obiection wherein the papists glorie more then a little maketh nothing for them for as say those holy fathers these words already recited 〈◊〉 spoken to the whole congregation of the faithfull which are or shall be to the worlds end and Saint Aâ—ston proueth it by two reasons First because not onely the Apostles but others together with them should be his witnesses in Hierusalem and Samaria albeit Christ spake that of them touching the being witnesses of him as he spake this to theÌ„ concerning his spiritual preseÌ„ce therfore as he spake the other to all the faithfull so did he also this yâ— is promised his inuisible presence not onely to the Apostles or Pastors of the Church but euen to all the faithfull in the world Secondly because Christ spake that to his Apostles as pertaining onely to them which for all that did nothing at all concerne them as if he had said it is not a good reason to deny Christs presence to the whole Church because he vttered the words onely to the Apostles for séeing he spake that to the Apostles which pertained nothing to them but onely and solely to others much more might he speake yâ— to them which betongeth to them with others The first reply Theoph. Christ himselfe saith that the holy Ghost shall teach the Apostles all truth euen many things whereof they were not capable then and therefore did he reserue those things till the comming of the holy Ghost who should continue with them for euer for that end Remig. I answere that the holy Ghost after Christs ascension taught the Apostles all truth indéede of such things as he had reserued by reason of their â—udity and imperfection in conceiuing heauenly doctrine but withal I say that those things so reserued and the truth so taught was nothing else but a manifest explication of the selfe same verity which they in briefe before had heard For the holy Ghost did coyne no new doctrine nor reueale any new articles of faith but onely taught the Apostles the true sense of Christs words which afore for their dulnes they were not able to perceiue which sense they being directed by the instinct of the holy Ghost deliuered to the whole world First by word and afterward by writing This mine answere thus explicated I proue by two euident demonstrations First because Christ himselfe doth so expound himselfe in these words following He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you Which assertion must be well noted because the latter words are a plaine declaration of the former as if Christ had said all things which the holy Ghost shall teach the Apostles after my departure are no new doctrine but the very same things which they heard afore of me This onely difference there is yâ— the Apostles do more plainly vnderstand them by the assistance of the holy Ghost Secondly because the best learned Popish Doctors doe constantly deâ—end the same doctrine and this mine exposition For yâ— famous Schooleman and great learned Popish Bishop Melchior Canus hath these expresse words Nec vllas in fide noâ—as Reuelationes Ecclesia habet For the Church hath no new reuelations in matters of faith Thus teacheth Christ himselfe and thus their â—â—iâ—e learned Bishop affirmeth and yet will the Papists porforâ—e compell vs dayly to admit new doctrines from the Church of Rome The second reply Theoph. Christ promiseth the continuance of the holy Ghost euen after the death of the Apostles ergo he meaneth of their successors aswell as of themselues Remig. I answere that Christ promiseth the presence of the holy Ghost here as he did afore his owne presence to the worlds end and so one and the same answere may fitly serue to both to wit that the holy Ghost is promised to the whole congregation of the faithful the Doctors of Paris are all of the same opinion The third reply Theoph. Christ commanded the people to do whatsoeeuer the Scribes and Pharisees willed them to obserue and this he did for this respect onely because the Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses chaire But doubtlesse if they sitting in Moses chaire could haue erred Christ would neuer haue commanded his disciples and the people so strictly to obserue their doctrine and none will or can deny that to sit in Peters chaire hath as great prerogatiue euery way as to sit in Moses chaire ergo the Pope that now sittes in Peters chaire at Rome can neuer teach false doctrine Remig. I answere first by the Popes owne decrées in these expresse words Multi Sacerdotes pauci Sacerdotes multi in nomine pauci in opere Videte ergo fratres quomodo sedetis super cathedram quia non cathedra facit Sacerdotem sed Sacerdos cathedram Non locus sanctificat hominem sed homo sanctificat locum Non omnis Sacerdos sanctus sed omnis sanctus est Sacerdos qui bene sederit super cathedraÌ„ honoreÌ„ accipit cathedrae qui malè sederit iniuriam facit cathedrae Many Priests and few Priests many in name few in worke therfore my brethren beware how you sit vpon the chaire for not the chaire makes the Priest but the Priest makes the chaire the place doth not sanctifie the man but the man sanctifies the place euery Priest is not a holy man but euery holy man is a Priest hee that shall sit well in the chaire receiues the honor of the chaire but he that sits euill doth iniury to the chaire Thus saith the Popes own decrée I ad nothing I change nothing I wil deale sincerely vpon my saluation Would to God the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings did this day put this decrée in practise Christianly Let not the Popes henceforth boast of sitting in Peters chaire Let them remember that they be many in name but few in worke they haue not this hundred yeares preached an hundred Sermons What say I an hundred Sermons for so farre as I can learne not one at all therefore as the Popes owne Canons tell vs the Popes did honour Saint Peters chaire Secondly with Saint Austen in these expresse words sedendo Cathedram Moysi legem Dei docent ergo per illos Deus docet sua vero si illi docere velint nolite audire nolite facere sitting in the chaire of Moyses they teach the law of God therefore God teacheth by them but if they will néedes teach their owne inuentions fantasies then heare them not doe not as they bid you do Thirdly with Saint Hilary in these words cum igitur doctrina Pharisaeorum ob id probabiâ—is esse docetur quia ipsi in Moysi Cathedra sederunt doctrina necessatio significatur in Cathedra séeing therefore that the doctrine of the Pharises is for that proued probable because they sate in the chaire of Moyses therefore by the chaire doctrine must of necessity be signified Thus write these two
Rome that he could no erre in his iudiciall and definitiue resolutions neither euer was the Bishop of that Sea acknowledged for the sole and onely iudge in controuersies of religion this is to be so one onely testimony of S. Cyprian will or at least may suffice for S. Cyprian a very auncient father a great learned Bishop and amost blessed martyr although he highly reuerenced the Church of Rome for respects now related and consequently the Bishops thereof yet was he so farre from acknowledging the falssy now vsurped prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome that his faith could not faile that he flatly reiected his opinion contemned his definitiue sentence and decided his iudiciall decrées calling him blind buzzard and arrogaÌ„t Prelat The like I might alledge cut of many famous papists Adrianus Panormit nus Alphonâ—us Gersonus Ockamus and others but this â—onuâ—ceth that neither S. Austin nor any auncieÌ„t father in their time nor the Bishop of Rome did obiect against S. Cyprian that the said Bishop could not erre Theoph. This is a wonderment to me that our Popes Monkes and Iesuites haue beene so licentious and wicked liuers but seeing so many famous Popish writers and the late secular Romish Priests haue in printed bookes published to the whole world testified so much of and against them it maketh me to stagger and to doubt of the Romith religion although informer times I haue high reuerenced the same for if the Bishop of Rome had beene priuiledged not to erre not onely the Bishop of Rome but the holy fathers also of that age would haue obiected the same against S. Cyprian vndoubtedly it cannot be denied Remig. You neither are nor euer were a more earnest zealous papist then my selfe haue béene but I heartily thanke God for it I now behold as clearely as the noone day the absurdities and abhominations of late vpstart popery the case is so cleare as euery child of God may with all facility perceiue the same Theoph. Why doe you call it late vpstart popery it hath continued from S. Peter and euery Pope is his successor Remig. This is one mighty point which hath not onely seduced and be witched you but both many others and myne owne selfe aswell as you I truely cald it late vpstart popery because of ten parts it scarscely retaineth two parts of the old Roman religion which S. Peter and S Paul by their preaching deliuered to the Church of Rome yea since the Iesuites began which was about the yeare 1537. popish religion is ten times more absurd then it was afore Theoph. The Catholikes hold constantly that the true faith and religion which S. Peter and S. Paul preached at Rome hath euer continued at Rome vntill this present day and that no other Church in the Christian world is able to shew a perpetuall and vninterrupted succession of their Bishops and priests saue onely the Church of Rome Remig. This is my answere First that the word Catholike is an holy and auncient name giuen in the beginning to all Christians and faithfull people in the world and therefore is it this day highly reuerenced and continually rehearsed in the publicke prayers of our English Church but there be two sortes of Catholikes the one deformed the other reformed which reformed Catholikes are all the true members of our English Church and all such as consesse and embrace the same faith and doctrine with them Secondly that the faith and doctrine which S. Peter and S. Paul preached to the old Romans remaineth at Rome indéede but how no otherwise doubtlesse then an old beggars cloake remaineth still to the beggar though it haue an hundred clouts of diuerse colours added and fastened one to another Thirdly that our English Church is able to shew a better and sounder perpetuall and vninterrupted succession of her Bishops and Priests then the late vpstact Church of Rome Theoph. What are you English-men Catholikes you are say we at Rome flat heretikes and apostataes as whom many late Popes of Rome haue accursed to the deepe pit of hell Remig. You know there is a sort of Fryers at Rome commonly called the Franciscans which sect was hatched and borne in the yéere 1206. who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sect of Fryers commonly called Capuchéenes which thing you béeing a Citizen of Rome knowe aswell as my selfe haue accused them to haue depraued and fowly peruerted the rules of their auncient order sect and profession in so much as they cannot this day with safe consciences embrace the same and therefore haue they reformed their said sect and doe terme themselues the reformed true Franciscans indéede this if it be duely considered is doubtlesse this day our case in our Church of noble England as also of many other reformed Churches within the Christian world for as the Capuchéenes hold fast kéepe still and constantly defend all the auncient rules of the old and true Franciscans and duely reiect and abandon that which by little little crept into their sect supertition abuses neglect of discipline and dissolute life euen so is it this day in our Church of England she holdeth fast kéepeth still and most constantly deserdâ—th all and euery rite of the old Roman religion highly reuerencing the same as Catholike and Apostolike doctrine Shee onely reiecteth and abandoneth heresies errors superstitions and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church the enemy the dinel hauing sowen tares while the carelesse pastors were a sléepe For neither did most noble Quéene Elizabeth in her time neither doth our most pious religious Soueraigne King IAMES who most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bringe into the Church any new religion but he as Quéene Elizabeth before onely reformeth purgeth the Church after the holy examples of King Dauid King Salomon King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly and zealous Kings in their daies and carefully reduceth it to the primitiue order and to the purity of the old Roman religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single eye this day behold thegodly setled Canons of this Church of England Theoph. If you were able to proue vnto me that the Church of Rome did any time swarne or reuolt from the old Roman religion I would doubtlesse forsake the late romish doctrine as you terme it and ioyfully yeelde vnto the truth Remig. I shall proue it by the power of God and assistance of his holy spirit before the end of this our conference if you like to stay to the end thereof and be not wearied with my discourse Theoph. God reward you for your Christian kindnesse and this paineful trauaile for my sake your talke is so comfortable to myne heart that I shall not be weary thereof though I should stay an whole yeare in your company but I feare me I shall
same so pithily as I must perforce yeelde thereunto I will proceed by your fauour to be resolued in other doubts Remig. Leaue nothing vnsayd which possibly can bée deuised or aduised for the supposed prerogatiues of your Pope Obiection fourth Theoph. The Apostle telleth vs that the Church cannot erre and he proues it because it is the pillar and ground of truth Remig. It is true that the Apostle saith so and my selfe do willingly admit the doctrine and humbly reuerence the same I most willingly grant yâ— Christs church cannot erre in matters of faith we differ not in the nature of the thing markewel my words but in the modification and application of the thing that is to say wèe all grant on all sides that the Church cannot erre but we differ in the application of our grant what Church it is that cannot erre what Church meane you M. Theophilus Theoph. I meane as all Catholikes doe of the Pope and Church of Rome Remig. I told you that you are but bastards and deformed Catholikes as your owne Capuchéenes do tell your deformed Franciscans and withall I tell you that the Pope or Church of Rome which is with Papists all one hath de facto erred egregiously as is already proued Nay it is vnpossible that the Apostle should meane of your Pope or Church of Rome I proue it many wayes First because the famous Popish Doctor Iohannes Gersonus hath fréely told vs as we haue heard already related the the Bishop of Rome hath de facto erred not onely in his priuate opinion but also in his publike and iudiciall definitions that therefore we haue no infallible Iudge vpon earth sauing these two viz. the whole Congregation of the faithfull and a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same where I wish you to marke attentiuely the word Sufficiently because it is very emphatical â— of great moment Secondly because the Popish Doctor Syluester Pryeras a diuine so learned that he is by them so named Absolutus Theologus confirmeth the opinion and doctrine of M. Gerson the famous Chauncelor of Paris in these expresse words Et sic intellige glossam dicentem quod Ecclesia quae errare non potest dicitur non papa sed congregatio fidelium quae scilicet tenet fidem quam Petrus eum alijs populis docuit And thus must the glosse be vnderstood which saith that yâ— Church which cannot erre is not the Pope but the congregation of the faithfull that is such as hold firmely that faith which Peter with other godly people taught Thirdly because Panormitanus that famous Popish Canonist Abbot Arch-bishop Cardinall for he was all foure and therefore of high estéeme with the Pope and Church of Rome iumpeth with the other learned Papists Gerson and Syluester and stoutly coÌ„firmeth their doctrine These are his expresse words Nam in concernentibus sidem c. For concerning matters of faith euen the iudgemeÌ„t of one that is a méere lay-man ought to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope if that lay-man could bring Better reasons out of the old and newe Testament then did the Pope And it skilleth not if one say that a Councell cannot erre because Christ prayed for his Church that it should not faile for I say that although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not truly the vniuersall Church but representatiuely For the vniuersall Church which is it that cannot erre consisteth of the collection of all the faithful Whereupon all the faithful in the world make this Church vniuersal whereof Christ is the head The Pope is the Uicar of Christ but not truly the head of yâ— Church as noteth the glosse vpon the Clementines which glosse saith notably that when the Pope is dead the Church wanteth not an head and this is that Church which cannot erre whereupon it is possible that the true faith of Christ might remaine in one alone and so it may be truely said that the faith faileth not in the Church Christ before his passion prayed for Peter that his faith should not faile therefore the Church is not said to faile neither to erre so long as the true faith abideth in one onely thus writeth this famous and learned papist Fourthly because the Popes owne deare glosse vpon his owne dâ—â—rées doth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to be the Congregation of the faithfull for thus is it there written in expresse termes Quaero de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare si de ipso Papa certum est quod Papa errare potest respondeo ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse I aske thee O Pope Leuci of what Church thou vnderstandest that which thou tellest vs in this place to wit that the Church cannot erre for if thou vnderstand it of the Pope himselfe it is certaine that the Pope may erre I therefore answere that the Church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull and such a Church can neuer erre indéede Fiftly because the popish ceremoniall practise in the holy wéeke while they put out all the candles saue one doth liuely expresse vnto vs that the Church of Rome and Bishop there may erre indéede for thereby the romish Church doth giue vs to vnderstand that the light of faith was extinguished in all generally saue only in the blessed virgin Mary that most holy mother of true God and true man and so their vsuall yéerely practise thrée daies together in the wéeke afore Easter doth vtterly condemne the faith of the Pope and of the Church of Rome Sixthly because S. Austen and S. Anselme doe both of them so expound S. Pauls words the ground of this obiection these are S. Austens expresse words secundum ergo sabbathi c. therefore we may not vnderstaÌ„d the second of the sabbath to be any other then the Church of Christ yet the Church of Christ in the saints the Church of Christ in those which are not ouercome with the tentations of this wicked world for they are worthy the name of Firmament therefore the Church of Christ is called the Firmament in those that are firme which is saith he the Church of the liuing God the piller and Firmament of truth The like saying hath the same holy father in many other places but especially where he writeth against the Donatists Anselmus an auncient father and well approued of the papists doth follow Saint Austens interpretation these are his words Domus in qua Deus habitat c. the house in which God dwelleth is the whole congregation of the faithfull who are to be taught diuersly and the same Church is in the perfect a pillar that is sublime straight inconcussible supporting lifting vp the yonger sort and in the same perfect it is the firmament of truth because in
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
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
he that can hinder sinne and doth it not is as much in fault as he that doth it Tullie that heathen Orator knew the same euen by the sole light of nature This being so which the Apostle confirmeth to bée true it followeth by a necessary consequence that Aaron was guilty of the Idolatry committed and albeit the text say not that he taught Idolatry vocally yet doth it plainly insinuate or rather fully expresse that he did it vertually and effectually For first when the people required him to make them Gods he did not reproue them but roundly consented to them where and when hee should haue vocally told them the Law the truth whereof by silence he bewrayed Againe the people sayd openly these be thy Gods O Israel which brought thée out of the land of Egypt and yet Aaron was so farre from preaching against that hereticall assertion that thereupon he built an Altar before the Calfe and proclaimed saying to morrow shall be the holy day of the Lord as if he had sayd your doctrine is my doctrine your faith my faith your opinion mine opinion I practically shew it in building this Altar before the Calfe and in proclaiming to morrow to bée holyday Thirdly the text saith plainely that Aaron made the people naked and consequently that he erred in his doctrine Fourthly because not the high Priest onely but all the Priests of the Consistory at Hierusalem together with the deuill Iudges were assigned to declare the Law vnto the people Lastly and this reason striketh dead because Caiphas the high Priest erred perniciously and taught most execrable blasphemy when he denied Christ to be the sonne of God A true Messias of the world for as soone as Christ had sayd hereafter shall yée sée the sonne of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and come in the cloudes of heauen The high Priest rent his cloathes saying hée hath blasphemed what haue we any more néed of witnesses behold now yée haue heard his blasphemy Theoph. I am fully satisfied in this point God for whose sake ye haue taken this great labour giue you reward for the same Now if it please you there is another question or two which I thinke vnanswerable I would willingly propound them if it may stand with your fauour Remig. I sée you desirous to know the truth and therefore I am not weary of any paines taken in that behalfe Let vs heare your supposed vnanswerable questions in Gods holy name for whose glory and your good I will answere sincerely as before Theoph. My first question is of the succession of the Popes of Rome for no Church is able truly to shewe their succession as the Pope his Cardinals and Iesuites tell vs saue onely the Church of Rome Remig. I hope in God though indéed it be not a thing easily done to make it as plaine to you as I haue done the other question or rather God in me that our English Church can shew a better succession then can the Church of Rome CHAP. 4. Of the Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome Theophilus NO Church in the vniuersall world is able to shew a perpetuall succession of her Bishops without interruption saue onely the Church of Rome and therefore seeing God hath appointed placed in his visible Church as the Apostle teacheth vs a cōrinual successiō of Bishops vnto the worlds end the Church of Rome and none but the Church of Rome is or can bee the true Church of God Remig. This indéed is a reason so strong in the iudgement of Papists that none liuing can truly answere the same Howbeit when the difficulty thereof shall bée truly examined to the bottome it will be found of no force at all but as light as a feather Theoph. Will you deny the Apostles doctrine wil you not grant as S. Paul telleth vs that there must be Bishops and Priests in the Church till the worlds end Remig. I am very willing to grant euery truth neither will I deny that there haue béene are and shall bée Bishops and Priests or Pastors and teachers in this visible Church militant on earth vntill Christs second aduent and generall doome of the world Theoph. Well there must be Bishops and Priests or Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle termeth them euen to the consummation of Saints and end of the world Now sir you are not able say our Doctors our Iesuits our Cardinals our Popes to shew or name any Church in the world but the Church of Rome which hath alwaies had in it these Pastors and Doctors from Christs visible departure to this day Remig. I answere that succession is of two sorts to wit materiall and formall Materiall is of the persons and the places formal of the faith and doctrine Touching the succession formal which is the principall and from whence the denomination must bée deriued the Church of Rome cannot chalenge it as it is already proued for if yée remember I haue proued both soundly and plainly that many Bishops of Rome haue taught false doctrine and that not onely as priuate men but euen as publike persons in their iudiciall definitions and decrées and consequently that the true proper and formall succession can no way bée truly verified of the Church of Rome Theoph. That is very true which yee now say it cannot bee denyed but still it seemeth true that the materiall succession perteineth onely to the Church of Rome Remig. Marke well what I shall sincerely deliuer in this behalfe Saint Clement whose epistles the Papists magnifie when they séeme to make for their purpose testifieth for himselfe that Saint Peter appointed him to bée his successor Irenaeus Epiphanius Eusebius and the canon of the Popish Masse do all with vniforme consent place Linus and Cletus before the sayd Clement But for all this Sophronius Metaphrastes and the Popish Pontificall which cannot lye affirme stoutly and peremptorily that Saint Peter was liuing after Lynus This variety so troubled the learned Papist Nauclerus that he was enforced to coine this new and vntimely hatched distinction viz. that Saint Peter did indéed appoint Clement to be his successor but the sayd Clement perceiuing that it would bee a thing pernicious to the Church if one Bishop should choose another to bée his successor yéelded vp his right and so Linus was elected in his roome The bare recitall of this imaginary solution is a sufficient confutation thereof for as you sée hée taketh vpon him to controll S. Peter Theoph This variety among Catholicke Writers is strange and it is more strange that Clement should alter and change S. Peters constitution But it surpasses all the rest that any thing which S. Peter ordeined could bee pernicious to the Church Remig. This is an euident demonstration that Romish succession is as a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde but I will shew you greater wonders and by Gods help so vnfold
vs that Constantine the great at his departure from Rome to Constantinople gaue the Bishop of Rome and his successors his crowne and all his royall dignitie both in the Citie of Rome and in Italie and in all the west parts which goodly story inuented for the Popes aduancement we sée by the constant verdit of these foure learned Papists to be nothing else indéede but a lying fable for the the Bishops of Rome were stil subiect to the Emperors receiued their authoritie and iurisdiction by their letters patents aboue 340. yeares euen vntill Benedict the second to which I adde that manie of the popish Cannons are of as good credit as Esops fables Remig. This is a point of great consequence which I should neuer haue espied but by your relation Theoph. I would wish you likewise to obserue that the Emperours Constantinus Iustinianus and others yéelding vp their soueraigne rights to the Bishops of Rome vpon a fond zeale without knowledge opened the window to all antichristian tyrannie for in short time after the Romish Bishops became so arrogant and Lordly that they tooke vpon them to dispose Royall scepters and to translate them to their pleasures Theoph. It is a memorable obseruation I shall keep it in remembrance but let me still reason for the Papists as if I were one of them for when all difficulties are answered I shall be the stronger in the truth The Church of God cannot be without Bishops and Priests as the Apostle recordeth and your selfe graunteth but so it is that when he first reformed the Church as you terme it yee neither had any Bishops nor any Priests of your owne neither could ye finde any in any other place but onely with vs and in our Church when Martin Luther went out from vs our Church therefore and none but ours is the true Church of God as which onely hath the true succession Apostolicall Remig. I answere first that our succession in the Church of England is farre better then theirs of Rome for theirs of Rome as we haue heard and séene is most doubtfull and vncertain but ours of England so constant and so assured as no deniall can be made thereof I proue it because in Anno 596. Gregory the great sent Augustine the Monke with Iustus Melitus and others as our approued Cronicles do relate to preach the Gospell to the Saxons who were kindly receiued of King Ethelbert and he conuerted to the Christian faith gaue to the same Austen the City of Canterbury since which time our Church of England is able to proue her perpetuall succession of Bishops without schisme or interruption at all albeit the Church of Rome as is already proued is not able to performe halâ—e so much Secondly that though the visible Churches were euery where greatly stained and polluted with many grosse errors superstitions and abuses at such time as M. Luther began a Christian reformation yet for all that the Bishops and Priests of the popish Churches were still true Bishops for their calling albeit otherwise very wicked men and consequently that our Bishops and Priests though descended created and made of such deformed popish Prelats are true Bishops and Prists indéede Theoph. If our Bishops and Priests were made of theirs then must either theirs bee good or ours as bad as theirs and so we shall haue no true Bishops at all Remig. Marke well what I say that yée may vnderstand the saint The Philosopher saith that one may bée a good Citizen though a bad man Euen so say I that though the Papists were wicked men and the Popish Bishops that created our Bishops foully polluted both in life and doctrine yet were they still true Christians true Bishops and consequently true members of the visible Church for they still professed held and maintained the chiefe fundamentall points of religion of God of the blessed Trinity of Christ and his two natures of his death passion of his resurrection and assention of the generall doome of all the rest comprised in the summe of religion which we call the Apostles Créede and therefore though they grieuously wounded and in a manner killed themselues by their errours corruptions superstitions and abuses yet in regard of the truth which they kept coÌ„stantly there remained in them some life of Christianity They wanted legges and armes and had their bodies and soules corrupted with many pestilent diseases but they did still draw breath and were not wholy dead We read in the Apostolicall history that there were some that beléeued who being of the heresie of the Pharisées did still hold the ceremonies of the law and vrged others to be circumcised The Prophet Dauid was sore wounded with adultery and murther but yet he still continued the child of God and Peter cursed and sware that hée knew not Christ who for all that still beleeued in Christ to the end Theoph. How can they be both good and bad Bishops at once it seemeth to me a thing impossible Remig. I answere first that the same persons may aswell be both good and bad at once as the same man may be both a father and a sonne at once and yet do all Logicians grant that this latter may be effected with all facility For one and the same man may at one and the same time be both a father in respect of his own child a sonne in respect of his father who is Grandfather to the sayd child Secondly that there is as great disparity betwéene a true Bishop and a good Bishop as there is betwéene a true man and a good man but as he is a true man that hath the nature of a true man how bad soeuer he be in faith life conuersation as Turkes Iewes Traitors Heretickes Apostataes euen so are they true Bishops of the visible Church who haue their calling places iurisdiction allotted them by the same Church how bad soeuer they be in other respects Theoph. Those Popish Bishops that made and created our Bishops and Priests in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reigne ordeyned and consecrated them after another manner then they are this day and euer haue beene since that time ergo either must their Bishops or else all our Bishops the first onely excepted who were created after the popish manner be false counterfeit and no true Bishops indeed Remig. Neither their Bishops nor ours are false and conterfeit but both true and perfect Bishops in euery essentiall and necessary poynt pertaining to a Bishop Theoph. Theirs were made by the authority of the Pope yours by the authority royall of your gracious Princesse of famous memory Theirs with Oyle and Chrisme and many other ceremonies which yours doe not vse at all Remig. All the things by you named are méere extrinsecall and not of the essence and nature of a Bishop or of a Priest Theoph. Either must they sinne in vsing Oyle Chrisme and other ceremonies or you in reiecting
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
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 doth Remig. True it is that the best liuers on earth are great sinners and that they may iustly be damned to hell for the same For as S. Austen saith grauely Woe to the best liuer on earth if God iudge him his mercy set apart But hereupon can it neuer be concluded that the iust man sinneth in euery worke he doth Theoph. The best workes of the regenerate are vnperfect and consequently the regenerate man sinneth in the best worke he doth Remig. Your consequence doth not hold the reason is at hand viz. because euery imperfection neither doth nor can make a good act euill for although imperfection be so linked and chained with sinne in yâ— regenerate that whersoeuer it be found there is sinne also in the same subiect yet is not that sin in the act well done but either in some other act euill done or else in the omission of that which ought to be done Let vs take an example for the illustration of the truth and question now in hand and let vs suppose that S. R hath lent 40. pounds vnto T. B. to be repaid vpon May-day next at which day yâ— said T. B. bringeth onely 30. pounds being all yâ— he possibly can prouide In this ease the debtour tendereth an vnperfect paiment to the Creditour Howbeit he doth not wrong the creditour in bringing him 30. pounds but the iniury is done in not bringing more Theoph. He wrongeth his creditor by his vnthankefulnesse in that he doth not bring him the iust summe which he borrowed Remig. The Creditor is wronged indéed yet not in yâ— paiment of the 30. pounds but in the non paiment of other ten pounds Imperfection is euer cheyned with sin as is already sayd yet the sinne or wrong done in this case to the Creditor is not in the 30. pounds truly paid but in the ten pounds remaining vnpaid For example sake A seruant receiuing of his maister ten shillings to be distributed to the poore giueth onely eight shillings thereof to them and reserueth two shillings to himselfe In this case the seruant trespasseth generally yet not in distributing eight shillings a part of his charge but in kéeping back two shillings which he should haue giuen For when a seruant is commanded to do althing which hée doth onely in part but not wholly the offence is not in that which he doth but in that which he leaueth vndone Euen so is it in the question now in hand For the lowly Publican sinned not in smiting his breast and in asking mercy for his sinnes The Mid-wiues Shiphrah Puah sinned not in that they feared God and disobeyed yâ— kings wicked commandement Moses sinned not in sâ—aying yâ— Idolaters at Gods appointment Hanna sinned not in powring out her soule before the Lord. Rahab sinned not in receiuing the spies peaceably Dauid sinned not in coÌ„fessing his sinnes when Nathan the Prophet reproued him for the same Peter sinned not in wéeping bitterly for his sinnes Cornelius sinned not in fearing God praying continually King Asa sinned not in doing right in the eyes of the Lord. King Ezechias sinned not in cleaning to the Lord and in not departing from him Iosias sinned not in turning to yâ— Lord with al his heart with all his soule and with all his might Paul full of the holy Ghost sinned not in reprouing Elimas the sorcerer for peruerting the right waies of the Lord neither yet in hating the sinne which he could not auoide Abel sinned not in offering a greater sacrifice then Caine by which he obtained Gods owne testimony that he was righteous Abraham sinned not in obeying God when he was called neither in offering vp his onely sonne when God commanded him so to do Iob sinned not in being vpright and iust in fearing God and eschewing euill Zacharias and Elizabeth sinned not in walking in all the commandements of the Lord without reproch S. Stephen full of the holy Ghost and ready to giue his life for the truths sake sinned not in calling on God and saying Lord Iesus receiue my spirit Dutifull subiects sinne not in praying dayly for their Soueraignes for holy writ pronounceth it to be good and acceptable in the sight of God All which and many other like testimonies which in regard of breuity I now omit do proue and euidently conuince that though the regenerate sinne while they do their good workes yet do they not sinne in doing the same for it is one thing to sin in doing the worke another thing to sin while the worke is a doing Theoph. Your discourse hath fully satisfied me in this intricate and difficult question I perceiue your distinction to be as true as it is subtile the ignorance whereof hath brought no small ruine to the Church of God howbeit sundry mighty obiections may be made against the same which by your fauour I shall propound as they come to my mind Obiection first Theoph. It seemeth to many a thing impossible that a man while he sinneth should do good Remig. It is no more impossible then it is for the same man to be a father while he is a sonne Theoph. The same man cannot be both a father and a sonne at one and the same time in one and the same respect but in diuerse respects though at the same time Remig. True that is and I desire no more the holy Apostle decideth the controuersie in these golden words I my selfe in my mind serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne here the chosen vessell of God doth plainely expresse and liuely lay open before our eyes that himselfe both did good workes and also sinned while he did the same though not in the same respect for to serue the law of God is a right good worke but to serue the law of sinne is a great offence yet both these the Apostle did at the same time though not in the same respect for as he was regenerate he serued God truly but in the vnregenerate parts both of body soule or flesh and mind which with the Apostle are all one he sinned damnably Theoph. How can the Apostles act be vnperfect and yet without sinne Remig. I haue so plainely vnfolded this difficulty already that I greatly admire how you can bee ignorant thereof imperfection though it bee euer chained with sinne in the regenerate doth not for all that connotate his act well donebu teither some other act euill done or else the â—mission of the act that should be done For example Saint Paul when he serued the law of God in his mind did a good act though vnperfectly and sinned not in doing the same howbeit at the same time he sinned perfectly in seruing the law of sin neuerthelesse his imperfection consisted not in seruing yâ— law of God which was an act pleasing God who neuer is or can be pleased with sinne but it consisted in seruing the law of sinne which was perfectly an act no way pleasing God
man can truly and dutifully serue two masters as a seruant ought to doe for it is not the part of a seruant to hate his master to withstand his commaundes and euery houre to fight with him as the regenerate children of God do continually with sin yea the Apostle confirmeth the same sense when he plainely confesseth of himselfe that he did not that good which he would but that euill which he would not and thereupon concludeth that he himselfe did it not but the sinne that dwelled in him for albeit sinne against his will remained still in him and had daily conflicts and continuall cumbats with him yet had he the victory and vpper hand ouer sinne in that he stood constantly at defiance with it and would neuer yéelde consent vnto it Thirdly that one may serue two contrary maisters secundum quid though not simpliciter in part but not simply wholly or totally and this sense doth the holy Apostle affoord vs while he confesseth resolutely that he himselfe serued the law of God in his mind but in his flesh the law of sinne for by reason of the reliques of the flesh and grace of the spirit he was deuided in himselfe Theoph. This seemeth to smell of Popery for they teach that the regenerate sinne onely in the body materially and not at all in the soule Remig. I haue proued formerly if you wel remember yâ— the Apostle vnderstandeth by yâ— word flesh whatsoeuer is in man not yet renued by yâ— holy Ghost to wit not only the sensitiue appetite but euen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will â—â—â—â—nerate For as the same Apostle â—aiâ—h else where 〈◊〉 They that are in the flesh cannot please God which is all one as if he had said they that haue not the spirit of regeneration which abolisheth sin in them though not all at once but by degrées cannot possibly please God neither can yâ— Popish sense by any meanes be true séeing by it none liuing no Pope no Cardinall no Iesuite can possibly please God The reason is euident because none can liue on earth but which haue their soules in their bodyes This sense the Apostle doth plainly deliuer in these words immediatly following now ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit because the spirit of God dwelleth in you but if any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is not his here it is cléere that the word flesh doth connotate whatsoeuer is in man vnregenerate but not the body which the soule informeth This sense is more plainely confirmed in another place where it is written for we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sould vnder sinne where we sée euidently that the Apostle by flesh meaneth neither the body onely nor the soule onely but both body and soule so farre forth as they are vngenerate for the word carnall doth not barely connotate any one part either of body or of soule but the whole person of man not yet purified with the grace of regeneration The words are very emphaticall for I am carnall S. Paul speaketh of himselfe being the regenerate child of God and for all that fréely acknowledgeth himselfe to be carnall and sold vnder sinne Which acknowledgement he maketh in respect of his vnperfect renouation as well of soule as of body giuing vs thereby to vnderstand that the best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sanctified but in part not wholly and perfectly For doubtlesse if the sanctification of Gods Children were perfect in this life S. Paules should haue found no defect but he that is iustified and sanctified must continually endeuour to bee more and more iust and holy Which precept is giuen in vaine if sanctification in this life be perfect Theoph. I see it most euidently that S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not sanctified wholly but onely in part and that therefore they both sinned and did good workes at once albeit they sinned onely while they did their good workes but neuer in doing the same Gods holy name be blessed for that insight into the Catholike truth which in great mercy he hath by this conference bestowed on me And I most humbly thanke you Father Râ—â—igiâ—â— for your most Christian paines on my behalfe faithfully promising to rest yours during life in what I possibly may or can as one that oweth euer himselfe vnto you Laus Deo vni trino FINIS Maâ— v 14â— Luc 13. v. 24. Mat. 20. â— 17. Luc. 〈◊〉 v. 24. Pope Stephanus a cruell Tyâ—â—nt Pope Iohn a notorious who â— munger Pope Bonifacea Church robâ—â— Pope Benâ—â— an extortioneâ— Pope Iohn with child Pope Boniface entred as a Fox liâ—ed as a Wolfe and died as a Dogge Pope â—yluâ—ster promised â—omagâ— to the Deuil Robert parsons an holy Fryer If thâ—â— shalt read â—hiâ— Anatomy thou canst not but abhoâ—â—e â—aâ—e â—pâ—â—aâ—â— Popery Aug. Epist. 119. Aâ—â—st contra Epist â—â—â—dam S. Ausâ—â—â— respected â—uccession wâ—â—ch was â—oyâ—â—â— with holy â—â—fâ— and pure â—octâ—iâ—â— the euill life of Ministeâ—s doth much hurt to the truth Rom. 2 v. 14. Act. 27 v. 10 11 〈◊〉 Hebr. 31. v. 7. Note that the Bishop of Rome did neuer aledge for himselfe that he could not erre because hee knâ—we no such prerogatiue in very deede Cypâ—â— Epist ad Pompeum The Iesuites are a now young â—ecte of Fiyers The papists are the deâ—â—med Catholique we the reformed Rom 1. v. 8 The sect of Franciscans Theophilus a Citisen of Rome Let this be well remembred our Church reuerenceth antiquity onely reiecteth nouelties The late romish â—aith is the new religion Maâ— 13. ver 25. we are the true reformed Catholikes â— reg 2. ver 27. 35. â— par 1â— 4. reg 8. 2. 2. pat 29. par 2â— 30. 31. 34. Mat. 10. â— 12 Luc. 12. â— 3â— Grat dist 4â— chap. 〈◊〉 Papâ— Ans. 2. q. 7. Cap. â—uâ—â— The Author takes it vpon his saluation thâ—â— hee dealeth truely 〈◊〉 delaâ—iâ— vigner dâ— verâ— fides â—â—ra in 16. cap. Mat. â—ose Aâ—â—â— â— s. p. 2. q. de excoâ— ar 4. dâ—â—f 1. The Popes double person Soto in 4 s d. 2. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 â— Quâ—dl â— â— 10. S. R. pag. 417. Lib. 6. de haâ—â—t cap qui conque caus 17 â— 4. cap. si â—uâ— Popery is a most meserarable religion Gers in Serpâ— de Pasck â— paâ—t The Pope â—rrâ—d as a publique person ie cannot be denied Alphon. â— Castrolib â— ad vers hâ—re ses â—rop◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarm. de â—um Pontifice lib 4. c. 14 â—â—te popeâ—y iâ— not the old but the new religion Diâ—it Adrianus A. D. 1171. A tricke of Legierdemaine A most blasphemous doctrine Marke this well Gers. prim art de eâ—am doct consid 2. Gers in pripart de appellat a Papa in propâ—sit This my selfe admit and beleeue Beliarm de concil libri 2. Cap. 2. The councell of CoÌ„stance deposed Pope Iohn Alphons lib 1. Cap. 4. aduers. haeres Celestine erred as Pope and publike person This fact of S.