yâ— words Iudges Officers shalt thou make thée in all thy Cities and they shall iudge the people with righteous iudgement Where I note by the way the falshood of the Latin vulgata editio which the late popish Councell of Trent extolleth aboue the Gréeke and Hebrew for in the Chapter next afore the text saith thus Vt iudicent populum that they may iudge the people but in the Chapter which the papists cite for them it is thus and they shall teach the people and in the Prophet Malachie thus and the Priests lips shall kéepe knowledge and yet in the Hebrew text which is the fountaine and originall the word and is in euery place which the Papists guilefully change into the word that in the 16. Chapter so to make their matter good if it would or could be but let vâ— be made et as it is in the Hebrew and the question is at an end For as it is sayd of the Priests yâ— they shall teach the truth so is it sayd of yâ— ciuill Iudges officers that they shall iudge the people righteously and yet do their aduersaries grant that it is a condition in the ciuill Iudges and no promise at all and that therefore they may fayle in doing iustice and swarâ—e from the truth therein so then this is the truth of the question that where the Scripture sayth the Priests shall teach the Law and the iudges minister iustice it hath no other sense and meaning but yâ— their charge office requireth so much at their hands there is a coÌ„dition implied of doing but no promise made of performing and the Latin vulgata editâ—o doth plainly insinuate this interpretation Though the papists conceiue no such thing these are the expresse words Iudices Magistratus constitues c. vt iudicent populum iusto iudicio nec in alteram partem declinent Thou shalt make Iudges and Magistrates in all thy Cities which the Lord thy God giueth thée throughout thy Tribes and they shall Iudge the people with righteous iudgement saith the Hebrew text that they may iudge the people with righteous iudgement and not decline into the other part saith the popish Latin text where euery child may discerne a condition implied but no promise of performing the same Fiftly because as the Priests are said to teach the law so are the people said to require the law of them and consequently if it be a condition in the one it is so in the other and semblably if a promise in the one a promise also in the other The 6. reply Theoph. The Apostle telleth vs that Christ hath put Pastors Doctors in his Church vnto the end that henceforth we be no more children wauering and carryed about with euery winde of doctrine ergo it seemeth that the Pastors of the Church shall euer teach the truth Remig. This text as the others of Deuteronomie and Malachie insinuateth a condition of doing but no promise at all of performing The 7. reply Theoph. God gaue Pastors and Teachers to his Church for this end that they should not be carryed away with false doctrine But if all persons haue erred as you affirme then in vaine did God giue Pastors to his Church to preserue his people in the truth For they that should haue taught the truth did euen themselues swarue from the truth and so they became vnfit instruments to do the will of God Remig. I answere first that albeit Gods will be one as himselfe is one willing by his owne essence and by one eternall and immutable act whatsoeuer hee willeth yet is his will said to be manifold aswell of the holy Fathers as of the Schoole-doctors and this is done for two speciall considerations The former is by reason of the variety of the things which God willeth The latter for the variety of the manner by which God séemeth to will things Here vpon arise many divisions of Gods will assigned by the learned for explication sake Some deuide Gods will into antecedent and consequent Some others deuide it into the will of signe and will of good pleasure Others into the will reuealed and will secret or not reuealed Others into the will absolute and will conditionate and the like Secondly that though Gods will consequent and will of good pleasure be euer accomplished vndoubtedly yet is his will antecedent and will of signe oftentimes neglected and left vndone Of the former will the Prophet speaketh thus Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did he in heauen and in earth in the Sea and in all the depths And the Apostle sayth For who hath resisted his will Of the latter we haue many examples in the holy Scriptures God commanded Pharao to let his people go but Pharao would not obey God would haue gathered the Iewes together euen as the Hen gathereth her Chickens vnder her wings but they would not haue it so God would haue all men saued as the holy Apostle witnesseth and yet we know by the holy Gospell that the greater part shall be damned Thirdly that Gods will now obiected is onely Voluntas signi his will of signe and not voluntas beneplaciti his will of good pleasure and therefore it can neuer bee effectually concluded out of this Scripture that the Pastors of the visible Church doe alwaies teach the truth and neuer swarue from the same for the Apostle speaketh indefinitely and indifferently of all Teachers and of all hearers of all shepheards and of all shéepe neither excepting one nor other and yet both you know and I know that many Preachers preach false doctrine and that many hearers embrace the same whereupon it followeth of necessity that if the Apostle should meane as you would haue him to meane then should Christs intent and purpose bée frustrate in very déed which for all that is it that your selues impugne The Apostle therefore meaneth onely this viz. that Christ sheweth voluntate signi what hee would haue his shepheards and shéepe to do and what is their duty to do although his voluntas beneplaciti doe not euer cause the same to be accomplished The 8. reply Theoph. You haue fully satisfied me and proued very pithyly that the Priests commonly swarue from the truth But I thinke it impossible for you to proue that the high Priest in the law did erre at any time Remig. What impossible say you it is a thing so farre from being impossible that I am able to effect it with all facility Aaron was the high Priest in the law and yet erred he most grosly and egregiously while he taught the people flat Idolatry telling them that the molten Calues brought them out of the Land of Egypt Theoph. Aaron indeed consented to Idolatry and made the molten Calfe but the text saith not that hee taught Idolatry Remig. This is Cosen-german to yâ— of the Popes double person Yée haue heard of a Bishop of Rome that sayd right learnedly that
cut off and to be cast into theirâ—iuer Tyber Meane you Pope Iohn yâ— twelfth his father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforced the Nobles to take an oath that after the death of Pope Agâ—pitus they would promote his sonne Octauianus to the Popedome The oath was accomplished and he was named Iohn He was a great hunter and a man of licencious life he kept women openly to the notorious scandall of the Church insomuch that some of the Cardinals wrote to Oâ—to then King of the Saxons to come and besiege Rome and so to afflict him for his sins Which the Pope perceiuing commanded the Cardinals nose to be cut off that gaue that counsell and his hand that wrote the letters Speake you of Pope Boniface the seuenth he was made Pope by the Romans after they had thrâ—tâ—ed Benedictus the sixt who afterward not able to tarrie in the City robbed S. Peters Church of all the â—â—asure in it and fled to Constantinople Means you Pope Benedict the eight he was seene after his death as it were corporally riding vpon a blacke horse the Diuell he confessed that he was in great torment therefore desired some money to be giuen to the poore because all that he had giuen the poore aforetime was gotten by robbery and extortion Meane you Pope Iohn the woman she belying her sexe and clad in mans attire was with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singular learning chosen to be the Pope of Rome But shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued companion she brought forth the homely fruits of her Popedome Meane you Pope Boniface the eight he made a constitution in which he called himselfe both Lord spirituall Lord temporal of the whole world whereupon he required Philip the French King to acknowledg that he held his Kingdom of him which when the King scorned to doe he gaue his Kingdome to him thatcouldget it This Pope entred as a Foxe reigned as a Wolf and died as Dog What shal I say of your Monks or Fryers Pope Siluester the second was first a Monke a FreÌ„chman borne Gilbeâ—â—us by name he promised homage to the Diuell so long as he should accompliâ—h his desires who being very ambitious did so often expresse his desire to the Diuell as he made homage to him He was first made Archbishop of Rhemes then of Rauennes at the last Pope of Rome for the Diuell knowing his ambitious minde brought him to honour by degrées All this to be most true these Popish writers of high estéeme euen in the Church of Rome viz. Geniblacensis Marianus Scotus Baâ—â—holemeus Carranza Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergomensis Bapt. Platina Palmerius haue publishes it in printed books to the view of the whole world which doubtlesse they would neuer haue done if the truth it selfe had not enforced their pennes thereunte For the holy life of your Iesuites and Iesuited brâ—â—d I will say nothing their deare bréethren the secular Priests haâ—â— related that matter sufficiently in many bookes late extant in print against them they charge them with pride ambition couetousnesse cozenage theft cruelty murther treason and what not yea of Frier Parsons they giue this testimony in particular viz. by Parsons platformes secular Priests must depend vpon Blacwel and Blackwel vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons Parsons the Priests bastard vpon the Diuel Read the Anatomy of Popish tiranny and there then shalt find this truth with great variety of like matter I let passe what Polidorus Virgilius Abbas Panormitanus Pope Pius himselfe before called Aeneas Syluius haue written of the filthy life of Popish Priests Monkes Friers and Nunnes Peruse the suruey of popery and the triall of the new religion and that done the truth will shew it selfe herein For if S. Austin said truly that in his time all was full of humane superstitions with the seruile burdens whereof men were so pressed as the Iewes estate vnder their legall ceremonies was more tollerable then the state of Christians Truely may we say much more of the last and worst daies Theoph. S. Peter S. Paul deliuered the Catholique saith to the Church of Rome and the succession from S. Peter and S. Paul kept S. Augustine in the vnity of the Church So writeth S. Austen of himselfe Remigius True it is first that both S. Peter and S. Paul preached at Rome and for the testimony of Christs Gospell were there put to death both on one day not both in one yeare the one beheaded the other crucified none well studied in the auncient fathers histories of the Church will or can this deny true it is secondly that many Bishops of Rome were holy men who constanly yéelded vp their liues as become holy martyrs for the testification of the truth of Christs Gospell true it is â—â—irdly that S. Austen saith of himselfe that the succession of Priests from S. Peter was one thing amongst many that kept him in the Church true it is fourthly that the maiâ—sty of the Roman Empire together with the great liberality which the Romans exhibited to the Martyrs in exile and otherwise afflicted yéelded no small honour to the City and Church of Rome and hereupon I will it not deny it came to passe that the auncient councels had euer great respect to the dignity and excellency of Cities in the distribution of Episcopall and Patriarchall seates hereupon it likewise came that the West and Occidentall Churches not so the East-churches did greatly reuerence the Church of Rome and many times to appease controuâ—â—sies and dissentions had recourse vnto it as to the Mother-church and auncient nurse of the faith which things S. Augustin beholding together with the succession not barely of place or persons but of Bishops in faith â—â—ctrine and holy conuersation was confirmed in the vnity of the Church for so as then so now nothing doth or can yéeld greater comfort or solace to a Christian heart then to behold the lines of Gods ministers to be agreable to their doctrine and their doctrine to be consonant to the word of God for what man would not rather in any difficulty haue recourse to that Minister and Preacher whose life is agréeable to his doctrine then vnto him who though he preach pleasantly yet liueth not accordingly None doubtlesse For this respect said the holy Apostle to the Romans that through their euill life the word of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles and for this respect likewise are the Bereâ—ms highly commended in holy writ in that they examined the Apostles doctrine by the liue and rule of Gods word yea for this respect doth the holy vessell of our Lord Iesus very grauely admonish the Hebrwes to consider the end of their conuersation who haue preached Gods word vnto them but for all this no auncient councell no holy father no history Ecclesiasticall did euer ascribe this supereminent prerogatiue to the Bishop of
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
same so pithily as I must perforce yeelde thereunto I will proceed by your fauour to be resolued in other doubts Remig. Leaue nothing vnsayd which possibly can bée deuised or aduised for the supposed prerogatiues of your Pope Obiection fourth Theoph. The Apostle telleth vs that the Church cannot erre and he proues it because it is the pillar and ground of truth Remig. It is true that the Apostle saith so and my selfe do willingly admit the doctrine and humbly reuerence the same I most willingly grant yâ— Christs church cannot erre in matters of faith we differ not in the nature of the thing markewel my words but in the modification and application of the thing that is to say wèe all grant on all sides that the Church cannot erre but we differ in the application of our grant what Church it is that cannot erre what Church meane you M. Theophilus Theoph. I meane as all Catholikes doe of the Pope and Church of Rome Remig. I told you that you are but bastards and deformed Catholikes as your owne Capuchéenes do tell your deformed Franciscans and withall I tell you that the Pope or Church of Rome which is with Papists all one hath de facto erred egregiously as is already proued Nay it is vnpossible that the Apostle should meane of your Pope or Church of Rome I proue it many wayes First because the famous Popish Doctor Iohannes Gersonus hath fréely told vs as we haue heard already related the the Bishop of Rome hath de facto erred not onely in his priuate opinion but also in his publike and iudiciall definitions that therefore we haue no infallible Iudge vpon earth sauing these two viz. the whole Congregation of the faithfull and a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same where I wish you to marke attentiuely the word Sufficiently because it is very emphatical â— of great moment Secondly because the Popish Doctor Syluester Pryeras a diuine so learned that he is by them so named Absolutus Theologus confirmeth the opinion and doctrine of M. Gerson the famous Chauncelor of Paris in these expresse words Et sic intellige glossam dicentem quod Ecclesia quae errare non potest dicitur non papa sed congregatio fidelium quae scilicet tenet fidem quam Petrus eum alijs populis docuit And thus must the glosse be vnderstood which saith that yâ— Church which cannot erre is not the Pope but the congregation of the faithfull that is such as hold firmely that faith which Peter with other godly people taught Thirdly because Panormitanus that famous Popish Canonist Abbot Arch-bishop Cardinall for he was all foure and therefore of high estéeme with the Pope and Church of Rome iumpeth with the other learned Papists Gerson and Syluester and stoutly coÌ„firmeth their doctrine These are his expresse words Nam in concernentibus sidem c. For concerning matters of faith euen the iudgemeÌ„t of one that is a méere lay-man ought to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope if that lay-man could bring Better reasons out of the old and newe Testament then did the Pope And it skilleth not if one say that a Councell cannot erre because Christ prayed for his Church that it should not faile for I say that although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not truly the vniuersall Church but representatiuely For the vniuersall Church which is it that cannot erre consisteth of the collection of all the faithful Whereupon all the faithful in the world make this Church vniuersal whereof Christ is the head The Pope is the Uicar of Christ but not truly the head of yâ— Church as noteth the glosse vpon the Clementines which glosse saith notably that when the Pope is dead the Church wanteth not an head and this is that Church which cannot erre whereupon it is possible that the true faith of Christ might remaine in one alone and so it may be truely said that the faith faileth not in the Church Christ before his passion prayed for Peter that his faith should not faile therefore the Church is not said to faile neither to erre so long as the true faith abideth in one onely thus writeth this famous and learned papist Fourthly because the Popes owne deare glosse vpon his owne dâ—â—rées doth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to be the Congregation of the faithfull for thus is it there written in expresse termes Quaero de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare si de ipso Papa certum est quod Papa errare potest respondeo ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse I aske thee O Pope Leuci of what Church thou vnderstandest that which thou tellest vs in this place to wit that the Church cannot erre for if thou vnderstand it of the Pope himselfe it is certaine that the Pope may erre I therefore answere that the Church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull and such a Church can neuer erre indéede Fiftly because the popish ceremoniall practise in the holy wéeke while they put out all the candles saue one doth liuely expresse vnto vs that the Church of Rome and Bishop there may erre indéede for thereby the romish Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the light of faith was extinguished in all generally saue only in the blessed virgin Mary that most holy mother of true God and true man and so their vsuall yéerely practise thrée daies together in the wéeke afore Easter doth vtterly condemne the faith of the Pope and of the Church of Rome Sixthly because S. Austen and S. Anselme doe both of them so expound S. Pauls words the ground of this obiection these are S. Austens expresse words secundum ergo sabbathi c. therefore we may not vnderstaÌ„d the second of the sabbath to be any other then the Church of Christ yet the Church of Christ in the saints the Church of Christ in those which are not ouercome with the tentations of this wicked world for they are worthy the name of Firmament therefore the Church of Christ is called the Firmament in those that are firme which is saith he the Church of the liuing God the piller and Firmament of truth The like saying hath the same holy father in many other places but especially where he writeth against the Donatists Anselmus an auncient father and well approued of the papists doth follow Saint Austens interpretation these are his words Domus in qua Deus habitat c. the house in which God dwelleth is the whole congregation of the faithfull who are to be taught diuersly and the same Church is in the perfect a pillar that is sublime straight inconcussible supporting lifting vp the yonger sort and in the same perfect it is the firmament of truth because in
obiection wherein the papists glorie more then a little maketh nothing for them for as say those holy fathers these words already recited 〈◊〉 spoken to the whole congregation of the faithfull which are or shall be to the worlds end and Saint Aâ—ston proueth it by two reasons First because not onely the Apostles but others together with them should be his witnesses in Hierusalem and Samaria albeit Christ spake that of them touching the being witnesses of him as he spake this to theÌ„ concerning his spiritual preseÌ„ce therfore as he spake the other to all the faithfull so did he also this yâ— is promised his inuisible presence not onely to the Apostles or Pastors of the Church but euen to all the faithfull in the world Secondly because Christ spake that to his Apostles as pertaining onely to them which for all that did nothing at all concerne them as if he had said it is not a good reason to deny Christs presence to the whole Church because he vttered the words onely to the Apostles for séeing he spake that to the Apostles which pertained nothing to them but onely and solely to others much more might he speake yâ— to them which betongeth to them with others The first reply Theoph. Christ himselfe saith that the holy Ghost shall teach the Apostles all truth euen many things whereof they were not capable then and therefore did he reserue those things till the comming of the holy Ghost who should continue with them for euer for that end Remig. I answere that the holy Ghost after Christs ascension taught the Apostles all truth indéede of such things as he had reserued by reason of their â—udity and imperfection in conceiuing heauenly doctrine but withal I say that those things so reserued and the truth so taught was nothing else but a manifest explication of the selfe same verity which they in briefe before had heard For the holy Ghost did coyne no new doctrine nor reueale any new articles of faith but onely taught the Apostles the true sense of Christs words which afore for their dulnes they were not able to perceiue which sense they being directed by the instinct of the holy Ghost deliuered to the whole world First by word and afterward by writing This mine answere thus explicated I proue by two euident demonstrations First because Christ himselfe doth so expound himselfe in these words following He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you Which assertion must be well noted because the latter words are a plaine declaration of the former as if Christ had said all things which the holy Ghost shall teach the Apostles after my departure are no new doctrine but the very same things which they heard afore of me This onely difference there is yâ— the Apostles do more plainly vnderstand them by the assistance of the holy Ghost Secondly because the best learned Popish Doctors doe constantly deâ—end the same doctrine and this mine exposition For yâ— famous Schooleman and great learned Popish Bishop Melchior Canus hath these expresse words Nec vllas in fide noâ—as Reuelationes Ecclesia habet For the Church hath no new reuelations in matters of faith Thus teacheth Christ himselfe and thus their â—â—iâ—e learned Bishop affirmeth and yet will the Papists porforâ—e compell vs dayly to admit new doctrines from the Church of Rome The second reply Theoph. Christ promiseth the continuance of the holy Ghost euen after the death of the Apostles ergo he meaneth of their successors aswell as of themselues Remig. I answere that Christ promiseth the presence of the holy Ghost here as he did afore his owne presence to the worlds end and so one and the same answere may fitly serue to both to wit that the holy Ghost is promised to the whole congregation of the faithful the Doctors of Paris are all of the same opinion The third reply Theoph. Christ commanded the people to do whatsoeeuer the Scribes and Pharisees willed them to obserue and this he did for this respect onely because the Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses chaire But doubtlesse if they sitting in Moses chaire could haue erred Christ would neuer haue commanded his disciples and the people so strictly to obserue their doctrine and none will or can deny that to sit in Peters chaire hath as great prerogatiue euery way as to sit in Moses chaire ergo the Pope that now sittes in Peters chaire at Rome can neuer teach false doctrine Remig. I answere first by the Popes owne decrées in these expresse words Multi Sacerdotes pauci Sacerdotes multi in nomine pauci in opere Videte ergo fratres quomodo sedetis super cathedram quia non cathedra facit Sacerdotem sed Sacerdos cathedram Non locus sanctificat hominem sed homo sanctificat locum Non omnis Sacerdos sanctus sed omnis sanctus est Sacerdos qui bene sederit super cathedraÌ„ honoreÌ„ accipit cathedrae qui malè sederit iniuriam facit cathedrae Many Priests and few Priests many in name few in worke therfore my brethren beware how you sit vpon the chaire for not the chaire makes the Priest but the Priest makes the chaire the place doth not sanctifie the man but the man sanctifies the place euery Priest is not a holy man but euery holy man is a Priest hee that shall sit well in the chaire receiues the honor of the chaire but he that sits euill doth iniury to the chaire Thus saith the Popes own decrée I ad nothing I change nothing I wil deale sincerely vpon my saluation Would to God the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings did this day put this decrée in practise Christianly Let not the Popes henceforth boast of sitting in Peters chaire Let them remember that they be many in name but few in worke they haue not this hundred yeares preached an hundred Sermons What say I an hundred Sermons for so farre as I can learne not one at all therefore as the Popes owne Canons tell vs the Popes did honour Saint Peters chaire Secondly with Saint Austen in these expresse words sedendo Cathedram Moysi legem Dei docent ergo per illos Deus docet sua vero si illi docere velint nolite audire nolite facere sitting in the chaire of Moyses they teach the law of God therefore God teacheth by them but if they will néedes teach their owne inuentions fantasies then heare them not doe not as they bid you do Thirdly with Saint Hilary in these words cum igitur doctrina Pharisaeorum ob id probabiâ—is esse docetur quia ipsi in Moysi Cathedra sederunt doctrina necessatio significatur in Cathedra séeing therefore that the doctrine of the Pharises is for that proued probable because they sate in the chaire of Moyses therefore by the chaire doctrine must of necessity be signified Thus write these two
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
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
be yâ— true the pure word of God who saith that al things which the Prophets haue written are true and the pure word of God an he deny any particular that granteth all Theoph. He cannot doubtles do it for he that granteth the whole must perforce graÌ„t euery part of the whole euen as he that granteth God to haue made all things must of necessity grant him to haue made euery particular thing whatsoeuer hath any essence or beeing in the whole world Remig. You haue granted enough though no more then the truth for the full refutation of our Frier Iesuite I haue proned as ye know out of the expresse Scripture of the new Testament that all things written in the law of Moses in the bookes of the Prophets in the Psalmes in which thrée as also somtime in the law the Prophets and other sometime in the law onely all the old Testament is comprised are the pure word of God and consequently the Canonicall scripture For if we beléeue not the bookes of Moses neither will we beléeue Christs owne words as it is already proued Theoph. But our sesuite perhaps will say that there are sundry Canonicall bookes in the old Testament besides these which you haue named Remig. What the Iesuiticall Fryer Parsons will say small account is to be made for as his deare brethren by popish profession haue written of him he is a monster of mankind a notorious lyar the wickedest man vpon the earth begotten of someâ— Incubus and depending vpon the Deuill of hell this and much more of like homely qualities the secular Priests haue confessed of Parsons that vnfortunate Rector of the English Colledge in Rome and this they haue done in their printed bookes lately published to the view of the whole world this honest man Parsons hath lately published the pretensed answere to the Downefall of Popery but his backe is so pittifully broken with the said Downefall alas poore Fryer I am sory for thy heauinesse that his neighbours thinke he cannot liue any while Yet I hope which is my smal comfort in such a distressed case that the Popish secular Priests will sing a ioyfull dirge if not a blacke sanctus for his soule But woe is me that my natiue countrey-men at Rome haue such a gouernour set ouer them now to your obiection out of Parsons I answere thus First that yâ— scripture saith plainely that Christ interpreted all the scriptures which spake of him and consequently all the Canonicall bookes of the old Testament for no booke Canonicall can be named which maketh not some mention of our Lord Iesus Secondly that both our sauiour his Apostles and all the auncient fathers did euer comprise all the old Testament in the lawe the Prophetes and the Psalmes it cannot be denied Theoph. The scripture saith not that Christ interpreted all the scriptures that spake of him but that he interpreted out of them those things which they spake of him Remig. I answerâ— first that Christ interpreted Gods word but not the word of man Secondly that in interpreting that which was of him else he did in effect interprete the whole Thirdly that in interpreting and peâ— consequens approuing those things which were of and concerning himselfe he did indéede approue commend and authorise the whole for as Saint Austen and other holy fathers tell vs and the Iesuite doth yéeld thereto if any part of the holy scripture should be false we could haue no certainety of the rest much lesse could we ground our faith vpon them Theoph. You haue soundly proued the scripture of the old Testament to be Canonicall euen by the expresse words of the new Testament but what text of scripture can proue the new Testament to be Canonicall and the pure word of God without the mixture of mans word is this possible to be done Remig. It is not onely possible but very easie to be done I proue it First because the Gospell which is the whole new Testament is conteined in the old Testament for Saint Paul plainely testifieth that he was set apart to preach the Gospell of God which he afore had promised by his Prophets in the holy scriptures Secondly because the same Apostle constantly auouched to the Elders of Ephesus that he had shewed to them all the councell of God Thirdly because the selfe same Apostle affirmeth in an other place that he taught nothing but the law of Moses and the Prophets neuerthelesse saith he I obtained helpe of God and continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and to great saying none other thing then those which the Prophets Moses did say should come to passe Fourthly because Saint Paul testifieth to yonge Timothy that he knâ—w the holy scriptures of a childe which are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus By these testimonies and authorities two things are â—léered the one that all the bookes of the old testament deliuered by Moses to the Iewes are Canonicall and the pure word of God able to make vs wise vnto saluation the other that all Saint Pauls doctrine and consequently of the other Apostles for he taught all the councell of God which was all the doctrine of all the rest in substance was conteined in Moses and the Prophets and this is confirmed by the Apostles words to King Agrippa which are these O King Agrippa beléeuest thou the Prophes I know that thou beleuest Lo Saint Paul knew that Agrippa beléeued the law and the Prophetes and commendeth him for the same I therefore conclude that the holy scripture it selfe doth proue it selfe to be Canonicall and the pure word of God Theoph. The Papists say that we receiued both the old and new Testament from them and not from the Iewes Remig. I answere first that the primitiue and Apostolicall Church receiued the old Testament from the Iewes and that the Apostles were onely the publishers of the new Testament not of the old Secondly that we beleue the old Testament to be Canonicall scripture neither for the testimony of the Iewes though they deliuered it and were the publishers thereof neither yet for the authority of the Church of Rome or of any other Church in the Christian world Thirdly that we beléeued it to be the pure word of God and Canonicall scripture because Christ so pronounced of it long before the Apostles were confirmed in the truth Fourthly that the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings doe enforceâ—â—â— to aâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 the holy Bible that which is in very many places the pure word of man Theoph. How is this possible haue not the Papists the holy Bible Remig. The old Testament which is the pure word of God is in the Hebrew tongue and the new in Gréek but the late popish Councell of Trent which the Iesuits and all Iesuited Papists haue admitted commaundeth â—â—raitly to vse onely their Latin vulgata editio which the Apostles did
neuer read or sée much lesse did they authorise it for Canonicall scripture and the pure word of God and consequently albeit they haue both the Hebrew and the Gréeke locked vp in their studies and Libraries yet for as much as they preferre their owne vulgar Latin translation commonly called Saint Hieromes and cruelly bind and tie all diâ—â—nes to â—sâ— the same in all schooles and pulpits and no textes sentences or allegations to be admitted saue onely out of the same it followeth by an ineuitable consequente and necessary deduction that their Canonicall so supposed Bible is not Canonicall but in very déede the word of man this is confirmed because the Papists this day violently obtrude for Canonicall sundry bookes of the old Testament which are not in the Cannon of the Hebrewes neither yet deliuered to the Church by Christ or his Apostles Theoph. I now remember a straunge saying of the Iesuite Parsons viz that many parts of the Bible were doubted of long after the death of the Apostles which argueth to me that their vnwritten traditions are fallible and their doctrine new Remig. The Popes religion Chaugeth euery day by reason of new reuelations made vnto his Holinesse but from whence they came wheather from Heauen or from hell that cannot I tell let the reaâ—er iudge this I am assured of that their owne learned maisters cannot agrée about their reuelations Melchior Canus a learned Popish Bishop affirmeth constantly that the Church hath no new reâ—elations in matters of faith but the Popes minorite Fryer Tâ—telmannus otherwise a learned man indéede telleth vs an othertale viz. that many mysteries of diuine truth are daily reuealed to the Church euery day more and more and thus by reason of their Popish feined reuelations the late Romish faith doth daily encrease aboue mans expectation and is as like the old Roman religion as Yorke is like soule Sutton I will now make an end of this question referring you for the rest to the Iesuites Antepast where you may find at large concerning this subiect whatsoeuer your heart can desire but before I end the conference let me aske you a merry question what will you say if for a parting blow with the Iesuite Parsons I proue out of his owne printed booke as also out of the Iesuiticall Cardinal Bellarmine euen in that booke which he dedicated to the Popes holinesse with which booke he so pleased the Pope that he made him Cardinâ—ll for the same that all the bookes Chapters verses and sentences which are admitted for Canonicall are actually proued in holy scriptur to be truly Canonical Gods pure word without the mixture of mans worde which for all that is that mighty point of faith which the said two Iesuites and all Iesuited Papists contend with might and many to be an vnwritten tradition of the Church Theoph. What will I say Is that your question I will tell you both what I will say and doe I will say you haue done that which to this day was euer thought impossible and this I promise to cause the same to be written in Marble with golden Letters and to put the stone in Saint Peters Church at Rome In Perpetuam rei memoriam Remig. Be attentiue and marke well what I deliuer for I trust by Gods helpe to proue it most substantially these are the expresse words of S. R. or of Robert Parsons that Trayterous and brasen faced Iesuite First conclusion is all such points of Christian faith as are necessary to be actually beléeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually coÌ„teined in scripture either cléerely or obscurely these are Parsons words I neither adde any thing chaunge any thing nor take any thing away the Iesuite Bellarmine hath these expresse words These obseruations being marked I answere that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessary for all men which the Apostles preached openly to all the vulgar people but that all other things are not written These are the Cardinals words I cite them most sincerely I hold it a damnable sinne to bely the Diuel Out of these testimonies I gather very plainely that all things which euery one is bound to beléeue are actually conteined in the holy scripture and consequently yâ— all the bookes chapters verses sentences which are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonicall Gods pure word without yâ— mixture of mans word which conclusion for all that is it that both our Iesuites and all their cursed Iesuited broode doe violently impugne Theoph. The Papists would seeme to frustrate your conclusion because they onely beleeue it for the testimony of the Pope and Church of Rome Remig. They would gladly séeme indéed to doe many things which they are not able to performe But the truth is as I haue said thus both briefly pithily I proue the same Whatsoeuer is necessary for euery Christian the same is contained in the scriptures of the Apostles but the knowledge of all the Bookes Chapters Uerses and Sentences admitted for Canonical to be truly Canonicall and the pure word of God is necessary for euery Christian ergo the same is conteined in the Scriptures of the Apostles The conclusion of this argument cannot be denyed because it is a perfect Syllogisme in the first figure and in the third made called Darij The proposition is confessed both by Cardinall Bellarmine and by the Iesuite Parsons You haue heard their expresse words truly alledged as themselues in printed bookes haue set them downe so then the difficulty if there be any at all resteth in the assumption viz. if to know the holy Bible to be Canonicall and the pure word of God be necessary for euery Christian which being a fundamentall point of religion is so cleere and so apparant to euery one as methinkes it is a néedlesse labour to take in hand to proue the same But I proue it first because the knowledge of the holy Gospel euery part thereof is necessary to euery on s saluation Secondly because the Papists themselues doe euer vrge the same as a necessary point of faith and saluation so often as it séemeth any way to make for their vnwritten traditions Thirdly because all the articles of faith deduced out of the sciptures depend thereupon for these are the Iesuite S. R. his owne words yet this is a point of the Christian faith yea thereupon depend all the articles we gather out of Scripture Thus disputeth our Iesuite in his pretensed answere to the Downe-fall of Popery after he hath bitterly many times denyed that the holy Scripture doth shew it selfe to be Gods word but the force of truth is so mighty in operation the while of malice he striueth against it he vnawares confoundeth himselfe and pleadeth for the truth in very déed Fourthly because the Iesuite S. R. vrged and as it were deadly wounded with the sharp pikes of his
minde but the law of sinne in his flesh which doctrine elsewhere he deliuereth in other termes distinguishing man into the inward and outward man and in another place into the old and new man Remig. The Pope his Cardinals Iesuits and Iesuited Popelings for the maitenance of their false and erronious doctrine of mans iustification do shamefully abuse and wrest the holy scriptute to a contrary sense and meaning fraudulently perswading their silly deuoted vassals that originall concupiscence remaineth onely in the body and not at all in the soule where as the truth is farre otherwise as holy wridtoth euidently coâ—uince Theoph. They contend and obstinately affirme that the inward man doth connotate the soule and the outward man the body and the termes of inward and outward seeme very agreeable to their application Remig. The spirit the law of the mind the inward and outward inall are all one with the holy Apostle and do signifie the whole man as he is regenerate and semblably the flesh the law of the members the outward and the old man are with the same Apostle all one and do signifie the whole man as he is corrupt by the fall of Adam Theoph. If it be possible for you â—oo demonstrate this doctrine out of holy writ you thereby giue the Pope a deadly wound and turne his religion vpside downe Remig. Marke well my discourse that ye may vnderstand the same Saint Iohn hath these expresse words which are borne hot of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God in which asseueration the holy Euangelist vnderstandeth by the word flesh the whole man as he is corrupt and vnregenerate Theoph. How can it be proued that Saint Iohn vnderstandeth the corrupt man by the word flesh Remig. These foure are distinguished in the Euangelist blood the will of the flesh the wil of the man and God by which distinction he giueth vs to vnderstand that the will of the flesh doth connotate the whole man corrupt I proue it because the Euangelist distinguisheth blood flesh and man one from another by a particular dissunctiue and God from them all by a particular aduersatiue Theoph. Your affirmance of the quadruple distinction is euident but how should flesh connotate the corrup man it doth not so well appeare Remig. I proue it two waies First if the word flesh should signifie the body or fleshly parts of man the Euangelist should thereby consound himselfe and frâ—strate his distiction the reason is euident because in the first word blood he did formerly infâ—â—nate so much vnto his reader Secondly because the Euangelist addeth an adiunct to the word flesh which can no way agrée to the body Theoph. What is that adiunct I pray you Remig. The will of the flesh for will is added vnto flesh not vnto blood and it is a proper faculty of the soule but not of the body for the flesh or body hath no will at all which for all that the Euangelist attributeth to the flesh and consequently he meaneth and speaketh of that flesh which hath a will and so of the corrupt man fitly compared to flesh as who before his regeneration sauoreth onely the things of the flesh which sense the Apostle plainly vnâ—oldeth when he affirmeth the animall sensuall and naturall man not to perceiue the things of thy spirit of God This reason or explication is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Apostle where he auoucheth the flesh to lust against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh so that the children of God cannot performe the things they will and earnestly desire for this conflict betwéene the flesh and the spirit must néeds be vnderstoode of the regenerate and vnregenerate parts of man for the flesh lusteth not without the soule as both Saint Austen and reason teaceth vs. Theoph. The Papists expound the words of the Apostle otherwise affirming the cumbat to be betweene the body signified by the flesh and the soule signified by the spirit Remig. The Papists say much but proue little they striue for life to obscure the Apostles true sense and meaning as which turneth their faith religion vpâ—idedoune but I God willing will proue what I say by the expresse words of holy writ and by euident reason First therefore many texts of holy scripture doe conuince the Papists oâ— grosse errour while they peruerâ—ly and mordicus auerre that the soule of the regenerate is frée from all mortall sin and that originall sinne remaineth onely in the body materially the first text is comprised in these words create in me a cleane heart O God and renew a right spirit within me cast me not away from thy presence and take not thine holy spirit from me In these words the holy Prophet sheweth plainely that he was regenerate and yet not frée from sinne for in that he desireth his heart to be purified and his spirit to be renued he giueth vs to vnderstand that his soule is not frée from sinne nor himselfe perfectly regenerate On the other side in that he prayeth God not to take away his holy spirit from him nor to cast him away from his presence he sheweth euidently to the indifferent reader that he is regenerate though not wholly yet in part The second text confirmeth the same in these words though our outward man perish yet the inward man is renewed daily The third text is yet plainer in these words be renewed in the spirit of your minde and put on the new man which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holines The fourth text is as plaine in these words séeing yée haue put off the old man with his works and haue put on the new which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him The fifth text doth further confirme the same in these words night and day praying excéedingly that we might sée your face and might accomplish that which is lacking in your faith By al which texts it is very cléere and euident that the regenerate man is not wholly renewed in his souls for which respect Saint Iohn exhoedeth him that is iustified to be iustified more Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Yea S. Paul throughout a whole chapter doth in effect intend no other thing but onely to demonstrate by many arguments that mans regeneration is vnperfect aswell in the soule as in the body two verses onely will suffice for the cléering of our question The former verse is conteined in those words for we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall fold vnder sinne The latter verse in these words for I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing for to will is present with me but I find no meanes to performe that which is good Out of which verses I obserue these memorable doctrines First that by the word flesh must néedes be vnderstoode the whole man as
CypriaÌ„ confoundeth the Pope Other Bishops were of Cyprians opinion Luk. 22. v. 32. S. Peter suffred at Rome Ioh. 17. v. 9. 20. Gers. vbi sup cap. 2. â—ug in quaest mixtis q. 5. tâ—m 4. Orig. Homâ—â— in Mat. â—aâ—or apud Sylâ— defido §. 9. de conc §. 5. Panorm de elect cap significati Apâ—d Bel. lib. 4 cap. 3. de rom pontif Gâ—rs 〈…〉 Coram Philip â—â—ge Francâ—â— supra cap. 2. Bellarm. de verb. deâ—on script lib. 4. cap. 12. Ps. 116. v. 11. Iere. 16. v. 19. Rom. 3. v. 4 Mal. 1. v. 8. Esa. 28. v. 7 Eze. 7 v. 〈◊〉 Micach 3. v. 1â— Soph. 3 v. 4 OffeÌ„â—is adu Luth. art 32. Lege Caâ—etaâ— in prefat in libr. Mâ—â—is Aug. ep 11. 19. Eze. 20. 10. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3. Cyprian vbi super He speaketh of one Felicissimus his bad companions S. R. pag. 31â— See the â—esuits antepast pag. 13â— The Romans being faithfull men would not giue eare to faithles lyars Bell knoweth Bellarmine right well Marke this point well Mat 16. ver 18. As in all assemblies of gouernment one for order sake and peace must bed ssigned to end and to moderate the actions so was a preminence giuen to Peter among the Apostles that all things might be done in peace order a primacy not of powers as ouer inferioâ—rs but of order as amongst equals 1. Cor. 3. 11. Mat. 16. 18 Apoâ— 21 14. Aug. de verb. Dom. serm 13. Chrys. serm de pent 10. 3. Apoc. 21. v. 14. Hilarius de trinit lib. â— p 103. Panâ—rmit Sâ—luester marke this point well for it is wonderfull and killeth the papists Mat. 16. ver 13. 15. Luke 22. ver 32. Mat. 18. ver 15. 18. 19. 20 The whole vniuersity of Paris teacheth this my doctrine Gal. 2. 7. Marke this poynt againe and againe To auoyde â—sme di Per hathe primacy of order but not of power Mat. 28. v. 19. Mark 16. v. 14. 15. ioh 21. v. 14. 15. Aug. de ogonae Christi cap. 30. Rom. 3. Cypr. de simplicit Prelaetorum p. 113. Cypr. de vnitate Ecclesiae p. 29â— Couarr to 1. part 2 9. p. 242. col 4. prope finem Angl. in 4. q de clau diâ— fic 2. Concl. 1. pag. 6. Lo Peter had the primacy of order as amongst equals not of power as ouer inferious for he was the first both in order and calling Ioh. 1 42. Mat. 10. 2. 〈◊〉 tollendâ— schismata Marke wel that all Writers teach this doctrine Marke this well for it striketh dead Mortuus est Ioannes A. D. 99. Let this be well marked 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. wee differ not in the thing but in the modification thereof Syluest de Eccles. §. 4. Lo not the Pope but the congregation of the faithfull is 3. the church that cannot erre Panorm de elect cap. significasti Cers idem docet p. 1. de exam doctrin Seo the antepast pag. 173. 175 177. Oh that this learned man durst haue spoken out â— Caus. 24. quaest 1. arecta 〈◊〉 glosia â— Vide Dur. in rationâ— â— Tim. 3. v. 15. Aug. in Ps. 47. in pref Vide Aug. lib. 7. de bapt c. 51. tom â— Ansel. in 1. tim 3. v 15. â— Gerson part 1. de examin doctrin Iesuites Antepast pag. 134. Marke this point well See the antepast 172. Marke wel this point The body of Christ which the wicked are not Ephe. 2. v. 22 23. 1. Tim 3. 15 Ps. 118. v. 23 Mat 28. v. 20. Esa. 59. 2â— Iere. 33. v 20. Chrysost. in cap 5. Mâ—â— hom 15. Tom. 1. Aug. in ep 90. 4. 23 8. Maike wel these vnanswerable testimonies Mat. 24. v. 33. Ioh. 16. v. 13. Ioh. 14. v. 16. The holy Ghost taught no new doctrine but onely reucaled the true sense of such things as the Apostles did not vnderstand Ioh. 14. v. 16. It is the selfe same doctrine but more plainely declared Canus de lecâ—s lib. 3. c. 4. pag. 101. 〈◊〉 14. vet 16. Mat. 28. ver â—0 Mat. 23. ver 2. 3. dist 42. cap. multi Sacerdotes The faithful dealing of the Author Aug. tract 46. in Ioh an in mediâ— Rom 9. Hylar in Psal. 118. Pag. 698. Marke this doctrine and forget it not Lyr. in cap. 23. Mat. Carth in cap 23. Mat. Deut. 17. â— 9. 10. 11. Popery is plainely confuted by her owne doctors Lyr. in cap. 17 deuter Lo papistry is confuted by Papists even of the best sort Lyra. in cap. 23. Mat. The Iewish Church erred in matters of faith Lyra vbi super Carthus 23. cap. Mat. Ca lt in cap. 17. deut Canus lib. 3. câ—p vlt. pag. 106. Deut. 17. v. 10. Mal. 2. v. 7. Deut. 17. v. 9. v. 10. Deut. 17. v. 8. 9. 10. Mal. 2. v. 8. Note this well Mal. 2. v. 8. Deut. 17. v. 9. 10. Deut. 10. 12. Exod. 28. 4 Leu. 26. 3. 25. Deut. 28. 1. Deut. 16. v. 18. Deut. chap 16 v 18. Deut. 17. v 10 11. Mal. 2. v 7. Deut. 16. 18 This point must be remembred Deut. 16. 18. Deut 17 9 Mal. 2. 8. Ephes 4. v. 11 13 14. Ephes. 4. v. 14. Gods will is his essence Psa. 46 80. Ps. 155. 6. Rom. 9. 19. Exo. 4. 22. 23 Mat. 23 v. 37. 1 Tim. 2. v. 4. Mat. 20. v. 16. Genuinuâ— loci sensus Exod. 32. v 4. 5. 6 Rom. 132 Vertually though not vocally Exod. 32 v 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 â—5 Deut. 17. â— 10. 11. Mat. 26. v 64. 65. The high Priest erred most grosly Ephes. 4. v. â—2 Ephes. 4. v. â—2 The Church of Rome wan teth formal succession Clem ep 1. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Epiâ—h her 27. â—is seb lib 3. c. 13. 14. 15. Naucler paâ—â— 3â— histor S. Peters doing is controlled Carranz in â—pit concil p. 370. p. 373. The cheefest Bishop dyed at Hierusalem 1 Tim. 2. 1◠〈◊〉 Pope Iohn was a woman Exod 8 19. Digitus Dei est hic The truth must preuaile in time Palmer Sigeber in Chron. Obraue succession of women Popes The Popes of Rome 4. can beare children but not preach Bernard aâ— Ganfrid ep 12. 5. Apoc. 13. v. 5. 7. The Authors protestation for his sincere dealing Naucler pag 713. histor Ps. 115 v. 2 Mark this The Church cannot erre that is the Pope cannot erre 1489. Victor de potest Papâ— pâ—oâ—os 16. caus 17. q 4 cap. quiâ— Flat Idolatry euen by Popish â—aâ—h This woman-pope liued A. D. 18. S. â— pag. 142. Ezec. 3. 18. cap. 33. v. 8. Psal. 79. v. 6 Luk. 12. 48. Caus. 17. q. 4 cap. siquis Esa. 55. v. 8. 9. 3. Reg. 8 39 Rom. 8. 17. 1 Par. 28. 9. â— Sam. 16 â— Psa. 7. v. 10. Mar. 2. 27. A. D. 1439. Loe the Councell deposed the Pope for his disobedience A Spaniard being but a Souldier was the author of the sect of the Iesuites A. D. 1540. A generall Councell is aboue the Pope by the verdict of best learned papists Carranzâ— â—ol 354. 355. Barth fumus A. D 1503.
aduersaries arguments plainely resolutly confesseth the doctrine which I defend In one place hee hath these expresse words me thinkes he plainely auoucheth he speaketh of Saint Austen that God hath procured euery thing to be cléerely written which to know is necessary for euery mans saluation In another place hee hath these words what things soeuer are necessary are manifest out of scripture Now sir what man can thinke our Iesuite to bee in his right wits that thus woundeth himselfe with his owne weapons for he doth not onely grant that euery thing necessary for euery mans saluation is manifest in the scripture but withall that euery necessary thing is cléerely written in the same and consequently he granteth vnaware against himselfe either that to beléeue the holy Bible to be the pure word of God is a trifle a thing of small moment and not at all necessary to saluation which if the Papists doe they must perforce condemne themselues and vtterly ouerthrow their Romish faith or else that the same is plainely and cleerely set downe in the holy Scripture the cause is cléere I hope I haue said enough Theoph. All the world knoweth old and yong rich and poore learned and vnlearned that to know and beleeue the holy Bible to be Gods word is so necessary to saluation as none without it can be saued It now remaineth for my full satisfaction and resolution in all points of Catholike doctrine in controuersie that if I know how to answere the Papists concerning one point of doctrine wherwith they neuer cease to charge you your profession I would think my selfe able to answere and confound all Papists in the world and to perswade all indifferently affected persons to abhorre and detest late start-vp popery world without end Remig. Let me know I pray you heartily what yâ— point of doctrine is wherewith our aduersaries so surcharge vs and our profession conceale nothing from me that any way troubleth your conscience for doubtlesse I am most willing to vndergoe any paines for your instruction in the truth Theoph. They charge you to hold teach that the best liuer among you sinneth in the best act he doth which seemeth a doctrine so strange irksome to all godly eares as my selfe caÌ„not but detest the same for if we can do nothing but sinne we must perforce condemne all good workes all preaching all teaching and all holy conuersation Remig. I wonder that any liuing wilcharge our Church with such vnsauory doctrine Theoph. Your aduersaries affirme with open mouthes so disgracing you and your profession as much as in them lieth that this is a generall receiued axiome with all your Deuines Iustus in omni opere bono peceat The iust man sinneth in euery good worke he doeth and that all euen our best workes are sinne Remig. My selfe though most vnworthy of that sacred name am one among the rest Howbeit I am so farre from beléeuing or defending that doctrine that I vtterly renounce the same in the sense formerly by you auouched For the exact examination of which proposition by them te armed our Maxime or Axiome let vs dispute the question pro contra as we haue done the rest CHAP. 6. Of the state of the regenerate with the particular adiuncts of the same Remigius THis proposition which séemeth to trouble you more then a litle the iust man sinneth in euery good work may admit a double sense and meaning viz a rigorous and a fauourable interpretation Iâ— we interprete it according to the rigour of the words the sense must be this the iust man sinneth euen in the best worke he doth which sense I willingly graunt is not onely straunge but with all very irksonâ—â— to all Christian eares howbeit if it may finde a fauourable interpretation the sense and meaning will be this the iust man sinneth whiles he doth the best worke he can which sense is most Christian sound Catholike Apostolicall and consonant to the holy scriptures But here ye must marke seriously that it is one thing to sinne in doing a good worke an other thing to sâ—me while the same good worke is a doing Iheoph This your distinction as it is very subtile so is it also right iovous comfortable to mine heart it affordeth me a kind of glimmering though no ful insight into the question Remig. He that will exactly know the truth of this question must apâ—ly distinguish the quadruple state of man First his state before sinne vntill his fall Secondly his state after sinne vntill his regeneration Thirdly his state after regeneration vntill his glorification Fourthly his state after glorification world without end In the first state albeit man sinned indéede and thereby made both himselfe and his posterity subiect to eternal torment yet was he so created of God his maker that he might haue liued without sinne for euer and aye In the second state man can doe nothing that good is but sinne continually In the third state man by Gods grace and great mercy is enabled to do good though not wholly to â—schew sinne saue onely according to the measure of his regeneration In the fourth state man is so confirmed in grace that he cannot sinne world without end Which distinction being well marked and remembred we shall easily vnderstand that albeit man can neuer be without sinne in this life but adde sinne to sinne continually yet may he by the grace of regeneration do good workes euen while he sinneth mortally Theoph. It seemeth to mee a thing impossible that man shall be able to do any good worke while he sinneth damnably Remig. It is a generell receiued axiome with all skilfull Logicians that true things must be graunted falsâ— things denied and ambiguous things distingushed which being true as it is most true indéede if we shall distinguish regeneration aright the truth of this intricate question will soone appeare viz. that one may aswell both sinne and do good at one and the same time as he may at the same time be both a father and a sonne Theoph. Our Papists contend with might and maine that howsoeuer we distinguish regeneration yet shall man in his iustification be freed from all sinne and consequently he cannot sinne mortally in the best act he doth Remig. The Papists erre grosly about regeneration whilest they doe not vnderstand the same aright according to the holy scriptures or they beare the world in hand that euery iustified person is fréed from all sinne in his soule and onely subiect to sinne materially in his body which if it were true as it is most false then doubtlesse could not the regenerate man commit mortall sinne while he doth his best workes Theoph. The Apostle seemeth to stand on their side when he telleth vs that the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and it is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place where he affirmeth himselfe to serue the law of God in his