religion and so much of late Romish faith and doctrine as is consonant and agreeable to the same But for all this the Papists seeme to haue strong reasons for their vnwritten traditions which indeede are so strong as my selfe know not how to answere them Remig. Doubt nothing in this behalfe God of his mercy will illustrate your vnderstanding in this difficulty as he hath done already in the rest but for this subiect I haue written so largely thereof in two seuerall bookes viz. the downe fall of Popery and the Iesuits Antepast that I am altogether vnwilling to handle the same a fresh Theoph. I haue read both those bookes they doe content me exceedingly howbeit some obiections may yet be made against the doctrine there deliuered which my selfe am not able to confute I therefore would humbly intreate your paines not for a new discourse thereof which I hold needlesse but for a fuller and plainer explication of some especiall doubts wherewith our learned papists troubleme Remig. Propound them in Gods name by whose holy and powerfull assistance I trust to returne them to the Popes vtter shame to the and euerlasting confusion of al Iesuited papists that shall obstinately beléeue or defend the same CHAP. 5. Of Popish vnwritten traditions Theophilus I will still by your fauour argue as a papist on the behalfe of the papists that so I may more cleerely haue a souÌ„d insight into the truth you Protestants for so we vse to terme you beare vs in hand that the scripture or written word of God conteineth all things necessary for mans saluation but our learned and religious Cardinall Bellarminus assureth vs that the truth is farre otherwise and that many things necessary for mens saluation are onely knowen and receiued by tradition and what he writeth is the Popes ownefaith and consequently the faith of the whole Church for he dedicated his bookes to the Popes holynesse who highly commended and approued them that he made him Cardinall though before but a poore Fryer for his paines Remig. I answere first that I know your Cardinall right well and willingly acknowledge him to be learned as also religious and â—ealous after the manner of his sect but in such sort as Paul was before his conuersion Secondly that your Cardinal doth often acknowledge the truth vnawares against himselfe as doe your other Iesuits one onely assertion I will now cite out of the Iesuite S. R. Robert Parsons is the man in his pretensed answere to the downefall of popery these are his expresse words where if by diuina eloquia we vnderstand holy writ as Bell translateth and Saint Austen séemeth to meane me thinkes he plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be cléerely written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation the same teaceth Saint Syril saying not all things which our Lord did are written but what the writers déemed sufficient as well for manners as for doctrine that by right faith and works we may attaine to the Kingdome of Heauen and Saint Chrisostome what things soeuer are necessary are manifest out of scripture this is our Iesuites owne tale in the best manner he can vtter it whiles he bestirreth himselfe more then a little to answere my booke the downefall of popery out of whose confession and frée graunt such is the force of truth I obserue these memorable and golden lessons First that euery thing necessary for euery mans saluation is contained in the holy scriptures Secondly and this is a thing to be admired comming from a papists mouth that euery point necessary for saluation is plainely and cléerely set downe in holy writ Thirdly that God himselfe appointed all necessary things to be cléerely written Fourthly that Saint Augustine Saint Chrisostome and Saint Cyrill are of mine opinion Fiftly that the Iesuite vnawares iustifieth that doctrine which he puposely laboureth to ouerthrow for as our Lord Iesus said to Saul it is hard for him to kicke against prickes Theoph. The Iesuite S. R. when you rightly name Parsons graunteth all things to be written which are necessary for saluation but not which are necessary for faith and doctrine these are his owne and expresse words for surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary and this conclusion teacheth Saint Austen when he saith that those things are written which seemeth sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull where I note saith S. R. that he said not which seemeth sufficient to Christian faith but which seemed sufficient to saluation because fewer points suffice to saluation then the Christian faith containeth thus writeth the Iesuite in flat termes freely graunting the scripture to containe all things necessary for saluation but not all things necessary for faith and doctrine Remig. I answere first that the Iesuite granteth as much as I desire when he graunteth the holy scripture to containe all things necessary for our saluation for doubtlesse if all things necessary for saluation be written in the scripture it followeth of necessity that no vnwritten tradition is necessary for the same Secondly that noting is or can be necessary for the Christian faith but the same is also necessary for saluation for otherwise it would follow which no Christian may anouch that a man may be saued without the Christian faith but S. Athanasius in that créede or summary of faith which the Church of Rome receiueth and highly reuerenceth affirmeth resolutely that whosoeuer beleeueth not stédfastly euery iote of the Christian faith shall perish euerlastingly Thirdly that whosoeuer hath the holy scripture hath all things necessary for his saluation Fourthly that séeing the Christian faith by popish doctrine contaïneth many points not necessary for saluation it followeth of necessity that many points of popish so supposed Christian faith are néedlesse in very déede and for that respect with some other our Church of noble England hath abolished the same with spéede for we are the true reformed Catholikes who hold constantly the old Roman religion in euery point but the late start-vp Romish faith is fully replenished with curious sophistications friuolous diâ—â—â—â—â—ns vain inuentions counterfeit myracles grosse errors palpables herâ—stes intollerable superstitions méere foolishnesse and flat leasings Theoph. It is nowhere siad in scripture saith the Iesuite S. R. that all the bookes chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonicall are truly Canonicall and Gods pure word without the mixture of mans word and yet is this a point of Christian faith yea hereupon depend all the articles which we gather out of the scripture this is that inuincible Bulwarke saith Parsons which no Protestant can euer batter downe while the world shall endure Remig. I answere first that by our Iesuits doctrine as
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
and publique person cannot erre and therefore that they are to bee censured for Heretiques whosoeuer will not receiue and beleeue as articles of the Christian faith whatsoeuer the Pope defineth iudicially and publiquely as sitting in Peters chaire Remig. This lately coyned diabolicall distinction of the Popes double person with the circumstances wherewith it is adorned may fitly be tearmed a trick of Legierdemaine wherewith many haue béene seduced a long time For when the Pope is charged and plainely conuicted to haue decréed false and erroneous doctrine to bée holden for articles of the faith then the Pope and his Iesuites with their Iesuited broode tell vs peremptorily and as it were violently enforce vs to beléeue it that such decrées procéede from the Popes Holinesse as a priuate man but not as a publique person What a thing is this if the Pope decrée any thing how absurd soeuer it be and affirme the same to be his iudiciall sentence out of Peters chaire then the same must be holden and be beléeued for an article of faith and to be as true as the Gospell of Iesus Christ and he that will not so hold and so beléeue must be burnt for an Heretique for all this no Scripture no generall Councell no holy Father no learned Popish Writer for yâ— space of 1400. yeares after Christs sacred incarnation my life and saluation I gage for the tryall can be truely produced or alleaged for the confirmation and clearing of such Popish dotage or rather of such diabolical heresie and neuer-inough detested villany Theoph. Your words doe penetrate and touch the very bottome of my heart but is it possible that you can prooue and iustifie this your assertion if you can this performe popery is confounded and striken dead I therefore pray you for Christs sake to proue this point so soundly and cleerely as I may be assured of the truth thereof Remig. M. Doctor Gerson Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris a famous papist and one of the principall deuines in the general Councell of Constance deliuereth the truth to the view of the christian world in these expresse words concluditur ex hac radice duplex veritas prima quod determinatio solius Papae in his quae sunt fidei non obligat vt precise est talis ad credendum alioquin staret in casu quod quis obligaretur ad contradictoria vel ad falsum contra fidem Out of this roote is concluded a double truth first yâ— the resolution or determination of the Pope alone in things belonging to faith as it is precisâ—ly such not confirmed by a generall councell doth not tie or bind a man to beléeue it for otherwise the case might so fal out that one should be bound either to beléeue contradictories or else falshood against his faith Againe in another place the same doctor and great learned man hath these expresse words in causis fidei non habetur in terra iudex infallibi is vel qui non sit deuiabilis a fide de lege communi praeter ipsam Ecclesiam vniuersalem vel concilium generale eam sufficienter repraesentans in causes of faith there is no infallible iudge vpon earth or which cannot swarâ—e from the faith by the common course of Gods procéeding sauing the vniuersall Church or a generall councell Many like testimonies this learned writer hath which I let passe in regard of breuity for that I déeme these twaine so cleare and so sufficient as they will perswade euery indifferent reader for first we sée plainely by M. Gersons resolution that no Christian is bound to beleue the decrée definition determination or resolution of the Pope as he is barely and precisely Pope or Bishop of Rome without yâ— assistance of a general councell Secondly that the Pope may erre both priuately and publickely in the resolutions of faith aswell as their Bishops and ministers of the Church Thirdly that there are but two infallible iudges vpon earth concerning matters of faith that is to say the whole Congregation of the faithfull and a generall Councell lawfully and sufficiently representing the same which resolution of this learned man I admit with heart and voyce as most Christian sound orthodoxe and consonant to the holy scriptures generall Councels holy fathers and best learned papists M. doctor Fisher late Bishop of Rochester and a popish canonized martyr deliuereth his opinioÌ„ in these expresse words nec Angustini nec Hieronymi necalterius cuiâ—sâ—â—bet auctoris doctrinae sic Ecclesia subscripsit quin ipsilocis aliquotab ijs liceat disâ—entire naÌ„ in noÌ„nullis ipsis locis se plane monstrarunt homines esse atque nonnun quam aberrasse the Church hath not se subscribed either to the doctrine of Austen or of Hierome or of any other author or writer but that she may sometime dissent from their opinions for themselues haue plainely shewed themselues to be men and that they wanted not their errors The Iesuite Bellaâ—mine so deare to the Pope for his writing that he gaue him a Cardinals hat wrote in this manner sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare posâ—unt aliquando errant inter se quandoque dissentiunt vt nesciamus quinam eorum sequendus sit without doubt all Bishops seuerally may erre doe sometime erre indéede doe also sometime so dissent one from another that we cannot tell which of them we may safely follow By the verdit of these famous learned papists we sée M. Gersons doctrine plainely confirmed for albeit they name not the Pope yet must they confesse perforce that he is implyed in their words or else that he is no Bishop at all which is a thing not impossible by popish faith though I affirme it not Iacobus Almaynus Gulielmus Ockamus Thomas Waldensis Iosephus Angles with many others I might alledge but I déeme these sufficient Two things I will adde for your better satisfaction herein the one that this weightie point of doctrine was most soundly handled and throughly debated in the councell of Constance where it was concluded that a generall councell is aboue the Pope that a generall counsell may depose the Pope that the same councell de facto deposed Pope Iohn the 23. of that name and that the Pope as a publike person may both be an heretike and decrée hereticall doctrine The other that the councell of Constance was holden and celebrated in the yéere of our Lord God 1415. and that M Gerson was a famous diuine of the same councell both beholding with his eyes and hearing with his eares him selfe not being mute in the interim thrée Popes Iohn the 23. Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. deposed by the same councell and the constant resolution of the councell against the Popes fasly challenged priuiledges as namely that the Pope as Pope and as he is a publike person neither is nor can be an infallible iudge in matters of faith Theoph. These things are wonderfull which you
was the Bishop of Rome yea he both sharply reproued him and scornefully condemned his definitiue sentence and decrée Theoph. I see not how this proceeding of Saint Cyprian can proue that the Pope may erre Iudicially in matters of faith I beseech you take the paines to explicate the same more at large Remig. Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a learned man and an holy Bishop in his life time as also a most glorious Martyr being dead Now in regard of his great learning he could not haue béene ignorant of the Popes rare priuiledge in noterring in matters of faith if either the holy Scriptures had taught it or the learned Fathers of that age had beléeved or receiued it and in regard of his piety and rare vertue he would reuerently haue yéelded to such a singular prerogatiue and haue giuen the glory to the sonne of God the author thereof if any such thing had béene done vnto him Yea if the Bishop of Rome had beene Christs Uicar generall and so priuiledged as our Iesuites and Iesuited crew beare the world in hand he is that is to say that hée could not erre in his iudiciall definitions of faith then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue béen a flat heretique and so reputed and estéemed in the Church of God For if any Christian shall this day do or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publickly deny yâ— Popes sayd falsly pretéded prerogatiue of faith in any place Country territories or dominions where Popery beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must be burnt at a stake with fire and faggot for his paines Theoph. God reward you for your trauaile I see it now as cleerely as the noone day For S. Cyprian both knew the Scripture right well and also what was the publike faith of the Church in his time so if either the Scripture had taught it or the Church had beleeued it hee would neuer haue withstood it but reuerently haue yeelded thereunto But sir our Doctors haue much to say for themselues would God it might please you to heare and answere the same at large Remig. I will both willingly heare them and soundly by the power of God confute the same For I know right well before I heare them from your mouth what possibly they are able to say in their owne defence CHAP. 3. Of sundry important Obiections which seeme to proue the Popes prerogatiue of faith Obiection first Theophilus CHrist prayed for Peter that his faith should neuer faile ergo the Bishop of Romes faith cannot faile nor the Pope erre in his iudiciall decrees for seeing Christ constituted a Church which should continue to the worlds end he prayed not onely for S. Peters person but also for all that should succeede him in his Chaire at Rome Remig. I answere first that many learned Writers doubt greatly not onely of his supposed Chaire but euen of his being there Howbeit because all the holy Fathers and learned Writers of the auncient Church doe with vniforme assent affirme Saint Peter to haue béene Bishop of Rome I willingly admit the same as a receiued truth Secondly that albeit Christ prayed for S. Peters faith as also appointed his Church to continue to the worlds end yet doth it not follow thereupon that what priuiledge soeuer he obtained by prayer for S. Peter the same must redound to all those that lineally succéed in his place or chaire for no Scripture no Councell no Father doth so write or so expound Christs prayer Thirdly that Christ prayed for the faith of the whole Church or for Peters faith as he did represent the whole church which is all one in effect This I proue by sundry meanes First because Christ himselfe doth so expound himselfe in these words I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen mee for they are thine I pray not for these alone but for them also which shall beléeue in me through their word Christ prayed aswell for the rest of his Apostles as hée did for Peter and a well for all the elect as for his Apostles and consequently séeing Christ directed not his words to Peter as to one priuate man but as to one representing yâ— whole Church it followeth of necessity yâ— whatsoeuer Christ did or said concerning Peters faith the same perforce must be vnderstood of the faith of yâ— whole Church which faith shall neuer faile indeede Secondly because Iohannes Gersonus a famous Popish writer affirmeth constantly as we haue seene already that there is no infallible Iudge vpon earth in matters of faith sauing the vniuersall Church or a generall Councell lawfully assembled and sufficiently representing the same which doctrine though procéeding from a Popish penne I willingly embrace and reuerence as an vndoubted truth Thirdly because S. Austen applieth Christs prayer generally indifferently to all the whole Church Quid ambigitur c what doubt is there did hée pray for Peter and did he not also pray for â—ames Iohn to say nothing of the rest it is cléere that in Peter all the rest are meant because he saith in another place I pray for these O Father which thou hast giuen me and desire that they may be with me where my selfe am Lo S. Austen vnderstandeth Christs prayer for Peter of the whole Congregation of the faithfull and hée proueth it by Christes owne explication in an other place of the Holy Gospell Fourthly because Origen a very learned and auncient Father affirmeth in a large discourse vpon Saint Matthew that all things spoken of Peter touching the Church and the keies are to be vnderstood of all the rest and the collection or illation of Origen is euident euen by naturall reason for as that learned father profoundly disputeth if Christ prayed not aswell for the rest as he did for Peter of small credite were a great part of the holy scriptures a reason doubtlesse insoluble for all Iesuites and Iesuited popelings in the world for if they could faile in their faith they could also faile in their writing and yet that they could not so faile was by vertue of Christs prayer Fiftly because Panormitanus the Popes skilfull Canonist his religious Abbot his renowned Arche-bishop and his Lordly Cardinall for he was all foure telleth vs plainely and peremptorily that Christs prayer was for the whole congregation of the faithfull these are his expresse words pro hac tantum Chrstus in Euangelio â—ruit ad patrem ego rogaui pro te and for this he speaketh of the whole faithfull congregation Christ onely prayed to his Father in the Gospell when he said I haue prayed for thée Peter that thy faith faile not Behold and marke well and then yéeld your indifferent censure when Christ saith the famous papist Panormitanus prayed that Peters faith should not faile he prayed for the faith of the vniuersall Church whose faith shall neuer faile indéede the same Panormitanus proueth his opinion
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
words and examples it confirmeth in the hearts of the weake the verity of faith and Gods commandements Out of this discourse of these holy fathers famous Popish writers I gather these golden obseruations First that a méere lay-mans iudgment euen in matters of faith ought to bee receiued before the Popes resolution if that lay-man bring better reasons out of the scripture then the Pope doth and M. Gerson that famous Chauncelour of Paris stoutly defâ—deth this poynt with their Cardinall Panormitanus where I wish by the way to remember wel that hence it is proued that not onely méere lay-men may be heard in councels aud their iudgements preferred before the Popes but also that the scriptures are the rule of our faith not partiall as Bellarmine would haue it whose opinion is disproued in the Iesuites Antepast but totall and in euery respect Secondly that a generall councell may erre because it is not the Catholike or vniuersall Church indéede And here I thinke it very fit to reduce to your remembrance what I told you afore out of M. Gerson viz. that we haue only two Iudges vpon earth which are infallible that is not the Pope forsooth or the Church of Rome but the whole congregation of the faithfull and a generall councell but what general councel of Trent of Lateran of Florence of Rauenna of Ferrara of Rome No no such are prouincial or at the most national not any one of them or such like truly generall for as M. Doctor Gerson very learnedly told vs that Councel which cannot erre must not onely be general in what sort soeuer or sworne to defend the Popes Cannon-law after the manner of late start-vp Popery but it must bee such a general Councel as doth sufficiently represent the whole Church or congregation of the faithfull for the word sufficiently which I wished you afore to marke out of M. Gersons doctrine is very emphatical and giueth light both to the truth and to Panormitans doctrine which word if it bee not well marked there will séeme a variance betwéene the two learned Papists Panormitan and Gerson for the one of them saith that a general councel may erre and it is true the other sayth that a generall councell cannot erre but is the second infallible iudge vpon earth and this is also true but in a different respect both the learned men agrée in this and my selfe with them that the whole congregation of the faithfull is that Church which cannot erre in faith for though the elect may erre in part and at some time yet shall they neuer erre either all generally or any one finally for whom and in respect of whom the Church is rightly called the piller of truth this is onely it in which they vary which is no true variance indéede but séemeth so in shew of words for that Councell which sufficiently marke the word doth represent the whole congregation of the faithfull when and where such a one can be had may truely be called the Catholike Church militant here on earth Thirdly that that Church which cannot erre is not the visible company of Bishops and Priests Pastors and Doctors but the society of the predestinate which are effectually called to the knowledge of the truth Fourtly that it is the society and congregation of the faithfull which the Apostle calleth the piller of truth and neither the Pope nor his Cardinals nor yet the Church of Rome albeit M. Theophilus yée know it right well that when the papists speake of the Church and tell vs it cannot erre then doe ye meane either your Pope alone or the Pope with his Cardinals and others of that crew Fifthly that the Popes owne deare Doctors haue told his holinesse roundly that it is not the Pope that cannot erre but the congregation of the faithfull If any man should this day tell the Pope this tale burning with fire and faggot would soone be his reward howbeit such their bookes are yet extant in many mens hands for which benefit Gods name be blessed for it is his handy worke we haue cause to crie a lowd with the Prophets Hoc factum est a Domino est mirabile in oculis nostris Oblection 4. Theoph. Christ promised to be with his Apostles vnto the worlds end which must needes vnderstoode of the Bishops of Rome the onely true successors of the Apostles for seeing the Apostles departed hence long sythence it must perforce be vnderstood of some Bishop which finally succeed them Remig. True it is and more cannot be inferred of the text that Christ spake not onely of the Apostles but euen of them also who should be liuing vnto the worlds end Howbeit he meant neither the Bishop of Rome nor his Cardinals nor the Church of Rome what meant he then will you say or of whom did he speake of séeing the Apostles being mortal were to goe the way of all flesh and so could not be here on earth till the worlds end Christ therefore promising to be with them to the worlds end must perforce meane of those who were to succéede after them but I answere withall facilitie to this inuincible so supposed Bulwarke First with S. Chrysostome in these words nam cum dicit ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem seculi non ad eos tantum loquitur sed per eos ad vniuersum prorsus orbem for when he saith behold I am with you alwaies vntill the end of the world he speaketh not onely to them but to al doubtlesse that are in the whole world and the like assertions the same golden-mouthed father hath in many other places of his workes Secondly with S. Austen in these words non itaque sic dictum est Apostolis eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem in tota Iudaea Samaria vsque ad extremum terrae c. it is not therefore so said to the Apostles yée shall be my witnesses in Hierusalem and in all Iury and in Samaria and euen to the vtmost parts of the world as if they onely to whom he theu spake should haue accomplished so great a matter but as he seemeth to haue said onely to them that which he said in these words behold I am with you to the worlds end which thing neuerthelesse euery one perceineth that the spake it to the vniuersall Church which by the death of some and by the birth of other some shall continue to the worlds end euen as he saith that to them which doth nothing at all pertaine to them and yet is it spoken as if it onely pertained to them to wit when yée shall see these things come to passe know that it is neare in the doores for to whom doth this pertaine but to those who shall then be liuing when all things shall be accomplished Thus writeth Saint Austen out of whose words with Sâ—int Chrysostoms I obserue this memorable doctrine viz yâ— this
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
doctors wandred through diuers Cities Townes that so they might conuert some from Gentility to Iudaisine againe The same Lyra hath these words Vae vobis Dâ—ces caeci hic consequenter ostendit qualiter corrumpebaÌ„t veritatem doctrinae in his quae pertinent ad actuÌ„ latrâ—ae cuius actus est iurare modo debito iuramentum obseruare Pharisaei enim Scribae ex cupiditate moti dicebant quod illi qui iurabant per templum Dei nec peccabant nec erant in aliquo obligati sed illi qui iurabant per aurum Templi erant obligati ad soluendum Sacerdotibus certam portionem auri Wo to you blind guides here he sheweth consequently how they corrupted the truth of doctrine in those things which pertaine to the pure and proper worshippe of God the act whereof is to sweare after a due manner and to performe the oath for the Scribes Pharisees â—â—oued with couetousnesse said that they who did sweare by the Temple of God neither sinned neither were bound to doe any thing but they who did sweare by the gold of the Temple were bound to giue some portion of gold to the Priests Dyonisius Carthusianus another zealous famous and learned papist defendeth the same doctrine these are his owne wordes Non sinitis intrare quia falsa doctrina prauis exemplis peruertitis eos sequitur qui dicitis quicunque iurauerit per Templum nihil est id est solucre non tenetur fi peieret non erit criminis reus You doe not suffer them to come in for you preuent them with false doctrine and euill example you say whosoeuer sweareth by the Temple it is nothing that is to say he is not bound to kéepe his oâ—th and if he be forsworne he shall not be guilty of any crime yea Caietanus yâ— famous Cardinall of Rome teacheth the selfe same doctrine with the other papists and Melchior Canus a very famous popish Bishop and profound schoole Doctor hath these words Fatemur Sacerdotes nâ— esse audiendos nisi docuerint iuxta legem Domini We graunt saith the famous and best learned papist of all the rest that the Priests ought not to be heard or obeyed vnlesse they shall preach and teach according to Gods law thus we sée or may sée if we hide not our eyes that by the iudgement of these great papists the Bishops and Priests of the old lawe did not onely scandalize the people with their wicked life but also taught false doctrine corrupted the holy scripture and it is a wonder to sée and consider the palpâ—ble blindnesse or else malice of our Iesuited papists for the very words of the lawe if we marke them well doe plainely expresse and liuely set before our eyes the true sense and meaning thereof viz that we must then obey the Priests then hearken to their commaunds when they teach according to Gods lawe but not when they wrest and corrupt his holy and sacred word the words of the text are these facies quodcunque dixerint qui praesunt loco quem elegerit Dominus docuerint te iuxta legem eius And thou shalt do whatsoeuer they shall say which are ouer that place which the Lord hath chosen and shall teach thée according to his law Loe this condition is required that the Priests doe teach Gods lawe for these words are taken out of the Latin vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent preferreth before the Hebrew and the Gréeke and strictly tieth all papists to the same The fifth reply Theoph. The words do not import any condition but a meere assertion and flat promise that they shall not erre for so teacheth the Prophet Malachie Labiae Sacerdotis custodient scientiam legem requirent ex ore eius quia Angelus Domini exercitnum est The Priests lips shall keepe knowledge and they shall seeke the law at his mouth for he is the Angell of the Lord of hostes Remig. I answere first that the words in Deuteronomie doe plainely insinuate or rather emphatically expresse a conditionall precept for in the ninth verse the people are charged to aske councell of the Priests and Iudges and in the tenth verse the Priests are charged to teach according to Gods law as if God had said in all thy difficult and distressed cases thou shalt haue reâ—ourse to my Priests because I haue giuen them in charge to teach and instruct thée in the true sense and meaning of my law if there arise saith the text a matter too hard for thée in iudgement thou shalt come to the Priests who are appointed to doe iustice and to tell the true meaning of the lawe Secondly that the Prophet Malachie is not repugnant to holy Moyses but giueth his readers to vnderstand that the Priests office is to knowe the lawe and truely to teach the people the same so as we may cléerely note a condition required at the Priests hand but can finde no promise made vnto him that he shall accomplish and performe the same nay it is euident many wayes that the Priests had no promise made that they should euer teach the lawe truely First because the scripture telleth vs euery where how grossely and shamefully the Priests haue erred that which we haue heard already of the Scribes and Pharises may be a sufficient testimomony and triall therof Secondly because the next words following in the text will make mine exposition good these are the expresse words of the Prophet but ye are gone out of the way ye haue caused many to fall by the law yée haue broken the couenant of Leui saith the Lord of hostes Marke these words well so soone as the Prophet hath tolo vs that the Priests lips shall kéepe knowledge by and by he addeth but the Priests are gone out of the way they haue scandalized many by the lawe they haue broken the couenant of Leui as if he had said the Priests indéede should know the lawe and teach the people the truth thereof but they doe nothing lesse they haue scandalized Gods people they are gone out of the way they haue broken the couenant of Leui. Where we must note seriously these words of the Prophet but ye haue broken the couenant of Leui for in that he saith ye haue broken the couenant he plainely giueth vs to vnderstand that the Priests had not performed the condition required at their hands and implyed in the couenant of Leui. Thirdly because the text in Deuteronomie speaketh aswell of the politicall and ciuill Iudge as of the Priest which Bellarmine your popish Cardinall cannot deny and yet that the ciuill Iudge may erre all both Iesuits and other Priests will confesse Fourtly because in an other place of the law the same promise that is here made to the Priests which I cal a condition required and implied in the couenant of Leui is made generally to all ciuil Iudges and Officers Thess are
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
doing I must incurre the crime of sacriledge What a thing is this silly Papists are brought into greater thraldome perplexity then euer was Buridanus himselfe or the poore beast his Asse Theoph. I haue bin too long seduced with paltry popery I see it is but flat cozenage and a meere tricke of Legierdemaine Henceforth I renounce it and will only obiect my difficulties to be better confirmed in the truth But sir I do not yet vnderstand the other point of doctrine which you obserued out of Nauclerus Remig. It is cléere out of Nauclerus that the Cardinals popish Bishops Priests and Lay-people of Rome committed flat Idolatry in the time of their Woman-pope Iohn who for the honour of S. Peter as you haue heard already brought forth a child in the altitude of her popedome Thus you shall vnderstand the same Nauclerus telleth vs plainely that their woman-pope could neither make Priests nor yet consecrate their Eucharist To this doctrine let vs adde these points First that all Papists must adore their Bread-god in euery popish Masse Secondly that by popish faith none but popish Priests can turne bread into Christs body Thirdly y◠all Priests made by their woman-pope were méere Lay-men This foundation thus firmely layd we may erect without danger of falling this high and lofty building viz that all y◠Cardinals Bishops Prists and Lay-people who euer heard the Masses of their women-pope or of the Bishops and Priests made by her did commit flat Idolatry at every one of the sayd Masses the reason is euident because such Priests were indéed méere Lay-men and so could not change the bread and make it God almighty and consequently the spectators and adorers that were present adored bakers bread for the euer-liuing God All this is sound Popish faith and doctrine Theoph. It is abhomination in Gods sight but what shall we say to M. Nauclerus he seemeth to purge free the worshippers by reason of inuincible ignorance Remig. Our Iesuite S. R. in his pretensed answere to the downefall of Popery iumpeth in opinion with Nauclerus he fréely granteth in the place quoted in y◠margent that there is no consecration and consequently no God almighty when the Priest wanteth both actuall and vertuall intention or omitteth any essentiall word of their sayd consecration but withall hee excuseth the worshippers of bread for God almighty because of their inuincible ignorance I returne this answere to them both viz. that this distinction of ignorance inuented in Popish Schooles hath no foundation in Gods word neither yet in the pure Cannens of the Popes law For the former the Prophet Ezechiel or rather God by the meuth of Ezechiel telleth vs plainely and in flat termes that though the watch-man giue not y◠people warning but suffer them to liue in ignorance yet shall they be guilty and perish in their sinues Yea Christ himselfe telleth vs that who knoweth the law and doth it not shall not be punished alone but he in like manner shall bée punished for the transgression that knew it not This mitigation onely is alotted to the ignorant that his punishment shall be more tollerable and hee beaten with fewer stripes For the latter the Popes owne Canons teach vs that neither the ignorance of the law of nature nor of the law diuine can excuse vs when we offend against the same Yet true it is that in humane affaires and ciuill iudgements inuincible ignorance will excuse but Gods iudgements and his waies are not like to mans they are farre different from them man can but iudge the externall act but God searcheth the very heart and veines man is subiect to Gods lawes but God is aboue both mans lawes and his owne and hath also full power to dispense with the same There yet remaineth a mortall and vncureable wound in Popish Succession at Rome which I hold very necessary for you to know for your better confirmation in the truth Theoph. For Christs sake take the paines to vnfold it to me for nothing is so deare to my soule as the knowledge of the truth Remig. The incurable wound may be reputed the second wonderment of the world this is it marke it well The general Councell of Basil deposed Pope Eugenius for his contumacie and chose Amadaeus who was named Foelix the first and put him in his roome this notwithstanding Eugenius crept againe into the Popedome without any Canonicall election and continued in the place as Pope Theoph. I do not well conceiue or vnderstand what you would inferre hereupon I therefore humbly craue your larger explication thereof Remig. The Councell of Basil was holden in Anno 1439. and summoned Eugenius to appeare before it then and there to yéeld an account of such matters as the Councell had to obiect against him but he would not appeare and therefore for his contuinacie disobedience contempt of the Councels summons he was by the authority of the sayd Councell deposed and Amadaeus was made the Pope or Bishop of Rome The Schisme betwéene Amadaeus and Eugenius continued about nine yeares vntill Foelix was content to resigne to Nicholas and then it ended Now sir all y◠Cardinals Bishops Priests Deacons who afterward sprong of Eugenius possessing Peters chaire without Canonicall election that is of the Church of Rome are illegitimate irregular schismatikes vsurpers and not lawfull gouerners of the Church by popish faith and doctrine Theoph. One refuge the Papists would seeme to haue herein viz. that the counsell could not depose the Pope which if it once be proued against them their backs are at the wall and their Popish Romish succession Remig. It is without all question that a general Councell was and is aboue the Pope no learned papist euer did or this day doth deny the same the Popes themselues the Iesuits and Iesuited crew onely excepted Cardinalis Cameracensis Abbas Panormitanus Nicholaus Cusanus Adrianus Papa Cardinalis Florentinus Iohannes Gersonus Iacobus Almaynus Abulensis Alphonsus the Deuines of Paris and all others except euer before excepted doe resolutely and constantly defend as an vndoubted truth grounded vpon the holy scriptures that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope the practicall procéedings of papists euery where haue yéelded vs an assured argument thereof for first the Councell of Basil as we haue séene deposed Pope Eugemus and chose Amadaeus in his roome Secondly the generall Councell of Constance which was celebrated about 15. yéeres before the Councell of Basill did publikely depose thrée Popes Iohn 22. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. and those Martin the fifth and made him Pope which things doubtlesse these Councels hauing many very learned men in them would neuer haue attempted so publikely and so resolutely as they did if it had not béene a resolued and knowen case and truth throughout the Christian world Theoph. The case is cleere and euident to euery indifferent reader but giue me leaue I pray you to tell what the papists say
that hold preach or defend the contrary this excommunication Pope Sixtus the fourth thundred out in his Extrauagant in the yéere 1474. by which practicall procéedings and doctrine we may easily espie the vncertainety of the Popes faith and religion as also his ignorance in the high mysteries of popish doctrine for though he cannot erre iudicially in matters of doctrine as the papists must beléeue yet can he not decide this easie question whether the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne or not but Aquinas the Popes angelicall doctor and canonized Saint whose doctrine two Popes Vrbanus the fourth and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmeth to be sound and true affirmeth resolutely that she was conceiued in originall sinne tell me now what ye thinke of the Popes succession at Rome Theoph. I see flatly and euidently that by popish doctrine faith and religion we cannot this day tell who are true Bishops of Rome indeed and consequently that the succession deriued from them is of no credit or force at all but yet by your fauour I desire your further resolution to such shewes and colours of succession as they pretend for the Church of Rome Saint Austen saith say they that the succession of Priests euen from Saint Peter to these daies kept him in the bosome of the Church so Optatus Tertullianus others do often alledge stand vpon the succession of Bishops as an argument of the truth Remig. It is true that Saint Austen made a great account of the succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome and my selfe also all learned men I thinke doe iumpe with Saint Austen in that his opinion for the resolution of which obiection sundry obseruations already Proued are to be well remembred First that the Bishops of Rome were in the beginning many of them holy Martyre who gaue their liues for the testimony of our Lord Iesus Secondly that they ioyned formall succession with materiall vntill Saint Austens dayes and long after Thirdly that the Church of Rome by little and little swarued from the truth and declined in many points of doctrine from the auncient receiued faith Fourthly that the latter Bishops of Rome haue decreed publickely against the knowen faith in so much as some of them haue béene condemned with the sound of the Trumpets other some haue béene conuicted of Arrianisme others of Nestorianisme others of flat Atheisme others to haue crept into Peters chaire as they terme it by flat Simony others haue occupied the place by violent intrusion others by homage done to the diuel of hell Fifthly that faith and honest dealing was now decaied in the Church of Rome and long before the daies of Carranza and Platina brought to that miserable estate that euery ambitious fellow might inuade Peters seate Sixthly that by popish doctrine and vniforme assertions of best approued popish writers succession in the Church of Rome is so doubtfull that they cannot proue themselues this day to be true Bishops indeed I say by popish doctrine because my selfe doe hold them true Bishops though very wicked and vngodly men of which point I shall haue occasion to speake of more at large by and by my answere therefore in briefe is this viz that the Bishops of Rome in Saint Austens time ioyned formall succession with materiall which if the Bishops of Rome would this day performe all godly Christians would now ioyne with them as Saint Austen did in his time for as Saint frene say we ought to obey those Priests that with the succession kéepe the word of truth Theoph. Saint Paul saith plainely that there must bee Bishops and Pastors in the church vntill the worlds end whereupon it followeth say the Papists whom now I haue vpon good grounds renounced that you Protestants haue no Church at all for before Luther departed from them all Bishops and Priests for many yeares together embraced their Romish religion This obiection say our Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings doth so gall the Protestants as they cannot tell in the world what answere to frame thereunto Remig. I answere first that we are the true reformed Catholikes as is already proued Secondly that Pastors Doctors as S. Paul saith haue euer béene in the Church are at this present and shall be to the worlds end Thirdly that albeit the visible Church cannot want materiall succession the continuance whereof Christ hath promised yet cannot that succession without formall yéeld any sound argument of true faith and religion For which respect the famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra after he hath told vs that many Popes haue swarued from the faith and become flat Apostataes concludeth in these expresse words propter quod Ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei veritatis By reason whereof the Church consisteth in those persons in whom there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and verity Thus writeth this learned popish Fryer telling vs resolutely y◠though there must be euermore a visible Church with visible Pastors Doctors in it yet those visible Pastors Doctors both may swarue haue de facto swarued from the true faith religion and that therefore the Church indeed consisteth of the predestinate and elect children of God whose faith shall neuer faile this poynt you haue heard so pithely approued as is able to satisfie euery in different reader Theoph. The Iesuites say that howsoeuer you wrangle about your formal succession yet it is cleere that you haue no material succession at all vnlesse you tearme it material succession when meere Lay-men occupy the roomes of lawful Bishops for none may take vpon them or intrude thēselues into the holy ministery but such as are lawfully called thereunto as Aaron was yet all the world can tell you that all your Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons in the time of King Edward and Queene Elizabeth and now of King IAMES haue no other orders consecration at all but such as they receiued of our Romish Bishops indeede Remig. Our succession is both materiall and formall Christian and Apostolicall as which is consonant to the holy Scriptures and to the vsuall practise of the primitiue Church For first our Bishops can proue their Doctrine by the scriptures and by the testimonies of best approued popish writers as we haue séene already Secondly our Bishops haue mission and imposition of hands according to the practise Apostolical and of all approued antiquity Thirdly our Bishops are made in such forme and order as they haue euer béene accustomed a few popish superstious and beggerly ceremonies omitted which by little little had of late yeares crept into the Church that is to say by frée election of the Chapiter by consecration of the Arch-bishop and other his associates and by the admission of the Prince Theoph. Saint Epiphanius inueigheth bitterly against one Zachaeus who being but a Lay-man as your Puritaines be presumed impudently to
we haue head if may be a point of Christian faith and yet not necessary to saluation and consequently if this point were not knowne by the scriptures yet might the scripture containe all things néedefull to saluation SecoÌ„dly that yâ— holy scripture sheweth itself to be Canical and the pure word of God for as holy Dauid saith it is a Lanterne to our féete and a light to our pathes as Saint Peter saith it is a light that shineth in the darke and S. Paul saith Gods word is liuely and mighty in operation and sharper then any two edged sword it is not incke and paper or a bare and dead Letter but quicke and powerable and sheweth it selfe as light to the children of light For as the same Apostle telleth vs if Christs Gospell be hid it is hid in them that perish in whom the God of this world hath blinded the mindes of them which beleue not lest the light of Christs glorious Gospell should shine vnto them yea the selfe same Apostle saith that the spirituall man iudgeth all things Saint Iohn also saith that the vâ—ction which Gods children haue receiued teacheth them all things And what néede many words Christ himselfe assureth vs that his shéepe heare hiâ— voyâ—â— and that they follow him because they know his voyce he addeth that they will not follow a straunger and he yéeldeth this reason thereâ—â— because they know not the voyce of straungers this is confirmed by an old receiued Theologicall maxime viz that when wee pray we speake to God but when we read or heare the holy scripture redde then God speaketh to vs but certes when God speaketh to vs if we be his wee will heare him if we be his shéepe we will know his voyce and follow him Thirdly that euery part of the new Testament doth affirme it selfe to be the pure word of God for it saith the holy Gospel of Iesus Christ according to Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn the Actes of the holy Apostles written by Luke the Euangelist the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonitiâ—ns Timotheus Titus and Philemon the Epistle of Peter Iames Iude and Iohn the seruants of Iesus Christ the reuelation of Iesus Christ which God gaue vnto Iohn his seruant by his holy Angell Fourthly that the new Testament giueth testimony to the old and the old to the new in the swéete harmony of diuine truth for Christ himselfe teâ—lâ—th vs that all must come to passe which are written of him in the law in the Prophets and in the Psalmes and for this end was it that Abraham answered the rich glutton in these words they haue Moses and the Prophets let them heare them as if he had said now the law is not studied now the Prophets are contemned and now God is not heard speaking in his holy word some would haue Angels come downe from heauen some desire myracles others the dead to rise againe howbeit to heare Moses and the Prophetes which is to read the scriptured for Moses and the Prophets were dead many hundred yéeces afore is the true and onely way to attaine eternall life this reason striketh dead as which proueth the scripture of the old Testament to be Canonicall and the pure word of God and this reason is confirmed by Saint Paul when he telleth vs that he was put apart to preach the Gospel of God which afore was promised by his Prophets in the holy scriptures and it is further confirmed because the same Apostle saith in an other place that he taught nothing but which Moses and the Prophets had foretold should come to passe Fifthly that these holy writings of Moses and the Prophetes were common among the Iewes in Christs tune and yet did Christ neuer once reproue the Iewes for any corruption therein or charge them with changing adding or taking away of any one iote or title either of the law or of yâ— Prophets for our mercifull and powerable God who caused Balaam to blesse when he entred to curse who when Saul was a cruell persecuter blasphemer and rauening Woolfe made him with one word as méeke as a Lambe who shut vp the Sea with doores and staied her proud waues appointed her bouÌ„ds whither she should come but no further enforced yâ— aduersaries of the truth the Iewes I meane to preserue the holy scriptures of the old Testament inuiolable and pure from all corruption and not to adde any thing thereto or take ought therefrom neither to prophane the same with the least mixture of mans word our Lord Iesus assured vs hereof when he constantly pronounced that it was more easie for Heauen and Earth to passe away then that one title of the law should fall thus you see or may sée I wéent that the popish inuincible bulwarke is battered downe made euen with the ground for none but God alone can infallibly foretell things to come Theoph. Your reasons are vnanswerable in my iudgement and your manner of disputation so forcible as it is able fully to perswade any indifferent reader Howbeit I do not yet see how the holy scripture doth proue it selfe canonical for if that were possible to be proued not onely our Iesuite Parsâ—as but the Pope his Cardinals and all his Iesuited Popelings should be confounded euerlastingly Remig. I haue proued out of Christs own words that whatsoeuer is contained in the law of Moses in the bookes of the Prophets in the Psalmes that same must néeds be true and come to passe and consequently whatsoeuer scripture must néedes come to passe and cannot but bee true that Scripture doubtles is Cannonicall and yâ— pure word of God for onely Gods prediction of future things is infallible Theoph. Doe not many godly people especially the zealous Preachers of Gods word vtter many speeches which must needs come to passe and cannot but be true Remig. I answere with this distinction that words vttered by men may be considered two waies First as the words of pure man Secondly as Gods words pronounced by pure man The words vttered by man the second way must néedes come to passe and cannot but bee true and therefore do we receiue and reuerence as the pure word of God and Canonicall scripture all the law giuen by Moses as also all the rest of the old and new testament this day truly acknowledged for Canonical and holy writ but words vttered by man the first way are fallible and may deceiue both the speaker and the hearer For as Gods Prophet telleth vs all men are lyars another Prophet accurseth him yâ— putteth his trust in man another Prophet was deuoured of a Lion for yâ— he gane credit relyed vpon the feined reuelation of an old Prophet in Bethel for none can infallibly foretell things to come except one that is Almighty and all-sufficient of himselfe Theoph. Men tell vs that the sunne shall rise at such an
houre and go downe at such an houre as also that the Moone shall shine at such a time be darke at such a time and so in sundry other things All which though foretold by man cannot but be true and come to passe Semblably may we say that though the predictions recounted in the law and the Prophets must needes come to passe and cannot but bee true yet may they be the words of pure man and not canonicall Scripture Theoph. You deceiue your selfe in your owne allegations for neither the rising and setting of the sunne nor yet the light and darknesse of the moone must néedes come to passe as Astronomers do affirme for God all sufficient the author thereof can stay or change their naturall courses at his holy will and pleasure Ioshua in the power of God commanded the sunne to stay in Gibeon the moone in the valley of Aâ—alon and it came to passe accordingly The sunne at the request of good King Ezechias went backward ten degrées In the time of Christs most bitter and sacred passion darknesse was ouer all the land of Chanaan from the sixth houre vntill the ninth that is to say by Theological supputation from twelue a clock till thrée in the afternoone and yet did Christ suffer when the moone was at the full and about noone or mid-day For he was crucified oh cruell Iewes euen when they kept their feast of the Passeouer which was and must néedes be done in the full moone according to the prescript of the law Theoph. Your discourse yeeldeth great solace to mine heart I see it as cleerly as the noone day that all creatures are subiect to God their maker that euery word of man is fallible and that onely Gods will is Canonicall and cannot but be true But Christ addeth a limitation and restrictioÌ„ to his words which troubleth me more then a little He saith not simply and absolutely that all things written in the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes must be fulfilled but that all things which are there written of him must of necessity come to passe Remig. Though Christ vse a restriction by reason of his occasioned particular application yet is his argument generall as which is drawne from the excellencie infallibility of holy writ as if he had said whatsoeuer is written in the law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalmes that same must néedes come to passe and cannot but be true and consequently whatsoeuer is there spoken of me that must néeds come to passe neither is this mine but Christs owne exposition I assure you Theoph. If it bee possible to proue this the Papists may sing this dolefull song The Pope from their royall Scepters hath many Kings put downe but now his necke is broken and the Romish faith quite ouerthrowne Remig. It is not onely possible but a thing very easie Marke well and vnderstand my discourse aright Our Sauiour in the same chapter reproueth his Disciples as they went to Emmaus condemning them of folly and infidelity for that they did not simply and generally beléeue all that the Prophets had spoken Oh fooles saith Christ and slow of heart to beléeue all that the Prophets haue spoken Againe another text saith that he began at Moses and at all the Prophets interpreted vnto them in all the Scriptures the things which were written of him This is that interpretation which the holy Ghost affoordeth vs. Out of which I obserue these memorable docoments First that Christ spake absolutely and simply without any restriction at all of all things written in the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes Secondly that Christ interpreted in all the Scriptures the things that were written of him Thirdly that all the Scriptures of the Prophets of Moses and of the Psalmes are true and the Canonicall rule of our faith Theoph. Christ indeed speaketh simply and generally of the Prophets but he neither nameth Moses nor the booke of Psalmes Remig. I answere first that Christs speech is Synecdochicall very usual and frequent in the holy Scriptures it compriseth the whole in the part thereof Secondly that Christ nameth both Moses and all the rest of the old Testament For after he had reproued his Apostles for not beléeuing all things in the Prophets the text saith plainely in the words following that Christ began at Moses and interpreted in all the Scriptures and a little after in the selfe same chapter he maketh mention both of Moses of the Prophets and of the Psalmes and in the verse then immediately following it is sayd that Christ opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures so that Christ vndoubtedly meaneth all the scriptures of the old Testament when synecdochically he meaneth onely the Prophets which thing I shall yet proue by another scripture more plaine then all the rest Do not thinke that I will accuse you to my father there is one that accuseth you euen Moses in whom yée trust For had yée beléeued Moses yée would haue beléeued me for he wrot of me but if yée beleeue not his writings how shall yee beléeue my words These are the very words of our Lord and Maister Christ out of which I gather these comfortable lessons First that the writings of Moses accuse the reprobate and consequently that they are Canonicall Scripture for otherwise neither their condemnation nor their accusation should be of force Secondly that to beléeue Moses marke these words is to beléeue Christ himselfe Thirdly that not to beleeue the writings of Moses is not to beléeue Christs words and consequently that the writings of Moses are Canonicall Scripture and the pure word of God Theoph. You resolue me so soundly in euery point that I can no way in truth withstand your doctrine Howbeit me thinke I heare the Iesuite Parsons whispering in the eares of his silly Disciples that there is no text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalips which saith that all the Bookes Chapters Verses and Sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical Gods pure word without the mixture of mans words if possibly you be able to confute this obiection they haue no more to say Remig. Answere me awhile to my demaundes and you shall easily finde out the confutation he that saith generally without restriction at all that all men are lyars doth he not affirme old men and yong rich and poore learned and vnlearned and euery man of what state or calling soeuer he be to be a lyar Theoph. He so affirmeth it cannot be denied Remig. Doth not he who saith that all things in S. Paules Epistles are the pure word of God affirme euery Chapter euery verse and euery sentence therein contained to be the pure word of God Theoph. It is most true it cannot be gainesaid Remig. Doth not he affirme euery Booke euery Chapter euery verse and euery sentence of the Propheticall writings to
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
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
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
he is corrupt and not regenerate I proue it because the Apostle saith in me and expoundeth it by his flesh Secondly that the word flesh cannot determine the word me vnlesse it signifie the corrupt parts both of body and soule for the words I and me do connotate his person not barely any one part of his soule or body Thirdly that he saith no good dwelled in him albeit he confesseth both in this chapter in sundry other places that the grace of God and the holy Ghost dwelleth in him and consequently that when he saith no good dwelleth in him he meaneth of the parts vnregenerate which he nameth his flesh saying in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing Fourthly that the holy vessell of our Lord Iesus affirmeth himselfe to be sold vnder sinne and to be carnall and consequently that sinne is in him formally throughout all his vnregenerate parts and not onely in his body materially as our Pope and Iesuits would enforce vs to beéeue for though the regenerate be spirituall in the greater part yet are they in part carnal as the holy Apostle here auoucheth of himselfe and S. Iames of himselfe and all the rest howbeit Saint Paul S. Iames were as spirituall as any this day liuing if not more yet the best liuers of all haue not so put on the new man but the reliques of the old man still remaine in them which they must indeuour by the grace of regeneration daily more more to abolish and put away from them Secondly the same truth of mans vnperfect regeneration may be proued by euident reason For the soule which giueth life sense and mouing to the body and doth informe the same cannot possibly be an enemy to the body and haue continuall warres wich it For as the Apostle teacheth vs no man euer yet hated his owne fleshe but nourisheth and cherisheth the same euen as Christ doth his Church and it is confirmed because the flesh coueteth nothing without the soule These authorities and reasons wel considered this illation cānot but bee cléere euident viz. that the contention conflict and rebellion which is betwéene the flesh and the spirit cannot possibly be vnderstood of the soule and the body but of the parts vnregenerate aswell of the soule as of the body for the Apostle by the flesh euery where vnderstandeth the sensuall man as he is begotten aud borne of his parents to wit that old Adam which is not led by the spirit of God neither obeieth the law of God but his wicked affections so doth our sauiour himselfe call that flesh which is borne of the flesh and that spirit which is borne of the spirit for as S. Austin saith the iustified man is yet mundus mundandus cleane and to be made cleane cleane in part and in part vncleane and therefore is he willed to clense himselfe from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit and to grow vp into all holinesse in the feare of God Theoph. You haue so soundly proued that mans regeneration is vnperfect and that originall concupiscence still remaineth euen formally in the vnregenerate not onely in his body but also in his soule as it is able fully to perswade any indifferent reader and all such as are carefull of their saluation Howbeit I still stand doubtful am at my wits end what to thinke of this your receiued Maxime Iustus in omni opere bono peccat the iust man sinneth in euery good acte Remig. I told you afore that it is one thing to sinne in doing a good act another thing to sinne while the good act is a doing The former way no man sinneth at any time but the latter way the best liuer on earth sinneth continually For of originall vncleannesse there is that yet sticking in the best for the which God may iustly condemne them to hell fire Theoph. I remember the distinction very well but there are many texts of holy Scripture which seeme to make against the same Remig. Propound them all one by one and omit not any that troubleth you for I hope in God so to answere them as you shall neuer henceforth stand in doubt thereof Theoph. God himselfe saith that the wickednesse of man was great on earth and that all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only euill continually Out of which words proceeding from the spirit of God I obserue these memorable points of doctrine First that man is very wicked Secondly that not onely some but euen all the imaginations of his heart are euill Thirdly that they are not only euill for a day weeke moneth or a yeere but euen continually Fourthly that they are onely euill and haue no good at all in them and consequently that man can do no good at all but sinneth in his best acts continually Remig. I answere that the text by you alleaged is vnderstood in the corrupt man before his regeneration in whom there is no good at any time not of the regenerate man in whom there is much good continually I proue it many wayes First because in the very next chapter the spirit of God pronounceth Noah righteous in his sight Secondly because holy writ affirmeth constantly that Zacharias and Elizabeth were both iust before God and walked in all his commandements Thirdly because the holy Apostle of our Lord Iesus telleth vs very plainely that he which is borne of God sinneth not yea S. Iohn procéedeth further and auoucheth resolutely that he cannot sinne because he is borne of God Fourthly because by doing of righteousnesse the children of God are knowne and discerned from the children of the Diuel Fifthly because y◠Apostle comparing the works of Caine and of Abel together affirmeth the workes of the one to be euill and the others to be good Sixthly because S. Iohn telleth vs of Uirgins which are not defiled with women but follow the Lambe whithersoeuer he goeth Seuenthly because the holy scripture commendeth Cornelius for a deuout man and one that feared God and affirmeth his prayers and almes to haue come vp into remembrance before God Eighthly because Peter did a good act when he confessed Christ to be the sonne of the liuing GOD for Christ answering pronounced him blessed affirming not flesh and bloud but God aboue to haue reuealed it to him Ninthly because they are happy that suffer persecution for righteousnesse Tenthly because the whole Scripture especially the Epistle to the Hebrewes maketh frequent mention of the good workes which the children of God haue done Theoph. The Scripture saith plainely that wee all are conceiued and borne in sinne that no flesh can be iustified in Gods fight that if he straitly marke our iniquities none is able to abide it that the holy Apostles offend in many things that all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God ergo it seemeth that the best liuer sinneth in the best worke