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
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.
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
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
to this the Councell of Basil say they was not a lawfull Synode because it had neither the presence of the Pope nor of his Legats Remig. This answere is a new inuention of our late strat-vp Iesuits who neuer were heard of or known to yâ— Church of God for the space of a thousand fiue hundred and forty yéeres after Christs sacred Incarnation and whose first author was one Ignatius Loyola a souldier a Spaniard borne hauing neither scripture CouÌ„cel father or good reason whereupon it may be grounded For first the Councel was called by Pope Martin the fifth to be holden at Papias from whence by reason of the pest it was remoued to Senas afterward it was translated by Alphonsus the King of Aragon and continued at Basill where were present both Sigismundus the Emperour and Iulianus the Popes owne Legat and after him Ludouicus the Cardinall of Arles supplied his place Again not onely the Councell of Basil but the Councels also of Constance of Florence and of Lateran did all constantly and vniformely define for an vndoubted truth that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope and hath authority to cite him to controll him and to depose him for due proofe and triall whereof the Councell of Constance deposed de facto thrée Popes viz. Iohn 23. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. and chose Martin the first and made him Pope in his place Another or two like mortall wounds I could vnfolde vnto you but these séeme to me sufficient Theoph. For Christs sake take the paines to relate them it is a thing well worth the labour Remig. Pope Sergius the third caused the corps of Pope Formosus who now had béene dead almost tenne yéeres to be taken out of his tombe and to bee set in a chaire with yâ— pontificall attire vpon him O braue Gallant and that done his head to be cut off and to bée cast into the riuer Tiber. He disanulled the acts and orders giuen by Pope Formosus insomuch as all were enforced to take orders againe who had béen made Bishops or Priests by Pope Formosus Theoph. Marry sir the Papists may boast indeed of their Romish succession and be derided of all wise men for their paines Remig. Amongst the Popes excommunications the 29. is against the Colledge of Cardinals in the Romish Church who by Symonie or Symoniacall pacts procure themselues to bee aduanced to the Popedome By verture of which excommunication all such as are made Popes by Symony Symoniacall pacts doe ipso facto incurre the sentence of excommunication from which they can neuer be absolued but by one that is Pope indéed and Canonically elected thereunto Upon which excommunication one of the Popes inquisitors Bartholomaeus Fumus a very learned Dominican Fryer hath published this commentary for the true sense meaning of that extrauagant which Pope Iulius the second diuulged in that behalfe these are his expresse words Nota hic bene Papa Simoniacé electus non est veâ—e Papa Note here and that to good purpose that the Pope which is elected by Symonie is not the true Pope indéed Marke well and let me sée what you obserue out of this discourse Theoph. I see euidently by the Popes own constitution and flat decree as by the law of the Medes and Persians which no papist may withstand or gainsay that whosoeuer is chosen Pope by Simony is no Pope indeede Remig. You haue marked the discourse very well let vs now proceede and looke circumspectly into the matter as which is of so great importance as nothing can be more Baptista Platina a man very néere and very deare vnto the Popes as who was by office Abbreuiator Apostolicus and consequently best acquainted with the manners and dealings of Popes telleth vs roundly and constantly that the Popes of latter dayes crept into the Popedome by gifts bribes and Simony these are his expresse words eò enim tum Pontificatus deuenerat vt qui plus largitione ambitione non dico sanctitate vitae doctrinae valereâ— is tantummodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis reiectis obtineret quem morem vtinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora For to that passe was the Popedome now brought that whoseeuer was able to preuaile most in giuing bribes in ambition I say not in good life and doctrine that many onely should haue the degrée of honour and good men should be reiected which custome would to God our dâ—yâ—â— had neuer knowne Again that same Platina in another place hath these words Adeo enim inuoluerat hic mos vt iâ—m cuique ambitioso liceret Petri sedem inuadere For this custome did so encrease thâ—t now euery ambitious fellow might inuade Saint Peters chaire Gregory the fifth was by sedition thrust out of his throne and Pope Iohn the 18. by tyrannie occupied the Popedome so write both Platina and Carranza who were the Popes good friends albeit they could not conceale the truth hereof yea Platina procéedeth further and saith qua quidem beatitudine Iohannes carnit fur certè in Pontificatu latro Non enim vt par fuerat per ostium intraut which happy life Pope Iohn wanted as who was a théefe and a robber for hee entred not in by the doore as he ought to haue done To be briefe Pope Bonifacius the eight may sound the Trumpet for all the rest for of him thus writeth his deare Feyer Carranza Intrauit vt Vnlpes regnauit vt Lupus mortuus est vt Canis he entred as a Foxe he reigned as a Woolfe he died as a Dogge By this discourse two things are cleered which are of so great weight and moment as they are able to batter downe popery and to draw it vnder foote For first what Bishop soeuer is made Pope by gifts bribes and Simony that Bishop neither is nor can be the true Pope indéed Secondly the Bishops of Rome haue now â—or a long time béene very wicked men and haue aspired to the Popedome by bribes and Simony To which two maine points of popery this third as a golden corollary is consectary and cannot be denied viz that the Bishops of Rome for many yeeres were not true Bishops or Popes in very déede and consequently by popish doctrine there are no true popish Bishops in the world Theoph. All the Iesuits and Iesuited papists in the world are neuer able truly to answere these reasons for doubtles they are insoluble Remig The 18. excommunication falleth vpon all those which deny the Church of Rome to be the head of all other Churches and the Pope to be the commaunder of all people this excommunication was thundred out for the establishing of the Popes tyranny throughout the Christian world the 21. excoÌ„munication is against all such as shall boldly affirme either that the blessed Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne or not so conceiued and shall thereupon condemne them of heresie or of mortall sinne
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
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
The imperfection ariseth not of that which is well done but of that which is either ill done or left vndone Theoph. How can the seruing of the law of sinne be be perfectly an euill act seeing the seruing of the law of God is not perfectly a good act Remig. The holy and auncient father Dionysius Ariopagita vnfoldeth this difficulty whiles he affirmeth more to be required to good then to euill for perfect good requireth a perfect and intire cause but perfect euill issueth out of euery defect Bonum exintegra causa malum exquolibet defectu Theoph. The Apostle telleth vs that al meÌ„ are sinners that there is none that doth good no not one how then can the regenerate be without sinne in the best act he doth Remig. True it is that the bestliuers on earth are great sinners and for their sinnes may iustly be damned to hell-fire true it is likewise that none no not one doth any good perfectly yet this notwithstanding true it is thirdly that the regenerate doth much good imperfectly and sinneth not in doing the same for doubtlesse Saint Paul sinned not in seruing the law of God vnperfectly albeit he sinned grieuously at the same time in seruing the law of sinne for as the holy and auncient father Saint Austen writeth learnedly Multum boni facit qui facit quod scriptum est post concupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quod non implet quod scriptum est non concupisces He doth great good who doth that which is written follow not thy â—uâ—tes but he doth not perfect his well doing because he doth not fulfill that which is written thou shalt not lust The same father in another place hath these expresse words Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs Domini non operantur peccatum tamen non sunt â—ine peccata quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem sed quod habitat in eâ—s peccatum Behold how they that walke in the wayes of the Lord do not sinne and yet are they not without sinne because now not they worke iniquity but the sinne that dwelleth in them in which words Saint Austen sheweth plainely that though the regenerate do not fulfill the law exactly yet do they good and sinne not so long as they striue against sinne and suffer it not to raigne in them for which cause saith Saint Iohn that he which is borne of God sinneth not neither can sinne because he is borne of God and in the next verse he affirmeth the children of God to be discerned from the children of the diuell for their good workes and righteousnessâ— alittle after he telleth vs plainely that Cain slew his brother Abel because his owne workes were euill and his brothers good again in the same chapter he auoucheth constantly that he that committeth sinne is of the deuill I therefore conclude that the regenerate as regenerate marke well the reduplication do good and sinne not howbeit as they commit sinne so are they of the diuell and vnregenerate they kéepe Gods commandments in part and somâ— degrée but not in all Theoph. If the regenerate as such be without sinne then may they merite their owne saluation as the Papists hold and beleeue Remig. You are greatly deceiued in this déepe point of diuinity for though the regenerate as they are regenerate this reduplication is very emphaticall neither do nor can sin as yâ— holy Apostle teacheth vs yet do they sin continually in their vnregenerat parts which is enogh for their â—uâ—â— condeÌ„nation for as in the regenerate parts they serue the law of God so in the vnregenerate they serue the law of sinne and consequently séeing as Saint Iames saith whosoeuer kéepeth yâ— whole law and faileth in one point is guilty of all and séeing also as Saint Paul saith that euery one is accursed which performeth not the law it followeth that the regenerate 〈◊〉 farre from meriting their saluation by their best workes that they might iustly be damned for the same if God should deale with them in iustice and iudgement his mercy set a part Theoph. I cannot yet see how â—e that sinneth whiles he doth a good worke doth not sinne in doing the same may it please you to illustrate it by some familiar example Remig. You must either marke the distinction well or else you can neuer vnderstand the same a right I will giue you a very plain example by which you may easily sée the truth thereof Take one penne full of blacke incke in your right hand an other full of red incke in your left hand this done draw with the said pennes two long lines at one and the same time in this case it is very cléere and euident that in making a blacke line you doe not make a red neither yet in making a red line doe you make a blacke howbeit while you make the blacke line you make also the red and semblably while yée make the red you make also the blacke but doublesse in making blacke you do not make red neither yet in making red do you make blacke euen so may you sinne it cannot with reason be denied while you doe a good worke and yet not sinne in doing the same Theoph. Your example doth giue me a perfect insight into the question now in hand but our sauiour telleth vs that no man can serue two maisters how then can a man both doe well and sinne at once for to doe well is to serue the best maister and to sinne is to serue the worst of all that is euen God and the diuell Remig. I answere first that one may truly and honestly serue two maisters when the one is subordinate and subiect to the other for so doth Saint Paul teach vs in these expresse words seruants obey your maisters according to the flesh with feare and trembling in singlenesse of your hearts as vnto Christ loe a seruant may obey his carnall master and in so doing Christ himselfe so did holy Ioseph serue God and the King of Egypt so did Daniel serue God and the King of Babel Secondly that though the regenerate sinne daily and be continually assaulted with the cumbat of the flesh against the spirit yet doe they not suffer sinne to reigne in them neither doe they consent to the vnlawfull desires thereof but vtterly hate and detest the same and consequently they serue not two maisters but one onely euen our Lord Iesus Christ for to hate sinne to fight courageously against sinne and to be at continuall destance with it as the Iewes were with the Cananites is not to serue sinne but to be a mortall enemy to sinne and rather the master then the seruant thereof which sense our Sauiour himselfe doth plainely insinuate in these words immediatly following for either he shall hata the one and loue the other or else he shall leane to the one and despise the other as if he had said no