Holy Ghost could Erre For then there were no room for that inference That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth alledging that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God It 's true if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word as too many doe whether they be particular Persons or generall Councells that doe so it is a private Spirit viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by Therefore Saint Iohn bids Believe not every spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets many that falsly pretend the Spirit are gone out into the world 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word though they be particular and private persons yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit but the Spirit of God that doth guide them The Scripture was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit and not Mans that doth speak in and by the Scriptures Lastly as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understand If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood c. 1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers nor any at all to prove that the Scriptures are every where plain and easie to be understood but to shew that the Scriptures are their own interpreters which are His Majesties words pag. 50. To prove this which is a most certain truth His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers as Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Crysostome Basil Austine Gregory and Optatus The Scriptures quoted by the Marquesse make nothing against this viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. not as it is mis-printed 13. Luke 24. 25. rather 45. Apoc. 5. 4. where not the Angel as the Marquesse saith but Iohn wept because none was found worthy to open and to read the Book Neither doth it appear that by the Book there mentioned is meant the Scripture as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose And so indeed many have thought as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us who yet neverthelesse professeth that he did not see how historically this could be For this Book was shut and sealed as he observes untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation when as all the other Apostles were deceived so that the Scripture if it were the Book there spoken of was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul and the other Apostles The other places I grant do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult at least to some but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters What is obscure in one place must be cleared by some other place or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers cited by His Majesty among the Errata's that are behind their Books as the Marquesse speaketh pag. 57. where he addes Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj hath inferred from thence as thus they were easie in aliquibus locis but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference which was only this That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture not that the Scriptures are clear in all points and in all places it sufficeth that which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild they are clear in those things which concern Salvation And this was Austines determination In those things saith he which are plainly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which concern faith and good life Yea so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Psal 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light it giveth understanding to the simple Psal 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation c. 2 Tim. 3. 15. First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his Body is there you say there is nothing but bare Bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. for 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised pag. 53 54. viz. to shew that in those points wherein they and we differ the Scriptures are on their side and not on ours And he begins with the controversie about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alledging those words This is my Body as a clear proof of their opinion viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread but that the Bread is transubstantiated and turned into the substance of Christs Body But doth it appear that those words This is my Body are to be understood properly any more than those Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self but the token of the Covenant as it is called immediately after ver 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover whereas properly it was not the Passeover but a Token of the Passeover being slain and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it 's said 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ How could that be Not in respect of Substance but in respect of Signification the Rock signified Christ was a Type and a Figure of Christ Bellarmine I know doth indeavour to elude all these instances as if the speeches were not Figurative but Proper To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth that both Speeches are proper viz. Circumcision is the Covenant and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant Circumcision he saith was the Token of the Covenant as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise and it was also the Covenant it self as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself and to Reason He is contrary to himselfe for a little before he saith that these words Circumcision is the Token
ascribing so much to the Church when as 't is well known contrary to what the Bishop of Rome and the Church generally did hold he held the re-baptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretikes Though Cyprian in this did erre yet his very erring in this shewes that hee thought the Church the generality of the visible Church not onely subject to error but indeed to have erred The last Father whom the Marquesse here mentioneth for though hee say cum multis aliis yet hee nameth no more is Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith It is not meet to seeke the truth among others which it is easie to take of the Church seeing the Apostles did lay in it as in a rich depository all things that concerne truth that every one that will may out of it receive the drinke of life This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church and not Hyperbolically neither yet doth it not amount to this that the Church cannot erre The holy Scriptures wherein all saving truth is contained are committed to the Church and the Doctine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in and by the Church but hence it doth not follow that the Church that is such as beare sway in it is not subject to error All that Irenaeus saith of the Church is no more if so much as that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth which place it may seeme strange that the Marquesse pretermitteth Bellarmine disputing this point brings in those words in the very first place to prove that the Church cannot erre And whereas Calvin answers that the Church is so styled by the Apostle because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached he replies that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest then to a Pillar But this is a frivolous objection for the Church doth not keepe the truth close and secret as a thing is kept in a chest but so as to professe and publish it and therefore is compared to a Pillar to which a thing is fastned and so hangeth that all may see it But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church and an exemption from errour is cleare by this that he speakes of a particular visible Church namely the Church of Ephesus now that a particular visible Church may erre our Adversaries will not deny and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather shew the duty of the Church then the dignity of it rather what it should be then what it alwayes is As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam The Priests lips shall keep knowledge that is as our translations rightly render it should keepe So the Jesuite Ribera doth expound it shall keepe that is saith he ought to keep The Marquesse here comes againe to the visibility of the Church and some other particulars before handled That the Church is alwayes visible he proves by Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the World a City upon a Hill cannot be hid But I have shewed before these words Yee are the light of the world to be meant of the Apostles who as their own Iansenius expounds it were a light unto the World by their preaching So also Theophylact They did not enlighten saith hee one Nation but the whole world And the words following A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid he shewes to have been spoken by way of instruction Christ saith hee doth instruct them to be carefull and accurate in the ordering of their life as being to be seene of all As if hee should say Doe not thinke that you shall lie hid in a corner no you shall be conspicuous And therefore see that yee live unblameably that so you may not give offence to others This exposition sutes well with the admonition given vers 16. Let your light so shine forth before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven The Marquesse here further addes 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isai 22. I suppose it should be Isai 2. 2. Now the former of these two places is not to the purpose viz. to prove a perpetuall visibility of the Church For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle If our Gospell be hid it is hid to them that are lost The Apostle having said vers 2. by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God because as Oecumenius notes it might be objected that the truth was not made manifest unto all for that all did not believe to prevent this Objection the Apostle addes If our Gospell be hid c. As if hee should say It is not our fault as if the Gospell were not plainly enough preached by us but it is their own fault who perish through their owne blindnesse That Isai 2. 2. is more to the purpose though not enough neither It is said that in the last dayes the Mountaine of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountaines and shall be exalted above the Hills and all Nations shall flow unto it The Prophet there sheweth by metaphoricall expressions taken from Mount Sion where the Temple stood that by the preaching of the Gospell the Church should be increased and exalted farre above what it was before This prophesie was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles but the Prophet doth not say that in the times of the Gospell the Church should alwayes be so conspicuous and visible Neither doe the Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse viz. Origen Chrysostome Austine and Cyprian speake of the perpetuall condition of the Church but onely as it was in their time I have proved before by Scriptures and Fathers and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries that the Church is not perpetually visible After the Visibility of the Church the Marquesse speaketh of the Universality of it saying that the universality of the Church is perpetuall and that the Church of Rome is such a Church For proofe hereof hee citeth Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shewes that Christ should have the heathen for his inheritance and the ends of the Earth for his possession and consequently that the Church should not be confined as it was in the time of the Law to one Country but should be extended farre and wide throughout the World This also hath been fulfilled and yet shall be but hence it doth not follow that the Church is alwayes so universally extended throughout the World but that sometimes errors and heresies doe so prevaile and overspread all that the truth in comparison can finde no roome See before page 2. The other place viz. Rom. 1. 8. testifies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church and famous throughout the World but neither doth
of witnesses to the divine truth and be no more prejudicicall to their generall determinations then so many exceptions are prejudiciall to a generall rule Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies who onely prey upon corruption leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded Secondly Your Majesty taxes generall Councels for committing errors If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Councels were called Your Majesty shall find that the Church was then under persecution and how that Arrian Emperours rather made Assemblies of Divines then called any Generall Councels and if we should suppose them to be generall and free Councels yet they could not be erroneous in any particular mans judgement untill a like generall Councell should have concluded the former to be erroneous except you will allow particulars to condemne generalls and private men the whole Church all generall Councels from the first unto the last that ever were or shall be makes but one Church and though in their intervals there be no session of persons yet there is perpetuall virtue in their decretals to which every man ought to appeale for judgement in point of controversie Now as it is a maxim in our law Nullum tempus occurrit regi so it is a maxim in divinity Nullum tempus occurrit deo Ubi deus est as he promised I will be with you alwaies unto the end of the world that is with his Church in directing her chief Officers in all their consultations relating either to the truth of her doctrine or the manner of her discipline wherefore if it should be granted that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholick Church because the Church is as well Catholick for time as territory except that you will make rectification an error For as in civil affairs if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts and thereupon conclude that we will be no more regulated by its lawes we should breed confusion in the Common-wealth for as they alter their laws upon experience of present inconveniences so the Councels change their decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy writ assures us shall encrease in the latter daies provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of and not by every enthusiastick that shall oppose himselfe against the whole Church If I recall my own words it is no error but an avoidance of error so where the same power rectifies it selfe though some things formerly have been decreed amisse yet that cannot render the decrees of generall Councels not binding or incident to error quoad ad nos though in themselves and pro tempore they may be so As to Your Majesties objecting the errors of the holy Apostles and pen-men of the holy Ghost and Your inference thereupon viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under Your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the holy Ghost inabled with the power of working miracles so sanctified in their callings and enlightened in their understandings could erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from not erring by the assistance of a private spirit Lastly as to Your Majesties quotations of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understood If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood so that the unlearned and unstable wrest them to their owne destruction 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us that Christs owne Disciples could not understand them untill Christ himselfe expounds them unto them as Luke 24 25. and if the Scriptures tell us how the Angel wept much because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals nor to look upon it as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the errata's that are behind their books or else we must look out some other meaning of their words then what Your Majesty hath inferr'd from thence as thus they were easie id est in aliquibus but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained requisite for the Churches understanding and by her alone and her consultations and discusments guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance onely to be found out of which as to every ordinary man this knowledge is not necessary so hereof he is not capable First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his body is there you say there is nothing but bare bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. 26. Take eat this is my body so Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacrament is but dead bread Christ saith that that bread is living bread you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat we say that that was the objection of Jews and Infidels 1 John 6. 25. not of Christians and believers you say it was spoken figuratively we say it was spoken really re vera or as we translate it indeed John 6. 55. But as the Jews did so doe ye First murmur that Christ should be bread John 6. 41. Secondly that that bread should be flesh Iohn 6. 52. And thirdly that that flesh should be meat indeed John 6. 55. untill at last you cry out with the unbelievers this is a hard saying who can heare it Iohn 6. 60. had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality John 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation his ascention and ask how could the man come down from heaven and goe up againe if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts and that which is worse then naught you have made our Saviours conclusion an argument against the premises for where our Saviour tels them thus to argue according unto flesh and bloud in these words the flesh profiteth nothing and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding they must have faith to believe it in these words it is the Spirit that quickneth
errour in one thing he is so in another thing and therefore his bare testimony except it have something to support it is not sufficient to rely upon The testimony of the Lord is sure saith David Psal 19. 7. because he can neither deceive nor be deceived But man may and therefore his testimony as his is not sure No Let God be true and every man a lyar saith the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. 2. For a generall Councell why it should necessarily be exempt from Errour I see nothing here alledged by the Marquesse except it be that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us But the inference made from that Councell wherein the Apostles themselves did sit and give sentence to prove that no generall Councell can Erre is no better than if one should argue that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or preached For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought although the Marquesses words do seem to imply so much as that each particular Apostle might fall into Errour though all of them together could not For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures which were composed by particular Apostles and not by a whole Councell of them It 's true as his Majesty observed pag. 50. the Apostles were ignorant and erronious in some things but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe and obey either by word or writing for then as I said we could have no certainty of the Scriptures we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets as Believers are Ephes 2. 20. But that generall Councells may erre Austin made no question Who knowes not saith he that Provinciall and Nationall Councells doe yeild to the authority of Generall Councells and that Generall Councells are often amended the former by the latter that being after found out which before lay hid It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Councels of Constance and Basil two Generall Councels when they determine the Pope to be inferiour and subject to a Generall Councell Indeed generally the Pontificians make little account of a Councel though otherwise never so generall except it be confirmed by the Pope Bellarmine makes it a clear case and without all difficulty that Generall Councells may Erre if the Fathers of the Councell define any thing when as the Legates of the Pope dissent from them or if the Legates themselves do consent but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them And he further holds that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope the Councell may Erre and that before the Popes Confirmation of it the judgment of a Generall Councell is not infallible The Marquesse himself pag. 55. c. doth seeme to assent unto His Majesty taxing Generall Councells for committing Errours but some passages he hath which to me seeme very strange If saith he we should suppose them to be Generall and free Councels yet they could not be Erronious in any particular mans judgement untill a like Generall Councell should have concluded the former to be Erronious By this Assertion Arrianisme being confirmed by the Councell of Ariminum Athanasius and every particular man should have assented to it untill another Generall Councell had determined against it but this is such a position as I dare say our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow Again If it should be granted saith the Marquesse that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholike Church because the Church is as well Catholike for time as territory except you will make rectification an errour But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Churches freedome from errour they understand it of the Church representative a generall Councel It is one and the same thing saith Bellarmine that the Church cannot erre in determining matters of faith and that Bishops cannot erre But severally they may erre therefore being gathered together they shall be free from errour So then if a Generall Councell may erre at any one time it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet that the Church cannot erre That the Church represented in a Generall Councell may after rectifie what before was amisse and that also by the determination of a Generall Councell is so farre from proving that the Church as they take it cannot Erre that on the contrary it proves that it may Erre For though rectification be not errour yet it doth presuppose Errour Again If I recall mine own words saith the Marquesse it is no Errour but an avoidance of Errour So where the same power Rectifies it self though some things formerly have been Decreed amisse yet that cannot render the Decrees of Generall Councels not binding or incident to Errour quoad nos though in themselves pro tempore they may be so I answer it is without all doubt that for one to recall his words being Erronious is no Errour but a correcting of Errour yet this doth clearly shew a man to be subject to Errour And so if the Church at one time in a Generall Councell may Rectifie what at another time in a Generall Councell it had Decreed amisse it evidently appears that the Church in a Generall Councell may Erre For otherwise what need of Rectification were there if there had been no Errour And certainly if the Decrees of Generall Councells be Erronious as the Marquesse denies not but they may be they are not binding Quoad nos we are not bound to assent unto them but rather to dissent from them For we are not bound to embrace Errour but to embrace Truth Prove all things hold fast that which is good saith the Apostle 1 Thes 5. 21. By the Marquesses reason the Decree of the Councell of Ariminum confirming the Heresie of Arrius should for the time have been binding so that neither Athanasius nor any other should have presumed to oppose it or to dissent from it untill another Generall Councell had declared against it As to your Majesties objecting the Errours of the Holy Apostles and Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and your inference thereupon viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private Spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all Truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the Holy Ghost innobled with the power of working Miracles so sanctified in their callings and inlightned in their understandings could Erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from Erring by the assistance of a private Spirit 1. His Majesty was farre from thinking that the Apostles as Pen-men of the
their owne severall Dominions practising disobedience to their Superiours they teach it to their Inferiours The greatest Unitie the Protestants have is not in believing but in not believing in knowing rather what they are against then what they are for not so much in knowing what they would have as in knowing what they would not have But let these negative Religions take heed they meet not with a negative Salvation Neither can the Conversion of Nations be attributed to any other Church then to the Roman which is another mark of the true Church according to the Prophesies of Esay cap. 49. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and Queens thy nursing mothers And Esay 60. 16. Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles and the breasts of Kings shall minister unto thee And Esay 60. 10. And thy Gates shall be continually open that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles and that their Kings may be brought And the Iles shall doe thee service And the Prophet David I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession c. Now no Protestant Church ever converted any one Nation Kingdome or People Many Protestant people have fallen away from the Church of Rome but this cannot be called conversion but rather perversion for the Romane Church may justly say of such these have not converted Nations from paganisme to Christianity which is the mark of the true Church These are they which went forth from us 1 Joh. 2. 19. Certaine that went forth from us Act. 15. 14. These are certaine men who rise out of our selves speaking perverse things Act. 20. 30. These were they who separated themselves Iude 19. which are marks of false and hereticall Churches But the Romane Church I find stretching forth her armes from East to West receiving and imbracing all within her Communion For the first three hundred years the Church grew down-ward like a strong building whose foundations are first laid in the earth whose stones are knit together in Unity by the morter that was tempered with the blood of her ten Persecutions Afterwards this building hasting upwards Constantine the great Emperour submitting his neek unto the yoke of Christ subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester then Pope of Rome from which time to these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church as is confessed by Napier a learned Protestant in his treatise upon the Revelation pag. 145. and all along hath added Kingdomes upon Kingdoms to her Communion untill she had incorporated into her selfe not onely Europe but Asia Africa and America as Simon Lythus a Protestant writer affirmeth viz. The Jesuits have filled Asia Africa and America with their Idols as he calls them for the late Conversions of the East and West-Indies by the Romans if you read Joan. Petrus Maffeus Hist Indicarum Jos Acosta de natur novi orbis You shall find that no Church in the world hath ever spread so farre and wide as the Church of Rome Wherefore I hope in this respect also I may safely conclude that the Church of Rome most justly deserves to be called the Catholick Church Neither is it a vainer thing to say that the Pope of Rome cannot be head of the Church because Christ himselfe is head thereof then it is for a man to say that the King of England cannot be King of England because God is King of all the earth Psal 46. 8. As if the King could not be Gods Vice-gerent and the peoples visible God so the Pope Christs Vicar or Deputy and the Churches visible head And let Kings beware how they give way to such Arguments as these lest at the last such inferences be made upon themselves As strange an inference is that how that the Church was not built upon Peter because it was built upon his Confession as if it might not be built casually upon the one and formally upon the other as if both these could not stand together As if the Confession of Peters Faith might not be the cause why Christ built his Church upon his Person as if Christ did not as well personally tell him Tu es Petrus as significantly super hanc Petram id est super istam Confessionem aedificabo Ecclesiam No lesse invalid is that Objection of Protestants against the oeconomacy of the Bishop of Rome viz. that saying of Greg. sometimes Bishop of that sea viz. He that intituled himself universall Bishop exalted himself like Lucifer above his brethren and was a fore-runner of Antichrist As if there were no more meanings in the word Universality than one as if there were not a Metaphoricall as well as a Literall and Grammaticall sense as if Saint Gregory might not censure this title of Universality in the Grammaticall and exclusive meaning which being so taken would have excluded all other Bishops from their Offices Essences and Proprieties which they held under Christ thereby depriving them of the Key of orders and yet still keep the Superiority viz. of one Bishop over another and himself over all in a Metaphoricall and transferent sense thereby still keeping the Key of Jurisdiction in his own hands and this not onely is but must be the meaning of Saint Gregory for he thus explicates the matter himself lib. 4. ind 13. cp 32. viz. The care of the Church hath been committed to the Prince of all the Apostles Saint Peter and yet had Saint Peter called himselfe the Universall Apostle in the first sence seeing that Christ Jesus made other Apostles as well as him he had been no Apostle himself but Antichrist and yet this hindred not but that the care and principality was committed unto Peter Whereby you may plainly see how he ascribes a head-ship over the Church whilst he denies the Universality of Episcopacy Wherefore having shewed Your Majesty my Church I humble beg that You will be pleased either to give me a few lines in answer hereunto or else to shew me Yours The KINGS Paper in Answer to the Marquesse MY Lord I have perused your Paper whereby I find that it is no strange thing to see Errour tryumph in Antiquity and flourish all those Ensignes of Universality Succession Unity Conversion of Nations c. in the face of Truth and nothing was so familiar either with the Iews or Gentiles as to besmear the face of Truth with spots of novelty For this was Ieremiahs case Ier. 44. 16. viz. As for the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord we will not hearken unto thee but we will certainly doe whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our owne mouths to burn incense unto the Queen of heaven and to powre out drink-offerings unto her as we have done we and our fathers our Kings and our Princes in the Cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem as we have done there is Antiquity we and our Fathers there is
a remedy Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins as Rhenanus observes who conceiveth that secret confession did arise from publick confession people of their owne accord confessing secret sinnes secretly as they used to confesse open sins openly For saith he We no where read that this secret confession was injoyned he means by the Ancients One Father more there is whom the Marquesse here citeth namely Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdot So Bellarmine having alledged something out of the former book of Chrysostome bids see also the third book But no doubt if there had been any thing more for Bellarmines purpose in the third book then in the second he would have been so good as to have set it before us Now the very words of Chrysostome as Bellarm cites out of lib. 2. de sacerd do shew that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confesse all their sinnes to a Minister but onely that Christiani qui laborant Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy Having thus shewed that the Fathers testifie nothing for Popish confession I shall shew how they testifie against it And to begin with him that was last mentioned Chrysostome is most copious in this kind Why art thou ashamed saith he and doest blush to confesse thy sinnes Doest thou speak to a man that he may upbraid thee Doest thou confesse to thy fellow servant that he may insult over thee To thy Lord to him that hath a care of thee to him that is kind to the Physitian thou doest shew thy wound Here he takes it for granted that there is ordinarily no necessity of confessing to any but to God onely So againe Art thou ashamed saith he to say that thou hast sinned Confesse then daily in thy prayr For doe I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may reproach thee No confesse unto God who doth cure thee Diverse such sayings hath this Father most plain and pregnant for our purpose Bellarmine with all his art and all his industry was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them He saith that Chrysostome spake onely of publick Confession not of private onely of that which is made in the open Congregation not of that which is made to a Priest in secret But it is evident that Chrysostome speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but onely unto God He bids Confesse in thy soul Make confession in thy thought Let God onely see thee confessing Such confession as this man hath nothing to do with either in publick or in private Bellarmine answers that in these places Chrysostome doth speak of confession not as it hath reference to the Priests absolution but as it hath reference to shame and confusion and in this latter respect he saith Chrysostome doth well admonish that it is not necessary to confesse unto man either in publique or in private but that it sufficeth to confesse with sorrow and tears unto God onely But here Bellarmine a thing not unusuall with him doth contradict himself For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame yet in another place he saith That shame useth not to be feared in that confession which is made onely unto God And againe Shamefac'dnesse hath no place in that confession which is made onely unto God These assertitions as they agree not with the truth see Ezr. 9. 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bellarmine giveth unto Chrysost Where as Bellarm saith that Chrysost speaketh not of confession as having reference to the Priests absolution it is easily granted there being ordinarily no necessity of any such absolution Chrysostme willeth a man to confesse though but in his heart unto God assuring him that thereby he shall obtain Gods absolution and what need then of any others absolution Except in some speciall case viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience and that one may the better enjoy the comfort of Gods absolution Thus for Chrysostme Austine also doth shew the no-necessity of confessing unto men which still must be understood excepting some particular case wherein it may be requisite What have I to doe saith he with men that they should hear my confessions as if they could heal all my diseases Bellarmine takes it in disdaine that these words of Austine should be alledged against their confession This he saith is nothing else but to delude the simple For that whosoever reads Austines Confessions cannot but know that he speakes not of Sacramentall Confession but of the Confession of sinnes past and forgiven by Baptisme which Confession was made to that end that thereby the mercy of God might be seen and praised But Austines words are of more force then thus to be evaded We willingly grant that Austine speaks not of Sacramentall Confession there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of as they call Sacramentall no such I say truly so called and so much these very words of Austine doe sufficiently testifie For Sacramentall Confession as they call it is a Confession necessarily to be made unto a Priest or else no remission of sin they say committed after Baptisme can be obtained but Austine shewes that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary Neither is it so that Austine in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptized For in that tenth Book where he hath the words before cited he speaketh of sinnes which he was guilty of long after his Baptisme yea even then when he was writing his Confessions As namely impure Dreames and nocturnall pollutions as also excesse in Eating Diverse other particulars doth he also confesse saying that his life was full of such failings and that all his hope was onely in Gods exceeding great mercy To this purpose also Ambrose who speaking of Peter saith I find not what he spake I find that he wept And hence he infers that tears may procure pardon of sin though no verball Confession be made of it To this testimony of Ambrose Bellarmine answers that as then Sacramentall Confession was not instituted and therefore 't is no marvell if we doe not read of Peters confession And 't is very true that Sacramentall Confession neither then had nor at all hath any divine institution Again Bellarmine sayes that Tears of which Ambrose speaketh containe a kind of Confession in them This indeed is true in respect of God who knowes the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping Psal 6. 8. which shewes that as the Tongue by speaking so the Eyes by weeping have a voice which God doth hear But what is this unto men who by tears alone without words can understand little Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that Confession which is made unto God who
can be separated from the Church And againe Let none thinke that the good can depart out of the Church The winde doth not carry away the wheat neither doth the storme overthrow the Tree that hath taken solid roote The empty chaffe is tossed with the tempest the weake Trees are throwne down with the whirlewinde This the Apostle John doth curse and smite saying They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Joh. 2. 19. And to adde one testimony of his more Peter saith hee speaking for all and answering in the name of the Church saith Lord to whom shall we goe Thou hast the words of eternall life Joh. 6. 68. signifying that they who depart from Christ perish through their own fault but that the Church which believeth in Christ and once holdeth that which it hath knowne doth never altogether depart from him and that they are the Church who doe abide in the house of God but that they are not the planting of God the Father whom wee see not to be strengthened with the stability of wheat but to be blowne away with the breath of the enemy like chaffe that is to be dissipated Of whom John saith They went out from us but they were not of us c. Austine also citing those words of S. Iohn saith Hee doth not say that by going out they were made Aliens but that therefore they went out because they were Aliens Againe In that saith he thou departest and fliest away thou shewest thy selfe to be chaffe they that are wheate endure threshing And upon those words of our Saviour If yee continue in my word then you are my Disciples indeed Joh. 8. 31. hee saith thus Then they are indeed that which they are called if they continue in that for which they are so called So againe That is not indeed the Body of Christ saith hee which shall not be with him for ever So Tertullian saith that such as fall away were never true Believers and true Christians Hee saith man sees the outside of every one and thinkes what hee sees but God sees into the heart and therefore knowes who are his and roots out every Plant that hee hath not planted And let the chaffe of light faith saith hee flie away as much as it will with every blast of temptations by so much will the heape of Corne be the more cleane to be laid up in the Lords Garners Did not some of Christs Disciples being offended turne away yet the rest would not therefore leave him but they that knew him to be the word of life and sent of God did continue with him to the end It is a lesse matter if some did forsake his Apostle as Phygellus and Hermogenes and Philetus and Hymenaeus Then hee cites that of S. Iohn They went out from us but they were not of us c. Thus also Gregory speaking of the holy Ghost saith that in respect of some vertues he alwayes abides in the hearts of the Saints but in respect of some hee comes so as to goe away and goes away so as to come againe For in respect of Faith Hope and Charity and other good things without which there is no comming to Heaven as Humility Chastity Iustice and Mercy in respect of these hee never forsaketh the hearts of the upright But in respect of Prophecy Eloquence and working of miracles sometimes hee is with the Elect sometimes hee withdrawes himselfe from them This testimony of Gregory is also cited by Gratian who from thence and other testimonies of the Fathers inferrs thus much that Charity once had and it is as true of Faith for Charity cannot be without it but doth proceede from it 1 Tim. 1. 5. cannot be lost Thus wee have not onely the Scriptures and Fathers but also the Canon-law it selfe for us Those places which the Marquesse alledgeth to prove that faith may be lost doe not speake of justifying Faith whereby one is ingraffed into Christ and made a member of his Body but either of an outward profession of the Faith that is of the Doctrine of Faith as that 1 Tim. 1. 19. where the Apostle bids Timothy hold faith i. e. the Doctrine of Faith and a good conscience and addes that some having put away a good conscience concerning Faith did make shipwrack that is did forsake the Doctrine of Faith and fall into Heresie Such were Hymenaeus and Alexander whom hee mentioneth vers 20. and saith that he delivered them unto Satan that they might learne not to blaspheme And that which hee there calleth Faith hee calleth Truth 2 Tim. 2. 18. where speaking of Hymenaeus and Philetus hee saith who concerning the truth have erred saying that the Resurrection is past already He addes that hereby they did overthrow the Faith of some that is they did draw them from the Faith making them to embrace Heresie But that these seducers or seduced ones were ever such believers as that they were indued with justifying Faith the Apostle doth not say neither can it be proved Tertullian was of another minde as appeares by his words before cited Yea so was S. Iohn whose words to this purpose both Tertullian and other Fathers as I have shewed have made use of when hee saith speaking of such as those They went out from us but they were not of us c. 1 Joh. 2. 19. Or they speak of an Historicall Faith whereby one doth assent unto the truth of the Gospell and is somewhat affected with it but it doth not take roote in the heart as it is said Mat. 13. 21. yet hath hee not roote in himselfe and therefore this is not such a Faith as wee speake of when wee say that Faith cannot be lost viz. a Faith whereby Christ is received and doth dwell in the heart Ioh. 1. 12. Ephes 3. 17. For all that Faith which is spoken of Luke 8. 13. a man is but chaffe still and not true wheat whatsoever hee seeme either to himselfe or others They compared to the thorny ground who for a while believe are distinguished from such as have a good and honest heart Luke 8. 13. 15. Therefore those temporary believers are no sound and sincere Believers their heart is not right with God and therefore they are not stedfast in his Covenant Psal 78. 37. The Marquesse addes This is frequently affirmed by the Fathers viz. that Faith may be lost but hee cites onely Austine de grat lib. arb de corrept grat ad articulos Now I have produced many testimonies of Austine to the contrary as also of diverse other Fathers who speake very home to our purpose As for these places of Austine alledged against us the two first are justly to be waved For onely the bookes are cited but no Chapters whereas in the
hee takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point and hee cites him saying As predestination doth include a will to conferre grace and glory so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sinne and to inslict the punishment of damnation for sinne Hence Alvarez inferres that according to Aquinas the permission of the first sinne for which a Reprobate is damned is the effect of Reprobation And hee addes that of this permission there is no cause in the Reprobate Because before the permission of the first sinne and before the first sinne there is no other sinne for if there were then it were not simply the first sinne or man should commit some other sinne before which God did not permit whereas no sinne can be committed but by Gods permission He cites also Aquinas againe speaking thus why God doth chuse some to glory and reprobate others there is no reason but onely Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9. The children being not yet borne neither having done any good or evill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of workes but of him that calleth it was said unto her The elder should serve the younger As it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated having cited this I say hee addes that the Apostle here both Austine and Aquinas avouching as much plainly signifies that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men God did not looke at Mens merits or demerits but of his own pleasure did chuse and predestinate one to glory and not predestinate another but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sinne and to be hardened or to persevere in sinne to the end of his life and to inflict eternall punishment upon him for sin Hee brings in also Austine confuting those who say that Esau and Iacob being not yet borne God did therefore hate the one and love the other because hee did foresee the workes that they would doe Who said Austine can but wonder that the Apostle should not finde out this acute reason for hee did not see it c. No but flies to this hee saith to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy c. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austine in this point Alvarez about the beginning of his Worke hath a Disputation to shew what authority this Fathers judgement is of in the point of Grace and Predestination Hee shewes that not onely Prosper but also many Bishops of Rome did approve of Austines Doctrine concerning these points and did determine it to be sound and good And therefore in the testimony of Austine wee have many testimonies and such as are irrefragable with those with whom now wee have to doe But let us heare what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome doe say as to this point concerning Reprobation God from eternity saith Cardinall Cajetan doth truly chuse some and reprobate others doth love some and hate others in that from eternity his will is to vouchsafe some the helpe of his grace whereby to bring them to eternall glory and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves and not to afford them that gracious help which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate and to reprobate them with which yet it doth well stand that none is damned but by his owne workes because neither the Sentence nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates doe sinne So also †Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9. doth teach that neither mens Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of workes but that God by the meere pleasure of his wil doth chuse some and Reprobate others And againe upon those words O man who are thou that repliest against God c. hee saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection as the cause of objecting And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing and Reprobating and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man who is Gods creature and made by him yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shewes that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason And he addes that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle Bradwardine who intituled the book which hee wrote of the cause of God is not to be omitted Hee saith It 's true God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally and abiding eternally yet God did not eternally reprobate any because of sinne as a cause antecedently moving Gods will What doe our Divines say even such as are of the more rigid sort as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reprobation what I say doe they lay more then is said by these great and eminent Doctours of the Church of Rome and before them by Austine and before both him and them as both hee and they conceived by the Apostle Paul himselfe The Decree of Reprobation saith Bishop Davenant is not thus to be conceived I will damne Judas whether he believe or not believe repent or not repent for this were contrary to the truth of the Evangelicall promises but thus I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that speciall grace which would cause him to believe and repent and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incurre his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy and finall impenitency And againe It must here first of all be considered that Reprobatio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato that is That eternall reprobation doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated It putteth onely in God a firme Decree of permitting such persons to fall into finall sinne and for it a firme decree of condemning them unto eternall punishment So both hee and diverse other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort being sent thither by King Iames as they hold that Reprobation which is the denying of election doth put in God an immutable will not to have mercy on such a person as is passed by in respect of giving eternall life And that foreseene unbeliefe is not the cause of non election So withall they lay down this position God doth damne none nor appoint unto Damnation but in respect of sinne So Doctor Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree mens damnation whether they be sinners or no. Our opinion saith hee is this that God did not choose some as he did chuse others but did determine to let them abide in their sinnes and for those sinnes to suffer the punishment of just damnation and that of this decree
but such as were threescore years old or more But the greatest difficulty is what is meant by the first faith which the Apostle saith the younger Widdowes did cast off and therefore had damnation 1 Tim. 5. 12. It is true the antient Writers for most part expound it of a promise or covenant of a single life but all that goe this way doe not speake of any vow that was made neither Chrysostome nor Theophylact doth upon the place Yea some of the antients shew that they understood the Apostle as speaking of the Christian faith or the common faith as it is called Tit. 1. 4. sure I am some of them make use of the Apostles words and apply them that way Hierome speaking of Heretikes saith that they have cast off or made voide their first faith So Vincentius Lirinensis in his Booke against Heresies saith It is well knowne how grievously the blessed Apostle Paul doth inveigh against those who with wonderfull lightnesse are quickly removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ unto another Gospell which is not another who heape up to themselves teachers after their own lusts turning away their Eares from the truth being turned unto fables having damnation because they have made void their first faith Bellarmine therefore was more curious and criticall if not rather more captious and contentious then tender and respective of the credit of these antient Doctours when he said that faith here must be taken for covenant and vow yet there may be a covenant where there is no vow and cannot be taken for Christian faith because Christian faith is not rightly said to be made voide but to be lost or corrupted but covenants and vowes are most properly said to be made voide Hierom and Vincentius understood the propriety of words as well as Bellarmine who shewes himselfe barbarous in these very words wherein he so playes the critick yet they wee see thought it not improper to say that Heretikes make voide the faith which is necessarily meant of the Christian faith and not of any vow or covenant Nether doe I see but that wee may as properly say that faith being meant of the Christian faith is made voide as that the Law is made voide Heb. 10. 28. or that the grace of God is made voide Gal. 2. 21. wee reade it in the former place despised in the other place frustrate but the Greeke word in both places is the same with that in the Epistle to Timothy And as the words will well beare this sense viz. that it is the Christian faith which the Apostle saith some did cast off or make void so this sense is agreeable to the Apostles expressions in other places of this Epistle Holding faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwrack 1 Tim. 1. 19. If they continue in faith 1 Tim. 2. 15. Some shall depart from the faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. And in the very same Chapter in which are the words controverted If any provide not for his own c. hee hath denied the faith c. 1 Tim. 5. 8. So also in the other Epistle to Timothy who concerning the truth have erred c. and overthrow the faith of some 2 Tim. 2. 18. Men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 2 Tim. 3. 8. I have kept the faith 2 Tim. 4. 7. In all these places faith is understood of Christian faith and therefore probably so is it in that other place about which wee dispute So that this may well be the meaning of the place that they of whom the Apostle speakes being censured of the Church for their lightnesse and lasciviousnesse and not able to beare the disgrace did quite cast off the Christian faith which before they professed and so exposed themselves unto damnation I see nothing uncouth nor incongruous in this Exposition and it doth well agree with that which the Apostle saith a little after For some are allready turned after Satan 1 Tim. 5. 15. which words seeme to import a plaine and open renouncing of Christ as on the other side to come after CHRIST is as much as to professe his Name Mat. 16. 24. Luke 9. 23. Object But may some say the Apostle reproves these of whom hee speakes for that they begin to wax wanton against Christ and will marry which argues that they had vowed or professed continency for else why might they not marry The wife is bound by the Law so long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39. Ans I grant that those Widdowes though they did not vow yet by the very course of life which they entred upon did professe continency marriage and that course being inconsistent And justly might they be reproved both for their rashnesse in taking upon them that profession and for their lightnesse in falling off from it when there was no just cause for it The Apostle doth not simply condemne them for having a minde to marry but because out of wantonnesse they would needs marry And it might be called wantonnesse against Christ because they had addicted themselves to the service of Christ in his Church and Members which service they did desert by their wantonnesse And in this sense by their first faith may be meant the promise either formall or virtuall which those Widdowes did make unto the church that they would remaine Widdowes and not marry which promise they breaking meerely out of wantonnesse well might the Apostle say that they had damnation for it But all this proves not that it is sinfull and damnable for any that have vowed continency afterwards to marry Though Bellarmine will by no meanes endure that those words of the Apostle I will therefore that the younger Widdowes marry c. 1 Tim. 5. 14. be understood of such as had professed continency as if the Apostle would have such to marry if they could not containe So also Estius upon the place who saith that otherwise the Apostle should cast them headlong into damnation For if they have damnation who have a will to marry how much more they that doe marry But though I thinke that the Apostles direct meaning was that the younger Widdowes should not be admitted into the number of those who were by their place and calling to professe continency into which number hee would have none admitted under 60. years old yet Estius his reason is not valid For the Apostle doth not say that the younger Widdowes being admitted into that number and afterwards willing to marry or actually marrying therefore had damnation but because they would marry out of wantonnesse and so out of wantonnesse make voide their first faith viz. their promise of continency made to the Church if not their Christian Faith which before they professed Notwithstanding which sentence it followes not but
woman should be joyned together The Son of God doth draw us back to the first institution c. 3. He is said to teach peremptory resistance against Magistrates and to inable the inferiour Magistrate to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superiour For the latter part of this charge the Marquesse citeth Concil Theol. which book I finde not as I said amongst Melancthons Works For the former part he citeth Melancthon on Rom. 13. but in that place there is not a syllable that I can see whereby it may appear that Melancthon teacheth any resistance against the Magistrate All that I finde is that he teacheth Magistracie to be of God and answereth the arguments of the Anabaptists against it Here the Marquesse addes So Calvin so Beza so Goodman so Danaeus so Knox c. all hold it lawfull to depose murther or to arraign their Prince c. But where these Authours either all or any of them do hold thus he sheweth not he doth not so much as point at any of their writings where such doctrine may be found I know that some of these Authours here mentioned are charged in this kinde by Romish Writers but withall I know that the charges brought against them are answered See Rivet Jes Vap. cap. 13. § 9. 10 11. Bils of Christ subject Page 509. c. The former of these answers to what is alleadged against Calvin the latter to what is alleadged both against him and against Beza Goodman and Knox. But some of the Authours whom the Marquesse here citeth as being of this opinion concerning Magistrates he was much mistaken in viz. Bancroft who did declare himself so much the other way that he taxed some of these here mentioned by the Marquesse as being not respective enough of the honour due to Magistrates His book I have read though now I have it not nor do I perfectly remember the title of it I think also that there is the like mistake concerning Sutcliffe whom the Marquesse also joyneth with the 1 â—st I thinke that he also was so farre from teaching such doctrine that he did rather taxe those who did but seem to teach it But I am not so well assured of him as of the other After Melancthon the Marquesse speaketh of Andraeas Musculus who he saith was not afraid openly to teach that the Divine nature of Christ died upon the Crosse with his humane nature Wolfangus Musculus is an Author well known but Andraeas Musculus I confesse I have not heard of before so farre am I from being able to say what he holdeth but if he hold as the Marquesse here alleadgeth I shall be as ready to explode and abhor his opinion as any other In the next place the Marquesse speaketh of the divisions of Protestants which I confesse have been and are too great though divers of the Sects which he mentioneth I do not know that ever I read of before But what if Protestants differ among themselves and so must needs some of them be in error Yet may they for all this be in the truth so far forth as they all agree and consequently so far forth as they dissent from the Church of Rome There were many Sects among the Jews as Pharisees Sadduces and Herodians spoken of in Scripture and the Essenes mentioned by Josephus These differing one from another must certainly some of them erre yet as they agreed together in opposing Paganisme they were all right Whilst the Catholicks saith the Marquesse have no jars no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edw. Sands confesseth The Authours book which the Marquesse citeth I have but not so distinguished as that which he referreth unto and therefore I cannot finde the words which he alleadgeth But seeing mention is made of this book I think it meet here to insert some things out of it that so the Reader may perceive what manner of unity and agreement it is that is amongst them of the Church of Rome But now saith that worthy Authour to come to the view of their Ecclesiastical government not so much as it is reserred to the conduct of soules though that be the natural and proper end of that regiment but rather as it is addressed to the upholding of the worldly power and glory of their order to the advancing of their part and overthrow of their opposites which I suppose be the points they now chiefly respect I think I may truly say there was never yet State framed by mans wit in this world more powerful and forcible to work those effects never any either more wisely contrived and plotted or more constantly and diligently put in practice and execution insomuch that but for the natural weaknesse and untruth and dishonesty which being rotten at the heart abate the force of whatsoever is founded thereon their outward means were sufficient to subdue a whole world In their art they have certain head-assertions which as indemonstrable principles they urge all to receive and hold As That they are the Church of God within which great facility and without which no possibility of salvation That divine Prerogative gramed to them above all other Societies in the world doth preserve them everlastingly from erring in matter of faith and from falling from God That the Pope Christs deputy hath the keyes of heaven in his custody c. In these 〈◊〉 no doubt or question is tolerable and who so joyn with them in these shall finde great connivence in what other defect or difference soever c. And by this plot they have erected in the world a Monarchy more potent then ever any that hath been before it c. And afterward To what a miserable push saith he have they driven the world either in their pleading against them with such force of evidence or in their learning of them and joyning with them as to stop the month of the one and hang the faith of the other on this 〈◊〉 paradox I and my Church cannot possibly erre and this must you take upon our own words to be true For as for their conjectural evidence out of the Scripture there seems to be as much or more for the King of Spains not erring as there is for the Popes it being said by the wisest that the heart of the King is in the hands of God a divine sentence is in his lips and his mouth shall not transgresse in judgement And a little after Although it were perhaps not untruly said by a great Clerk of their own that the Popes not erring was but an opinion of policy and not of Theologie to give stay to the Laity not stop to the Divines of whom in such infinite controversies and jarrings NB about interpretations of Texts and conclusions of Science wherein many have spent a large part of their lives never any yet went neither at this day doth go to be resolved