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
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
required a thrée sold confession of Peter in regard of his thréefold negation left nouises and weaklings should haue béene scandalized vnderstanding that such a notorious sinner without publike confession of his faith should haue any iurisdiction ouer them but not to giue any speciall prerogatiue to Peter thereby The reason hereof is euident because our Sauiour had before this charge of féeding giuen a very large commission to all his Apostles of féeding all Nations and therefore he can now meane and intend no other thing but onely to moue Peter to walke warily to be mindfull of his infirmities to be carefull of his charge Thirdly because Saint Austen that mighty pillar of Christs Church confirmeth defendeth this my present doctrine These are his expresse words Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustâ—â—â— Petrus cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur aâ—â—â— me pasâ—â—â—ues meat Peter represented the person of yâ— Church Catholike when it is said to him it is said to all louest thou me féed my shéep Fourthly because S. Cyprian decideth this controuersie 〈◊〉 plainly as caÌ„not but satisfie 〈…〉 indifferent readerâ— these are his expresse words loquitur Dominus ad PetruÌ„ ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus c. Paulo post hoc eraÌ„t vtique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio prediti honoris potestatis sed exordâ—â— aboâ—niâ—ate proficiscitur vt Ecclesia vna monstretur Our Lord speaketh vnto Peter I say vnto thée that thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church c. the same were the rest of the Apostles doubtlesse that Peter was indued with equall fellowshippe both of honour and of power but the beginning procéedeth from vnity that the Church may be shewed to be one And the same holy Father confirmeth this his doctrine in another place in these memorable words Episcopatus vnus est 〈…〉 a singulis in solidum pars tenetur there is but one Bishoprickâ— a part whereof euery Bishop possesseth and enioyeth wholly S. Austen confirmeth S. Cyprians sentence and iudgement in these words Claues non vnus homo Petrus sed vnitas accepit Ecclesiae not one onely maâ— Peter receiued the Keies but the vnity of the Church Fiftly because two famous popish writers are iump of tho same opinion constantly desend yâ— same doctrine Couarâ—viâ—s a profound Canonist a popish Archbishop of great estéeme in yâ— romish Church hath these expresse words enim iuxta Catholicorum viroruÌ„ auctoritates communem omnium traditionem Apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu eum Petro potestatem ordinis iuridictionis acceperunt ita quidem vt quilibet Apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso Deo intotum orbem in omnes actus quos Petrus agere poterat for according to the authorities of Catholike writers and the common tradition of all the Apostles receiued from our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe equall power with Peter both of order and of iuridiction in somuch doubtlesse as euery Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe and that both ouer the whole world and to all actions that Peter could doe Iosephus Angles a famous Fryer and a very learned popish Bishop in that selfe same booke which he dedicated to the Pope hath by the force of Gods spirit testified the same truth both against the Pope against himself these are his owne words si comparemus B. Petri aliorum Apostolorum potestatem ad gubernationem omniumcredentium tantam alij Apostoli habuerunt potestatam quantam B. Petrus habuit ita quod poterant quemlibet Christianum totius orbis sicut modo Rom. Pont. excommunicare in qualibet Ecclesia Episcopos Sacerdotes creare ratio est quia omnis potestas B. Petro promissa tradita fuit caeteris Apostolis collata hoc sine personarum loci vel fori discrimine if we compare the power of S. Peter and of the others Apostles to the gouernment of all the faithfull other Apostles haue euen asmuch power as S Peter had so that they could then excommunicate euery Christian in the whole world and in euery Church make Bishops and Priests the reason is because all power promised and giuen to S. Peter was also giuen to the rest of the Apostles and that without difference of persons place or consistory Thus we haue a full and resolute iudgement both for answere to the obiection and for the supposed prerogatiues and priuiledges of S. Peter which resolution is not onely deduced out of the holy scripture but plainely contested also by the vniforme consent of the holy fathers S. â—vprian and S. Austen and in like maner of the famous and learned papists Couarruvias and â—osephus Angles for they teach vs many sound points in diuinity First that all the Apostles had as great authority and as full and large euery way as Saint Peter had Secondly that euery Apostle aswell as Peter could make and constitute Bishops and Priests euery where throughout the Christian world Thirdly that what act soeuer S. Peter could doe euery Apostle had power and authority to do the same Fourthly that the iurisdiction of euery Apostle was as great and as large euery way as Saint Peters was And this saith Couarruvias is the common receiued doctrine of all Catholike writers this is a poynt of Catholike doctrine so important and so memorable as it well deserueth to be written in golden letters Fiftly that Christs spéeches vnto Peter in the singular number did not argue any superiority of iurisdiction but only signifie the vnity of the Church Sixtly that the authority and iurisdiction of euery Apostle was equal to Peters and that without all difference of persons place or consistory This is another point of great consequence for séeing first all and euery of the Apostles had equal iurisdiction séeing secondly that their iurisdiction was not limited but ouer the whole world seeing thirdly that the whole iurisdiction of euery Apostle ended and expired with his death and séeing fourthly that S. Iohn liued after all the Apostles it followeth of necessity that the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the whole world remained in Saint Iohn after the death of Peter and the other Apostles So then if the Bishop of Rome will haue indéede any such prerogatiue as he falsly pretendeth to haue he must bring and shew vs his comission from S. Iohn and not from S. Peter for S Iohn being the suruiuer had all iurisdiction in himselfe And if the late Bishops of Rome can shew vs such a commission from Saint Iohn viz that Saint Iohn translated and committed his whole power authority and iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome and his successors I for my part will willingly yeeld obedience to the same not otherwise For I require the Popes charter from S. Iohn Theoph. This is wonderfull which you say and yet you proue the
howbeit for my further satisfaction let me tel you that one of your authors Nauclerus by name vtterly denieth the story as I haue heard Remig. I make a conscience I thanke my Lord God humbly for it to deale sincerely in all my writings and with you in this our Christian conference wishing heartly that the papists would doe the like I haue euer dealt so truely and vprightly against the papists in all my writings as I now in my old and decrepite age I am ready to take it vpon my saluation and to seale the truth thereof with my blood Concerning your report of Nauclerus you shall truely heare his owne words and that done yéeld your censure according to the truth after that this Nauclerus had told a long tale in the fauour of our Woman-Pope so to couer and hide the nakednesse of his holinesse at the length he resolueth with himselfe and concludeth the controuersie in these expresse words Sed etsi fuit verum nulli tamen ex hoc salutis emeâ—sit periculum quia nec Ecclesia tunc fuit fine capite quod est Christus ait Antoninus nec enim vltimi effectus Sacramentorum quae illa conferebat deficiebant eis qui debite accipiebant scilicet gratia licet mulier non sit susceptibilis Characteris alicuius ordinis nec conficere Eucharistiam etiam de facto ordinata possit nec absoluere a peccato vnde ab ea ordinati erant iterum ordinandi gratiam tamen Sacramentorum Christus supplebat in recipientibus dignâ— ignorantia facti inuincibili eos excusante But although it were true no man for all that susteined any losse of his saluation because euen then the Church had still an head which is Christ as Antoninus witnesseth neither did they who deuoutly preached the Sacraments which he ministred want the lâ—st effects thereof which is grace albeit a woman be neither capable of any Character of order neither able to celebrate the Eucharist or to absolue from sinne whereupon such as receiued orders of her were to be ordered againe neuerthelesse Christ supplied the grace of the Sacraments in those that receiued them worthily inuincible ignorance of the fast excusing them thus you sée the opinion and verdict of your owne deare Doctor Nauclerus that famous papist who hath said for the credit of your Pope what possibly he could deuise now deliuer your censure in Gods name according to the truth Theoph. I will confesse the truth I obserue out of this testimony of our reuerend and learned histriographer these memorable points of doctrine First that Nauclerus hath emploied his whole industry and all his wits to defend the Pope from shame and dishonour if it possibly could be done Secondly that Antoninus their reuerend Archbishop and canonized Saint is of his opinion Thirdly that Christ is the head of the Church and that therefore the Church wanted not a head in time of the woman Pope if euer there were such a monster in the world Fourthly that popish succession is as vncertaine as the weather-cocke howsoeuer my selfe and others haue hitherto beene seduced therewith and I humbly thank my Lord God that by your most Christian instruction as by an instrument appointed by him for that end I nowe at the last behold the same Remig. Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam it is no small comfort and solace to mine heart that Gods holy spirit doth so mightily worke in you you haue obserued well the doctrine of Nauclerus though some thing may fitly be added thereunte Two further points of great consequence are implied in the doctrine of Nauclerus the one that it is this day doubtfull which of their romish Cardinals and Bishops be rightly ordered and whether they be meere Lay-men or Priests the other that the Cardinals popish Priests and lay people of Rome did for many yéeres commit flat idolatry Theoph. These points could I neuer haue considered in his doctrine God reward your paines emploied for his sake but what are not the Cardinals and Priests in the Church of Rome truely and lawfully consecrated in their functions Remig. I speake not generally and absolutely of the consecration of the Cardinals Bishops and Priests in the Church of Rome fit occasion will be offered hereafter to speake more precisely of that point of doctrine the question is now of those particular Cardinals Bishops and Priests who were consecrated for such in the time of the Woman-pope Iohn for as the Popes owne deare Doctor Nauclerus telleth vs all such as were ordered by the Woman-pope were to be ordered again as being but méere Lay-men Theoph. I am at my wits end what to say or thinke of the Church or Pope of Rome Remig. What I am sure you remember the old receiued Maxime Vbi Papa ibi Roma vbi Roma ibi Ecclesia Catholica where the Pope is there is Rome and where Rome is there is the Catholike Church So as the Pope is Rome the Catholike Church Christ himselfe and all Theoph. I cannot indeed but remember the same it is so frequent and vsual in euery learned Papists mouth But alas alas the remembraÌ„ce thereof doth this day wound me at the very heart for hitherto I haue beene taught to hold it for a constant truth that the Catholike Church the Church of Rome and the Popes holinesse were all as one that is to say that the Popes faith was the faith of the Church of Rome and the faith of the Church of Rome the faith of the Catholike Church militant heere on earth Remig. It is very true which you say and this approued Romish Maxime confirmeth the same for when the Pope and his Popelings tell vs that the Church cannot erre then do they meane that the Pope cannot erre and when they speake of the Catholike Church then they euer meane of yâ— Church of Rome of such Churches as iump in faith with the Pope So then we must iump with the Collier and say we beléeue as the Church beléeueth and the Church beléeueth as we beléeue for by this learned answere if Cardinall Hosius writ truly we may ouercome the diuell but when all is said done we must beléeue we cannot indéed tell what for when yâ— Pope saith thus and thus you must beléeue if then he speake as a priuate man my faith is wan and no faith indéed for as a priuate man he may erre and so both deceiue himselfe and me as we haue séene already and yet alas for pitty these two articles I must hold for an vndoubted truth which agrée together as Yorke and soule Sutton First that the Pope may erre and become an heretike Secondly that I am an Hereticke vnlesse I beléeue as he teacheth me if he speake as a publike person This notwithstanding I may not to dye for it examine the Popes decrées whether they procéed from him as hée is a priuate man or as a publike person for in so
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
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
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.