thing easily done to make it as plaine to you as I haue done the other question or rather God in me that our English Church can shew a better succession then can the Church of Rome CHAP. 4. Of the Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome Theophilus NO Church in the vniuersall world is able to shew a perpetuall succession of her Bishops without interruption saue onely the Church of Rome and therefore seeing God hath appointed placed in his visible Church as the Apostle teacheth vs a cōrinual successiō of Bishops vnto the worlds end the Church of Rome and none but the Church of Rome is or can bee the true Church of God Remig. This indéed is a reason so strong in the iudgement of Papists that none liuing can truly answere the same Howbeit when the difficulty thereof shall bée truly examined to the bottome it will be found of no force at all but as light as a feather Theoph. Will you deny the Apostles doctrine wil you not grant as S. Paul telleth vs that there must be Bishops and Priests in the Church till the worlds end Remig. I am very willing to grant euery truth neither will I deny that there haue béene are and shall bée Bishops and Priests or Pastors and teachers in this visible Church militant on earth vntill Christs second aduent and generall doome of the world Theoph. Well there must be Bishops and Priests or Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle termeth them euen to the consummation of Saints and end of the world Now sir you are not able say our Doctors our Iesuits our Cardinals our Popes to shew or name any Church in the world but the Church of Rome which hath alwaies had in it these Pastors and Doctors from Christs visible departure to this day Remig. I answere that succession is of two sorts to wit materiall and formall Materiall is of the persons and the places formal of the faith and doctrine Touching the succession formal which is the principall and from whence the denomination must bée deriued the Church of Rome cannot chalenge it as it is already proued for if yée remember I haue proued both soundly and plainly that many Bishops of Rome haue taught false doctrine and that not onely as priuate men but euen as publike persons in their iudiciall definitions and decrées and consequently that the true proper and formall succession can no way bée truly verified of the Church of Rome Theoph. That is very true which yee now say it cannot bee denyed but still it seemeth true that the materiall succession perteineth onely to the Church of Rome Remig. Marke well what I shall sincerely deliuer in this behalfe Saint Clement whose epistles the Papists magnifie when they séeme to make for their purpose testifieth for himselfe that Saint Peter appointed him to bée his successor Irenaeus Epiphanius Eusebius and the canon of the Popish Masse do all with vniforme consent place Linus and Cletus before the sayd Clement But for all this Sophronius Metaphrastes and the Popish Pontificall which cannot lye affirme stoutly and peremptorily that Saint Peter was liuing after Lynus This variety so troubled the learned Papist Nauclerus that he was enforced to coine this new and vntimely hatched distinction viz. that Saint Peter did indéed appoint Clement to be his successor but the sayd Clement perceiuing that it would bee a thing pernicious to the Church if one Bishop should choose another to bée his successor yéelded vp his right and so Linus was elected in his roome The bare recitall of this imaginary solution is a sufficient confutation thereof for as you sée hée taketh vpon him to controll S. Peter Theoph This variety among Catholicke Writers is strange and it is more strange that Clement should alter and change S. Peters constitution But it surpasses all the rest that any thing which S. Peter ordeined could bee pernicious to the Church Remig. This is an euident demonstration that Romish succession is as a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde but I will shew you greater wonders and by Gods help so vnfold
that hold preach or defend the contrary this excommunication Pope Sixtus the fourth thundred out in his Extrauagant in the yéere 1474. by which practicall procéedings and doctrine we may easily espie the vncertainety of the Popes faith and religion as also his ignorance in the high mysteries of popish doctrine for though he cannot erre iudicially in matters of doctrine as the papists must beléeue yet can he not decide this easie question whether the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne or not but Aquinas the Popes angelicall doctor and canonized Saint whose doctrine two Popes Vrbanus the fourth and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmeth to be sound and true affirmeth resolutely that she was conceiued in originall sinne tell me now what ye thinke of the Popes succession at Rome Theoph. I see flatly and euidently that by popish doctrine faith and religion we cannot this day tell who are true Bishops of Rome indeed and consequently that the succession deriued from them is of no credit or force at all but yet by your fauour I desire your further resolution to such shewes and colours of succession as they pretend for the Church of Rome Saint Austen saith say they that the succession of Priests euen from Saint Peter to these daies kept him in the bosome of the Church so Optatus Tertullianus others do often alledge stand vpon the succession of Bishops as an argument of the truth Remig. It is true that Saint Austen made a great account of the succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome and my selfe also all learned men I thinke doe iumpe with Saint Austen in that his opinion for the resolution of which obiection sundry obseruations already Proued are to be well remembred First that the Bishops of Rome were in the beginning many of them holy Martyre who gaue their liues for the testimony of our Lord Iesus Secondly that they ioyned formall succession with materiall vntill Saint Austens dayes and long after Thirdly that the Church of Rome by little and little swarued from the truth and declined in many points of doctrine from the auncient receiued faith Fourthly that the latter Bishops of Rome haue decreed publickely against the knowen faith in so much as some of them haue béene condemned with the sound of the Trumpets other some haue béene conuicted of Arrianisme others of Nestorianisme others of flat Atheisme others to haue crept into Peters chaire as they terme it by flat Simony others haue occupied the place by violent intrusion others by homage done to the diuel of hell Fifthly that faith and honest dealing was now decaied in the Church of Rome and long before the daies of Carranza and Platina brought to that miserable estate that euery ambitious fellow might inuade Peters seate Sixthly that by popish doctrine and vniforme assertions of best approued popish writers succession in the Church of Rome is so doubtfull that they cannot proue themselues this day to be true Bishops indeed I say by popish doctrine because my selfe doe hold them true Bishops though very wicked and vngodly men of which point I shall haue occasion to speake of more at large by and by my answere therefore in briefe is this viz that the Bishops of Rome in Saint Austens time ioyned formall succession with materiall which if the Bishops of Rome would this day performe all godly Christians would now ioyne with them as Saint Austen did in his time for as Saint frene say we ought to obey those Priests that with the succession kéepe the word of truth Theoph. Saint Paul saith plainely that there must bee Bishops and Pastors in the church vntill the worlds end whereupon it followeth say the Papists whom now I haue vpon good grounds renounced that you Protestants haue no Church at all for before Luther departed from them all Bishops and Priests for many yeares together embraced their Romish religion This obiection say our Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings doth so gall the Protestants as they cannot tell in the world what answere to frame thereunto Remig. I answere first that we are the true reformed Catholikes as is already proued Secondly that Pastors Doctors as S. Paul saith haue euer béene in the Church are at this present and shall be to the worlds end Thirdly that albeit the visible Church cannot want materiall succession the continuance whereof Christ hath promised yet cannot that succession without formall yéeld any sound argument of true faith and religion For which respect the famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra after he hath told vs that many Popes haue swarued from the faith and become flat Apostataes concludeth in these expresse words propter quod Ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei veritatis By reason whereof the Church consisteth in those persons in whom there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and verity Thus writeth this learned popish Fryer telling vs resolutely y◠though there must be euermore a visible Church with visible Pastors Doctors in it yet those visible Pastors Doctors both may swarue haue de facto swarued from the true faith religion and that therefore the Church indeed consisteth of the predestinate and elect children of God whose faith shall neuer faile this poynt you haue heard so pithely approued as is able to satisfie euery in different reader Theoph. The Iesuites say that howsoeuer you wrangle about your formal succession yet it is cleere that you haue no material succession at all vnlesse you tearme it material succession when meere Lay-men occupy the roomes of lawful Bishops for none may take vpon them or intrude thēselues into the holy ministery but such as are lawfully called thereunto as Aaron was yet all the world can tell you that all your Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons in the time of King Edward and Queene Elizabeth and now of King IAMES haue no other orders consecration at all but such as they receiued of our Romish Bishops indeede Remig. Our succession is both materiall and formall Christian and Apostolicall as which is consonant to the holy Scriptures and to the vsuall practise of the primitiue Church For first our Bishops can proue their Doctrine by the scriptures and by the testimonies of best approued popish writers as we haue séene already Secondly our Bishops haue mission and imposition of hands according to the practise Apostolical and of all approued antiquity Thirdly our Bishops are made in such forme and order as they haue euer béene accustomed a few popish superstious and beggerly ceremonies omitted which by little little had of late yeares crept into the Church that is to say by frée election of the Chapiter by consecration of the Arch-bishop and other his associates and by the admission of the Prince Theoph. Saint Epiphanius inueigheth bitterly against one Zachaeus who being but a Lay-man as your Puritaines be presumed impudently to
seeme truely and sincerely to relate I will thinke vpon them they enforce me to stagger and to doubt of the Catholike saith Remig. I deale sincerely with the papists I protest vpon my saluation for I hold it a great sinne to bely the diuell of hell but God forbid that ye should doubt of the Catholike faith Theoph. I remember well your distinction of deformed and reformed Catholikes I meane the deformed Catholike faith which I now suspect to be the romish faith of our late Popes I am not able to gainesay or withstand the truth your reasons are so strong your testimonies so plaine your applications so euident your grounds so inuincible that I cannot doe withall but needes I must giue great credit to the same Remig. You shall yet heare stranger matters of your Popes hearken to them attentiuely Pope Celestine the third of that name erred as Pope and publike person in his iudiciall and publike decrée this to be so Alphonsus aboue named that famous and religious papist is a constant witnesse in these words Celestinum Papa crasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alâ—er labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Celestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita vt illum errasse dicamus velut priuatam personam non vt Papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros doctos quoniam huiâ—smodi Celistini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in capite laudabilem titulo de conuersione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi That Pope Celestine erred about matrimony of the faithfull whereof the one is fallen into heresie it is a thing so manifest as all men know the same neither was this error of Pope Celestine such as may be imputed to sole negligence so as we may thinke he erred as a priuate man and not as Pope who ought in euery serious decrée to aske councell of the learned for that decrée of Celestine was in the old decretall epistles in the chapter Laudabilem which I my selfe haue séene and read out of these word of Alphonsus who was a man highly renowned among the papists I obserue many worthy and memorable points First that Pope Celestine erred and that not as a priuate man but euen as Pope and publike person Secondly that he erred in a very serious matter euen in a matter of faith to wit that matrimony was so dissolued by reason of heresie that the faithfull man or woman might marry again the hereticall party liuing which thing saith Alphonsus a great learned man and a zealous papist was manifest to euery man to be an heresie and the popish late councell of Trent hath defined so to be Thirdly that this decrée and definition of Pope Celestine was in those daies enrolled in the Popes decretalls Fourthly that Alphonsus both saw and read the same decrée Fiftly that the said decrée cannot this day be found among the Popes decretall epistles so then the Popes vse to change not onely their faith but also their decrées Theoph. I see well that simple people are shamfully abused and that the late Popes haue egregiously seduced them for this is a case so cleare as euery child may perceiue the same that which the Pope and his Iesuits tell vs of his double person is but atrick of Legerdemarie For Alphonsus saith plainely and resolutely I see it cannot bee denied that Pope Celestine erred as Pope and publique person and not as a priuate man Remig. Let this testimony neuer bee forgotten for it ouerthroweth and beateth flat to the ground the chiefest bulwarke and strongest sort of all popish faith It condenmeth the Pope and his doctrine both affirmatiuely negatiuely Affirmatiuely because it aâ—outheth the Pope to haue erred as Pope and publique person Negatiuely because it flatly denieth him to haue erred as a priuate person But there is another point in this testimony and that of great importance which may not bée forgotten I know not if you haue marked the same Theoph. What is the point I beseech you Remig. It is a kind of Iugling and Legierdemaine where with the Popes and their denoted vassals haue seduced the world a long time they alter and change their Romish faith and doctrine at their owne good will and pleasure and to hide and couer the nakednesse of their Popes publike errors hereticall decrées they cashéere and make away such former decrées of former Popes as they cannot for shame approue or by any honest meanes defend the same For as Alphonsus here telleth vs this hereticall decrée and definition which Celestine made as Pope and not as a priuate person was in yâ— old decretall epistles but this day cannot be found Theoph. This point indeed I did not obserue because Alphonsus saith he saw and read the same but not that it is not this day to be found Remig. Alphonsus saith he saw the decrée and read it in the old decretals and nameth the chapt eitâ— where it was whereby he giueth vs to vnderstand that in the latter decretals he could not finde the same He further insinuateth to vs that albeit we cannot finde the same iudiciall sentence in the decretals nowadaies yet may we assure our selues of the truth thereof for that himselfe both had séene and read the same in the old decretals for if hee had found the same in the later printed decretals he would not haue giuen the reader this cauâ—at viz. that it was set downe in the old decretals in the Chapter Laudabilem and consequently that the deniall thereof would not serue to excuse the Pope Nay I will yet shew you a cléerer case if any cléerer can be Theoph. I know not doubtlesse how a cleerer case can be found yet for the better confirmation of the truth I pray you withdraw not your paine Remig. Saint Cyprian was an ancient Father alearned Writer and a glorious Martyr of our Lord Iesus and for all that he both beléeued and publiquely declared that the Bishops of Rome might erre as well as other Bishops their brethren not onely in their priuate opinions but also in their definitiue sentences iudiciall decrées For first though Cornelius then Bishop of Rome together with the whole national Synode of all the Bishopps of Italy had made a slat decrée touching rebaptization and secondly though Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same decrée and stricktly commanded it to be obserued and thirdly though our Papists too much Iesuited and Italianized doe of late daies obstinately affirme as appeareth by the notes of the Rhemists vpon the new Testament that their Pope cannot erre when hee defineth iudicially yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian both practically and iudicially giueth vs to vnderstand that in his time the Bishop of Rome had no such priuiledge as he this day arrogantly Antichristianly taketh vpon him for we Cyprian stoutly and resolutely withstood the decrée of Pope tephanus who at that time
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
required a thrée sold confession of Peter in regard of his thréefold negation left nouises and weaklings should haue béene scandalized vnderstanding that such a notorious sinner without publike confession of his faith should haue any iurisdiction ouer them but not to giue any speciall prerogatiue to Peter thereby The reason hereof is euident because our Sauiour had before this charge of féeding giuen a very large commission to all his Apostles of féeding all Nations and therefore he can now meane and intend no other thing but onely to moue Peter to walke warily to be mindfull of his infirmities to be carefull of his charge Thirdly because Saint Austen that mighty pillar of Christs Church confirmeth defendeth this my present doctrine These are his expresse words Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustâ—â—â— Petrus cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur aâ—â—â— me pasâ—â—â—ues meat Peter represented the person of yâ— Church Catholike when it is said to him it is said to all louest thou me féed my shéep Fourthly because S. Cyprian decideth this controuersie 〈◊〉 plainly as caÌ„not but satisfie 〈…〉 indifferent readerâ— these are his expresse words loquitur Dominus ad PetruÌ„ ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus c. Paulo post hoc eraÌ„t vtique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio prediti honoris potestatis sed exordâ—â— aboâ—niâ—ate proficiscitur vt Ecclesia vna monstretur Our Lord speaketh vnto Peter I say vnto thée that thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church c. the same were the rest of the Apostles doubtlesse that Peter was indued with equall fellowshippe both of honour and of power but the beginning procéedeth from vnity that the Church may be shewed to be one And the same holy Father confirmeth this his doctrine in another place in these memorable words Episcopatus vnus est 〈…〉 a singulis in solidum pars tenetur there is but one Bishoprickâ— a part whereof euery Bishop possesseth and enioyeth wholly S. Austen confirmeth S. Cyprians sentence and iudgement in these words Claues non vnus homo Petrus sed vnitas accepit Ecclesiae not one onely maâ— Peter receiued the Keies but the vnity of the Church Fiftly because two famous popish writers are iump of tho same opinion constantly desend yâ— same doctrine Couarâ—viâ—s a profound Canonist a popish Archbishop of great estéeme in yâ— romish Church hath these expresse words enim iuxta Catholicorum viroruÌ„ auctoritates communem omnium traditionem Apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu eum Petro potestatem ordinis iuridictionis acceperunt ita quidem vt quilibet Apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso Deo intotum orbem in omnes actus quos Petrus agere poterat for according to the authorities of Catholike writers and the common tradition of all the Apostles receiued from our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe equall power with Peter both of order and of iuridiction in somuch doubtlesse as euery Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe and that both ouer the whole world and to all actions that Peter could doe Iosephus Angles a famous Fryer and a very learned popish Bishop in that selfe same booke which he dedicated to the Pope hath by the force of Gods spirit testified the same truth both against the Pope against himself these are his owne words si comparemus B. Petri aliorum Apostolorum potestatem ad gubernationem omniumcredentium tantam alij Apostoli habuerunt potestatam quantam B. Petrus habuit ita quod poterant quemlibet Christianum totius orbis sicut modo Rom. Pont. excommunicare in qualibet Ecclesia Episcopos Sacerdotes creare ratio est quia omnis potestas B. Petro promissa tradita fuit caeteris Apostolis collata hoc sine personarum loci vel fori discrimine if we compare the power of S. Peter and of the others Apostles to the gouernment of all the faithfull other Apostles haue euen asmuch power as S Peter had so that they could then excommunicate euery Christian in the whole world and in euery Church make Bishops and Priests the reason is because all power promised and giuen to S. Peter was also giuen to the rest of the Apostles and that without difference of persons place or consistory Thus we haue a full and resolute iudgement both for answere to the obiection and for the supposed prerogatiues and priuiledges of S. Peter which resolution is not onely deduced out of the holy scripture but plainely contested also by the vniforme consent of the holy fathers S. â—vprian and S. Austen and in like maner of the famous and learned papists Couarruvias and â—osephus Angles for they teach vs many sound points in diuinity First that all the Apostles had as great authority and as full and large euery way as Saint Peter had Secondly that euery Apostle aswell as Peter could make and constitute Bishops and Priests euery where throughout the Christian world Thirdly that what act soeuer S. Peter could doe euery Apostle had power and authority to do the same Fourthly that the iurisdiction of euery Apostle was as great and as large euery way as Saint Peters was And this saith Couarruvias is the common receiued doctrine of all Catholike writers this is a poynt of Catholike doctrine so important and so memorable as it well deserueth to be written in golden letters Fiftly that Christs spéeches vnto Peter in the singular number did not argue any superiority of iurisdiction but only signifie the vnity of the Church Sixtly that the authority and iurisdiction of euery Apostle was equal to Peters and that without all difference of persons place or consistory This is another point of great consequence for séeing first all and euery of the Apostles had equal iurisdiction séeing secondly that their iurisdiction was not limited but ouer the whole world seeing thirdly that the whole iurisdiction of euery Apostle ended and expired with his death and séeing fourthly that S. Iohn liued after all the Apostles it followeth of necessity that the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the whole world remained in Saint Iohn after the death of Peter and the other Apostles So then if the Bishop of Rome will haue indéede any such prerogatiue as he falsly pretendeth to haue he must bring and shew vs his comission from S. Iohn and not from S. Peter for S Iohn being the suruiuer had all iurisdiction in himselfe And if the late Bishops of Rome can shew vs such a commission from Saint Iohn viz that Saint Iohn translated and committed his whole power authority and iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome and his successors I for my part will willingly yeeld obedience to the same not otherwise For I require the Popes charter from S. Iohn Theoph. This is wonderfull which you say and yet you proue the
auncient and most learned fathers by whose iudgements it is very cléere and euident that the chaire of Moyses and the doctrine of Moyses is all one and consequently that not they who occupy the roome of Moyses or Peter are to be followed but they that teach the doctrine of Moyses and Peter are to be heard and their commaundements must be done and ceâ—tes if euer the Bishops of Rome the late Popes I meane shal be able to proue that they preach no otherwise then Saint Peter did if first they preach at all nor decrée or commaund no otherwise then Saint Peter or Saint Paul did I wil obey them I will with a beck doe as they commaund me Fourthly I answere with popish Fryer Lyra whom Sir Thomas Moore called a great Clearke the Pope so estéemeth his writings in these expresse words omnia quaecunque dixâ—rint vobis facite q uia Praelatis etiaÌ„ malis est obediendum nisi in his quae sunt manifestè contra Deum doe all things that they shall say vnto you because we must obey euen those Prelates that be euill vnlesse they teach plainely against God Fifthly with Dionysius Carthusianus in these very words hoc est absolutê vniuersaliter intelligendum quia Scribae Pharisaei multa superstitiosa falsa docuerunt corrumpentes scripturam irritum facientes verbum Dei per suas traditiones intelligendum est ergo de Predicatoribus eorum non contrarijs legi Moysimalis enim PraesideÌ„tibus obedienduÌ„ est quaÌ„diâ— non docent nec iubent contraria Deo this must not be vnderstoode absolutely and generally because the Scribes and Pharisies taught many superstitious and false things corrupting the Scripture and making frustrate the word of God with their traditions we must therefore vnderstand it of their Preachers which teach nothing contrary to the Law of Moyses for we must obey euill Rulers so long as they neither teach nor commaund against God Thus write Lyranus and Carthusianus two famous Popish Fryers teaching the selfe saine doctrine with the holy Fathers Saint Austen and Saint Hylary viz yâ— we must beléeue those Preachers and teachers that teach the same doctrine which Moyses thaught that yâ— is to fit in the chaire of Moyses but not barely to occupy the place The fourth Reply Theoph. God commaunded to obey the Priests and not to swarue in any one iote from their doctrine by turning either to the right hand or to the left this argument seemeth to me to be vnanswerable Remig. Marke well my answere and then you will say it is of no force I answere thus that the Priests of Moyses law might eâ—â—e and did de facto erre indéede which conclusion I haue already proued out of the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees for they were not onely wicked men in life and conuersation but they also seduced the people taught false doctrine and corrupted the pure word of God which point because it is a thing of great consequence I will endeuour my selfe by Gods helpe to make it plaine vnto you And because nothing is or can be of greater force against the papists then to confute their doctrine by the testimony of their owne approued Doctors I will after my wonted manner alledge the expresse words of approued papists who were very deare vnto your Pope Nicolaus Lyranus who hath written very learned commentaries vpon the whole Bible the old and new Testament a zealous popish Fryer hath these words hic dicit glosâ—a Hebraica si dixerint tibi quod dextra sit sinistra vel sinistra dextra talis sententia est tenenda quod patet manifestè falsum quia sententia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestatè falsitatem vel errorem Et hoc patet period quod permittitur in textu Postea subditur et docuerint te iuxta legem eius ex quo patet quod si dicant falsum et declinent a lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi Here saith the Hebrew glosse if they shall say to thée that the right hand is the left or the left hand the right such sentence is to be holden which thing appeareth manifestly false for no mans sentence of how great authority soeuer he be must be holden or obeied if it manifestly conteine falshood or errour this is manifest by that which goeth before in the text they shall shew to thée the truth of iudgemeÌ„t It followeth in the Author and they shall teach thée according to his law Hereupon it is cléere that if they teach falsly and swarue from the law of God manifestly then are they not to bée heard or followed Thus writeth this learned Popish Doctor out of whose words well worthy to be engrauen in golden letters I note these memorable obseruations First that our Papists now a dayes are so grosse and sensâ—es as were the old Iewish Rabbins as who labour this day to enforce vs to beléeue the Pope though hée erre neuer so grosly telling vs that chalke is chéese and the left hand the right Secondly that Nicholaus de Lyra a great learned Papist whose authority is a mighty argument against the Papists doth here expresly condemne the grosse errour of the Hebrew Doctors and in them the impudent errour of all Iesuites and Romish Parasâ—tes who to satisuÌ„e the humour of their Pope and to vphold his Antichristian tyranny doe wrest the holy scripture from the manifest truth thereof Thirdly that we must neither beléeue Bishop nor the Pope of Rome nor any mortall man of what authority soeuer if he teach vs contrary to the manifest truth of Gods word Fourthly that this learned Popish Doctor doth gather out of the text it selfe that the high Priest might erre preach false doctrine and consequently that the Iesuite Bellarmine doth but flatter the Popes holinesse when he bestirreth himselfe to proue out of this place that the Bishops â—f Rome cannot erre because the Iewish Bishops had the like priueledge and could not teach against the truth The same Doctor Lyra deliuereth the same doctrine in effect in another place where he hath these words Ve vobis Scribae hic ostendit qualiter corrumpebant veritatem doctrinae in his quae pertinent ad salutem Dicebant enim quod obseruare legem erat necessariuÌ„ omnibus ad saluteÌ„ quod falsum est quia multi gentiles sunt saluati vt Iob plures alij ex suppositione autem huius falsi discurrebant alioqui doctores Hebraei per diuersas ciuitates castra vt possent conuertere aliquos de Gentilitate ad Iudaismum Wo to you Scribes here he sheweth how they corrupted the truth of doctrine euen in those things which pertaine to saluation for they said that the kéeping of yâ— law was necessary for all men vnto saluation which is false because many Gentiles are saued as Iob and sundry others by reason of this false supposition some Hebrew
vs that Constantine the great at his departure from Rome to Constantinople gaue the Bishop of Rome and his successors his crowne and all his royall dignitie both in the Citie of Rome and in Italie and in all the west parts which goodly story inuented for the Popes aduancement we sée by the constant verdit of these foure learned Papists to be nothing else indéede but a lying fable for the the Bishops of Rome were stil subiect to the Emperors receiued their authoritie and iurisdiction by their letters patents aboue 340. yeares euen vntill Benedict the second to which I adde that manie of the popish Cannons are of as good credit as Esops fables Remig. This is a point of great consequence which I should neuer haue espied but by your relation Theoph. I would wish you likewise to obserue that the Emperours Constantinus Iustinianus and others yéelding vp their soueraigne rights to the Bishops of Rome vpon a fond zeale without knowledge opened the window to all antichristian tyrannie for in short time after the Romish Bishops became so arrogant and Lordly that they tooke vpon them to dispose Royall scepters and to translate them to their pleasures Theoph. It is a memorable obseruation I shall keep it in remembrance but let me still reason for the Papists as if I were one of them for when all difficulties are answered I shall be the stronger in the truth The Church of God cannot be without Bishops and Priests as the Apostle recordeth and your selfe graunteth but so it is that when he first reformed the Church as you terme it yee neither had any Bishops nor any Priests of your owne neither could ye finde any in any other place but onely with vs and in our Church when Martin Luther went out from vs our Church therefore and none but ours is the true Church of God as which onely hath the true succession Apostolicall Remig. I answere first that our succession in the Church of England is farre better then theirs of Rome for theirs of Rome as we haue heard and séene is most doubtfull and vncertain but ours of England so constant and so assured as no deniall can be made thereof I proue it because in Anno 596. Gregory the great sent Augustine the Monke with Iustus Melitus and others as our approued Cronicles do relate to preach the Gospell to the Saxons who were kindly receiued of King Ethelbert and he conuerted to the Christian faith gaue to the same Austen the City of Canterbury since which time our Church of England is able to proue her perpetuall succession of Bishops without schisme or interruption at all albeit the Church of Rome as is already proued is not able to performe halâ—e so much Secondly that though the visible Churches were euery where greatly stained and polluted with many grosse errors superstitions and abuses at such time as M. Luther began a Christian reformation yet for all that the Bishops and Priests of the popish Churches were still true Bishops for their calling albeit otherwise very wicked men and consequently that our Bishops and Priests though descended created and made of such deformed popish Prelats are true Bishops and Prists indéede Theoph. If our Bishops and Priests were made of theirs then must either theirs bee good or ours as bad as theirs and so we shall haue no true Bishops at all Remig. Marke well what I say that yée may vnderstand the saint The Philosopher saith that one may bée a good Citizen though a bad man Euen so say I that though the Papists were wicked men and the Popish Bishops that created our Bishops foully polluted both in life and doctrine yet were they still true Christians true Bishops and consequently true members of the visible Church for they still professed held and maintained the chiefe fundamentall points of religion of God of the blessed Trinity of Christ and his two natures of his death passion of his resurrection and assention of the generall doome of all the rest comprised in the summe of religion which we call the Apostles Créede and therefore though they grieuously wounded and in a manner killed themselues by their errours corruptions superstitions and abuses yet in regard of the truth which they kept coÌ„stantly there remained in them some life of Christianity They wanted legges and armes and had their bodies and soules corrupted with many pestilent diseases but they did still draw breath and were not wholy dead We read in the Apostolicall history that there were some that beléeued who being of the heresie of the Pharisées did still hold the ceremonies of the law and vrged others to be circumcised The Prophet Dauid was sore wounded with adultery and murther but yet he still continued the child of God and Peter cursed and sware that hée knew not Christ who for all that still beleeued in Christ to the end Theoph. How can they be both good and bad Bishops at once it seemeth to me a thing impossible Remig. I answere first that the same persons may aswell be both good and bad at once as the same man may be both a father and a sonne at once and yet do all Logicians grant that this latter may be effected with all facility For one and the same man may at one and the same time be both a father in respect of his own child a sonne in respect of his father who is Grandfather to the sayd child Secondly that there is as great disparity betwéene a true Bishop and a good Bishop as there is betwéene a true man and a good man but as he is a true man that hath the nature of a true man how bad soeuer he be in faith life conuersation as Turkes Iewes Traitors Heretickes Apostataes euen so are they true Bishops of the visible Church who haue their calling places iurisdiction allotted them by the same Church how bad soeuer they be in other respects Theoph. Those Popish Bishops that made and created our Bishops and Priests in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reigne ordeyned and consecrated them after another manner then they are this day and euer haue beene since that time ergo either must their Bishops or else all our Bishops the first onely excepted who were created after the popish manner be false counterfeit and no true Bishops indeed Remig. Neither their Bishops nor ours are false and conterfeit but both true and perfect Bishops in euery essentiall and necessary poynt pertaining to a Bishop Theoph. Theirs were made by the authority of the Pope yours by the authority royall of your gracious Princesse of famous memory Theirs with Oyle and Chrisme and many other ceremonies which yours doe not vse at all Remig. All the things by you named are méere extrinsecall and not of the essence and nature of a Bishop or of a Priest Theoph. Either must they sinne in vsing Oyle Chrisme and other ceremonies or you in reiecting