We are bound as Christians not only to bear the scourge of tongues but more also for the Gospels sake when called to it Augustin said to Petilian his tongue was not the fan I am a man in the floore of Christ and if good grain will be laid up in the Garner blow the wind as it will So we may say to such râ—ilers yea if the adversarie would write not only pasquils but a book of this kind we may bind it to our shoulders and wear it as our crown For the Lord will in due time wipe of the rebuke of his people Is 25. 8 which they bear for his Name That saying of Bernard is sweet Cimbae me comitto in tanto discrimine confidens in Domine qui pro illo recte lâ—quentibus pro illo laborautibus dicit Adsum 〈◊〉 run the reaâ—k trusting in the Lord who hath promised presence to all who speak and act rightlie for him And heroickly Luther to the same purpose if truth be on my side quidni pro viribus agam why should â—â—ot do my uttermost sim homicida sim adulter â—â—â—do silentii non arguar dum Christus patitur Let them call me what they wil if I be not guilty of sinful silence when Christ suffereth in his truth It is a very smal matter upon this account to be judged of men 1. Cor. 4. 3. these things are light and heavy as we ordinarily take them If this strain of reproaching did siste at us it were not so much but they reproach the written word of GOD and sentence it boldly of imperfection contrar to Psalm 19. 7. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. and of obscuritie as if it were not a light and lantherue to our paths Psalm 119. 105. Yea they shamelesly averre that the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome is greater to us nor Scripture Is it not lamentable that men called Christians for pompous selfish interests should laboriously studie to cast aspersions upon the unâ—ported word of GOD and depretiate it so in the world May not this render Popery suspicious to any knowing man that the abettors thereof decline the written word of GOD to be the sole umpire of faith and manners and endeavour to discredit it before the Nations which is the touch-stone of truth and best fence we have against Satan and all his complices such non sunt audiendi saith holy Aug. Confes lib. 6. cap. 5. they should not in this be heard far less obeyed Their second device when they are pressed with the truth is to coin evil grounded distinctions and with this ley money to make merchandise of poor simple souls Needle headed men have strangely acted their inventions herein and cruÌ„bled Gospel truths thus that he is now thought the best and most learned Papist who can findout subtile subterfugies and receptacles against plain Scripture verities So that the Romanists are the great foxes which eat up the tender vines Other Sectaries who separat themselves from the Church builded on the foundation Eph. 2. 20. and deface the doctrine which is according to Godliness are of lesser magnitude That ye may know what sort of proppes uphold their rotten building take these five instances First When we prove that the Scripture is the rule of faith this they grant in part but say they it is a partial not the total rule they must sowder somewhat of their own tradition to it erre they acknowledge it for a rule This is a reasonless shift If the rule be not total and perfect in its own kinde for its own ends it is no rule at all but a semi-rule regula nec appositionem nec ablationem admittit saith Theophilact on the 3. chap. to the Philip. Nothing can be added to or taken from a rule the law of nature the law of reason are sufficient for their own ends so is the written word of GOD for salvation When we say Secondly that the word of GOD cannot have authority from men therefore the Scripture is judge of the Church and not the Church of the Scripture They answer by a leaden distinction that it hath authority from the Church in respect of us but not in respect of it self This is a reasonless evasion for all authority is an act quoad extra and relative to us The Scriptures have excellency and dignity internal but all its authority is external and relative to men So that distinction is null If the Scripture hath its authority from the testimony of their Church then their faith must be ultimatly resolved into their Church testimony as more authoritative nor the word of GOD. Propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale Therefore Popish faith by this maxime is not divine but ecclesiastick and humane Now the Church and faith of Believers should be builded immediatly upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Eph. 2. 20. Therefore the Pope with his traditions cannot found the Church nor the faith of Christians other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid 1. Cor. 3. 11. To this they returne a distinction that Iesus Christ is the principal and the Pope the secondary foundation seeing it was said to Peter upon this rock I will build my Church This subterfuge in like the rest if this was said to Peter personally as Tertul. de praescrip thinketh then not to his successours suppose the Pope were the man a personal individual prerogative is incoÌ„municable If it was not personal but to him and his successours then if the Apostle Paul were living the Pope behoved to be above him in dignity and Church prerogative by reason Peter was above him and he succeedeth to his superioritie This to any discerner may appear absurd Beside the Church is builded on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. then not upon one Apostle take the words as ye will The true meaning of these words upon this rock I will build my Church is this the confession of Peter concerning Iesus Church the Son of the living GOD was a â—ock on which the Church was builded This interpretation is authorized by Augustin who interpreteth the words thus Tract ult in Iohan. serm 13. de verbis Apost he giveth also strong reason for it lib. 1. retract cap. 21. non enim dictum est Petro tu es petra sed tu es Petrus which reason Valentia challengeth in vain disp 1. to 3. quaest 1. punc 7. Further there câ—nnot be two foundations if we speak properly If no man can lay another as the Scripture speaketh why should it be asserted Christ Iesus alone set forth in the doctrine of Prophets and Apostles is that solid foundation on which we build all our salvation he is that sure foundation laid in Zion and no wayes can this without blasphemie be applyed to the Pope seeing the Apostle Peter maketh application of it to Christ only 1. Peter 2. 6. Thirdly When we
directly answered by me whither on man or many should be judge of controversies To this he saith I dare not answer because I will not grant the power either to the high Bishop or general council nevertheless he findeth this to have been the constant practise of the Church both in the Old and New Testament established by the express word of God and received by the Fathers in all ages for in the Old Testament from Deut. 17. from 8. to 13. we read that GOD did command the people in matters of controversie to go to the Priests Levits and judge who should be in those days appointed by him for that end saying and thou shalt do according to the sense of the law which they shal teach thee and according to the judgement which they shal tell thee Remark he saith not according to the sense of the law which thou shalt read but which they shal teach thee not taken according to the privat judgement and spirit but according to the judgmeÌ„t which they shal tel thee where God promiseth out of their mouth judicii veritateÌ„ truth and verity in judgement or as you turn it sentence of judgement See for this also 2. Chr. 19. 8. where Jehosophat established what was first instituted Viz. a council of Levits Priests and chief fathers of Israel to judge not only between brethren and brethren blood and blood but also betwixt law and coÌ„mandments statutes and judgements Not leaving law and commandments to the peoples privat reading and interpretation as you do in your rule of faith In the 11. verse he concludeth thus Amaziah is over you in all matters of the Lord where it is evident that the council and chief Priest is established judge of controversie and not the written Word as every one readeth and expoundeth In the New Testament again you have this practise clearly set down Acts. 15. Where Paul and Barnabas though Apostles themselves go up to Jerusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentiles converted to the faith And there was holden the first council in which this is decided not out of Scripture but by the authority of the Council it self It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us said they having the assured promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost as the Church hath at all time Wherefore after the Apostles councils have decided with the same authority and upon the same infallible ground of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to the Church Many controversies are acknowledged by Protestants for points of faith without express passage of Scripture Marcion teaching that Baptism should be conferred more then once and Donatists that Baptism conferred by Hereticks should be reiterated as invalid are condemned in the council holden at Rome under Melchiadâ—s Pope in the year 313. now what passage of Scripture I pray you is for this Sâ—bellius putting one person only in the God-head is câ—ndemned in the council of Alexandria under Pope Cornelius in the year 319. but scripture maketh no mention of persons Nestorius putting two persons in Christ is condemned in the Generall Council holden at Ephesus under Pope Caelestin the year 434. Yet neither doth the Scripture speak of thâ—â— The Monotheliâ—s giving to Christ one will in two Natures are condemned in the third general Câ—uncil holden at Constantinople under Pope Agathon the year 679. albeit there be no formal scripture for this So you see it belongeth both in the Old and New Testament to the high Priest and general Council to decide controversie either by Scripture if there be any passage clear for that point or without Scripture by Apostolick tradition conserved in the Church which scripture it self warranteth 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold fast the traditions which ye have learned either by word or our epistle but it seemeth you care not who be condemned or by whom if you take away all power on earth to condemne your selves Every Protestant will be condemned by none but Scripture and yet will make none judge of the Canon Version and sense of Scripture but himself All your answer is that we grant the Promulgation of the law to the pure Gospel Church but you shew not what is this pure Gospel Church neither can you infallibly prove the purity of the Gospel it self or that there is a Gospel or the true sense of the Gospel but by the Catholick Church her authority Hear Aug. contta Ep. fund cap. 5. Where he saith I my self would not have believed the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moved me to it Now the Catholick Church is that whose faith is spread through all the world in the Apostle Paul his time which maketh her to be justlie called the Catholick Roman Church and whose faith hath been in all ages since Christ which all the records of the Protestant writters witness of the Roman Church wherein the succession of Popes Bishops Councils is made conspicuous to all who have written Chronology or Church history in every age none whereof make mention of your Church or of men professing your tenets before Luther and Calvin from whom ye dissent in many things Answer first This is a prolix reply the Pro. Du. 1 substance of which might have been taken up in seven or eight lines As it is spacious so it is an impertinent rapsodie and like a beggers cloak clouted here and there with divers parcells without any method or cohesion It seemeth to have been taken out of some Index and cast in here to fill the page For the answer was That the promulgation of the law is not denyed to the pure Gospell-Church which is not the Roman-Church for it is impure Is not this a direct answer You prove that there hath been a Ministerial-Church in the old and new Testament which we doe not deny but this is the point did they so pronounce sentence and decide Controversies that all discretive judgement was taken from people or called they themselves infallible whether they had scripture warrand or not Or wil the promise of presence to the Apostles Prophets and penners of Scripture in measure and duration agree to any Church Officers now on Earth Or should promises made to the universal-Universal-Church agree to any particular Church such as Rome Or will promises made to the collective body of the Church agree to the representative unless these be proved you fight with your own shadow For we are much for the authority of Christs Church and think that her judgment of old and late should sway privat men unless they can prove by scripture or sound reason that she erreth We are much for the authority of all lawful Councils and we give them all reverence in regard of the authority of their constitution but if they depart from the scriptures we owe them not active obedience Well speaketh our learned Camero tom 1. tract de infallibilitate ecclesiae So oft as any thing is decreed by a Council or assembly of men appointed by lawfull autharity
to baptize Canon 100. ye allow it The Sacrament was administred in the primitive Church to all present and they who did not partake were appointed to remove Ite missa est exite foras qui non vultis accipere Sacramentum i. e. Go it is closed go forth ye that will not receive the Sacrament Now the words are muttered and administred before all They took with their hand and the bread was broken of old Now it is not for ye make whole wasers and put them into their mouth For fourthteen hundred years the Church appointed the Sacrament to be administred by bread and wine to the people all Christians of whatever judgement except Papists do so communicat as yet Petau de poenit pub lib. 2. sheweth that it cannot be denyed nisi ab homine insigniter supra omnem modum vel impudenti vel imperito i. e. Except by a man remarkably and above all measure either impudent or unskilful that this was the primitive practise yet the Council of Constance hoc non obstante and the Council of Trent decree the contrar The primitive Church heard nothing of the Popes universal supremacie or infallibility which now by you iâ— made Summa rei See Cyprian ep 55. â—â— Cornelius Bishop of Rome and how he stileth him fâ—ater c. and he saith that they were formerly chosen to officiat Non sine consensu plebis not without the Popes consent ep 68. Ipsa plebs habet potestatem c. Is not this far from your imperious pompous way of Monarchy how then can you so boldly averre that ye have the unanimous consent of Councills and fathers for you when indeed ye do not regard them so much as we Hear your own Cornelius Mus †See Dâ—lleus ubi supra ep Biâ—ont in ep ad Rom. cap 14. Ego ut ingenue fâ—teâ—r plus uni summo pontisici crederem in his quae fidei misteria tangunt quam mâ—lle Hieronymis Augustinis Gregoriis Credo enim scio quod summus Pontifex in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest quia auctoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontisice residet i. e. That I may ingenuously confesse I would give more credit to one Pope in tâ—e things which belong to the misteries of truth then to a thousand such as Augustin Jerom or Gregory For I know certainly that the Pope cannot erre in these things that belong to faith because the authority of determining matters of saith resideth in the Pope yet ignorant people are made to believe that Papists have the consent and practise of the primitive Church along with them and Melchior Canus lâ—c Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 10. Sequi majores nostros per omnia in illorum vestigiis pedes nostros figere ut pueri faciunt per lusum nihil aliud est quam ingenia nostra dâ—mnare judicio nos privare nostro facultate inquirendae veritatis i. e. to follow our ancestors in all things and to â—race their footsteps and fixe in them as children use to do in play is no other thing but to condemn our own wit and to deprive our selves of our own judgement and faculty of searching the truth Salmeron in cap. 5. epist ad Rom. disp 5. asserteth quo juniores eo perspicaciores sunt doctores and citeth Exod. 23. follow not the multitude viz. of ancients This is sufficient to prove that as the Papists are jealous of Scripture so are they of the Primitive Church her consent But it is alleadged that ye have the word of God for your warrand Matth. 16. 18. Matth. 18. 18. 1. Tim. 3. 15. To this I answere that the first Text is meaned of the collective body of the Church which fall not away this is clear from the context for it is the Church builded on that confession mentioned by the Apostles and an house so builded cannot fall because it is builded on a rock Matth. 7. 25. Yet it will not follow that there be no drops in it for particular beleevers cannot totally and finally fall away but that they are infallible who can say see Iohn 10. 28. and comyare it with 1. Cor. 13. 9. Iames 3. 2. beside your own writters interpret it so see Melchior Canus lib. 5. de loc Theol. cap. 5. and Panormitan on the place The second Text Mat. 18. is to be understood of a particular Church which you grant is not infallible so Chrysostom interpreteth the place and it is further clear from the Connexion for it is the Church to which appeals should be made in prima instantia this undoubtedly is a particular Church But admitting that it is meaned of the universal church your Pope nor your Church is not it The third Text 1. Tim. 3. 15. holdeth forth no more then what is granted in the answer to the fourth question or if you please to take learned Cameron his exposition who knitteth these words with the 16. verse you may do well But what ever be the priviledges of the true Gospel Church which is the Bride of Jesus Christ Rome hath forefaulted all these and is but a leprous part of the universal Church you grant that the church of Rome is but a particular church Why plead you then for the whole priviledges of the universal Church Is not this absurd arrogance Nor doth Calvin Hospinian Luther or White speak absolutly as ye alleadge but assert that the generality for a time was leavened by Popery which is truth But what then followeth That the mysterie of iniquity did arise by degrees and over-runne all for the most we grant so did the Arrian heresie therefore was not Athauasius and such as adbered to the truth right in their way The whole world in the Apostles time did ly in wickedness 1. Iohn 5. 19. Therefore were they not Sons of truth who endeavoured a Gospel reformation Your last hold is tradition and you say we are commanded to hold them 2. Thes 2. 15. for this you cite Aug. Cyprian St. Dennis Epiphanius To this I answer we are not against Apostolick traditions nor Church history in matters of fact We make use of traditions there mentioned But for your Legends we deny that they are such and disclaim them Have you Sir learned Logick Why do you argument so a genere ad speciem affirmative Is this a good argument Est annual ergo est homo he is a living creature therefore he is a man Can this be better there were traditions delivered to the Church of Thessalonica ergo yours are these Credat Judaeus Appella Secondly If there were unwritten traditions why do you dare to writ these things which the Apostles would not writ Thirdly Will that argue the Scripture of imperfection You may as well argue the Minister writteth a book the summe of which he hath preached to people Ergo his book is imperfect You have then to prove for your end that these traditions mentioned 2. Thess 2. 15. were
unlearned as well as the unstable wrest the scripture to their own destruction then Scripture can neither be the determiner of faith nor the judge of controversies to them and so they must have another both to instruct the ignorant and settle the unstable as we must all have some infallible judge to know who wrest the Scripture who not otherwise we may well agree in the letter but we will never agree in the sense and meaning thereof But as much say you as containeth the way to salvation is plain so that he may runne who readeth it Sir doth it not belong to salvation that there be three persons in God one in Christ that Baptism is a Sacrament c. Now where find you this in Scripture either running or siting Or if Scripture be so plaine clear as ye make it why be there so many Comments on it among your own men and so different Why is there amongst Protestants 200. expositions upon these four words This is my Body As Cusaâ—us in his holy court observeth Answer first I am glade that the written Pro. An. 1 word of GOD pleaseth you so who have all this time spent words to throw all power out of its hand and hang it at the Popes foot But you say it refuteth what was said formerly This cannot be made good for still I said it was the rule of faith to right discerners and sometime you grant this as in the latter part of your fifth Reason whereby indeed you refute all you have said and yeelds the cause fully Now what contradiction can be here The scripture is the rule to all right discerners and as many as walk according to this rule peace shal be on them but men who wrest the word unlearned unstable soules fall into perdiâ—ion for abuse of the word and destroy themselves hence proceedeth many controversies Is it not a strange consequence to inferre thence that these unlearned unstable soules should have another rule and another judge In the 19. of Luke v. 27. it is said by our Lord that his enemies who would not have him to reign over them should be brought forth and slain before him will it therefore follow that he should not reign over them Or that they Jure should have another King The case is just alike here It is granted that many have their consciences seared 1. Tim. 4. 2. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3. 8. self-condemned Tit. 3. 11. under stronge delusions 2. Thess 2. 11. Is the Scripture to blame for this You have many faults to that which you like not Hear Optatus Milevitanus adversus Paliner Donatistam Vos dicitis licet nos non licet inter licet vestrum non licet nostrum nutant animi populorum If you seek a judge saith he a Pagan cannot do it nor a Jew they are enemies Christians by their discerning faculty cannot they being impeded studio partium Then upon earth there can be no judge shal we go to Heaven for one Quorsum cum hic habemus iâ— Evangelio testamentum i. e. To what purpâ—se seeing we have the Testament here in the Gospel If there be a contention among brethren saith he quaritur Testamentum the Testament is sought So we must decide our controversies by the Old and New Testament etenim praesentia quae modo facitis futura conspexerat Christus i. e. For Christ did foresee these things as future which ye make to be now present and hath he foreseen it and will he not provide a remedie for it Secondly These unlearned unstable ones Pro. An. 2 who are to be destroyed will not hear understand nor obey his word then is it like that they will understand the voluminous decrees of the Pope May they not wrest his sentence and sense more easily then Scripture words Or dare any say that humane ordinanceâ— will sooner compesâ—e command or regulat them then the word of GOD Thirdly We do not deny Mâ—nisterial Pro. An 3 helps for instructing and seâ—ling the ignorant and unstable nor judicial sentences subaltern and subordinat â—o the law But that there is an infallible man 〈◊〉 to whose sentence I must implicitly submiâ—â—â— is â—â—â—culous to averie it and the broaching of that errour hath occasioned more controversies then were formerly in the Church so far is it from composing differences If ye were more in catechising the unlearned and leâ—s in regal commands the law of GOD would be both better understood and obeyed Fourthly Albeit some places be hard to Pro. An. 4 be understood by the unlearned 1. Pet. 3. 16. other places are not so difficult In the scripture an Elephant may swime and a Lamb may wade And the same particulars you again object are clearly holden forth in scripture as is formerly proved in the vindication of my answer to your 1. Qu. in answer to Rea. 2. Yea the way to salvation is fair and patent there and if we perish our destruction is of our selves seeing that book is not sealed to us Commentaries Church-canons Ecclesiastick sentences are helps and means for edification but scripture is the authentick instrument and all the authority is originally from it And different expositions according to the analogy of faith may be and will be so long as there be diversity of gifts But I ask why ye make use of Commentars Seeing ye resolve all into the sentence of the Pope And why do your Commentators differ so amongst themselves If this hinder not your Ecclesiastick supremacie why should it be brought to weaken scripture authority It is hard to find where you are for sometimes ye would have a judge to authorize scripture to you sometimes you would have only one for the sense of scripture then at last you are for one only to the unlearned and unstable such is your instability in this matter that I wish the word of God may determine you aright in the point Question fourth Were it not better to establish Pa. Qu. 4 a man or an assembly of men judge of Controveâ—sies seeing the Church is the pillar of truth 1. Tim 3. 15. aâ—d hath the promise of presence Matth. 28. 20. then th◠〈◊〉 Sect should be laying claim to the Scripture and yet taking sundry wayes Answer The promulgation of the law is Pro. An. not denyed to the pure Gospel Church truth is mantained and preserved there as the law was keeped in the Ark thus it is called the pillar of it But the Church of Rome is not such being a very strumpet and making the Kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications Rev. 17. 2. thaâ— promise of presence is made to the universal Church but no particular Church such as Rome can claim the measure or duration of it who of these can say that they shal last to the end of the world Albeit Sects lay claim to Scripture yet their abuse cannot take away our lawful use of it To this a Papist replyeth That the question Pap. Reply is not
pretended right so in the matter of doctrine an invisible Church and no Church is the same For if I cannot see nor know the Elect as being invisible to the eye of man so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speaketh to me or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible more then that he is one of the Elect. Answer I am weary transseribing a number Protest Duply of wordâ— without weight that is a compleet rapsodie and no return to the former question If such digressions were heard in the School the Writter behoved to be sore censured The question was how the Scripture could be the square Seeing all agree not about the number of the books some cast at the Epistle of James as the Lutherans And the answer I gave was that although some Lutherans differre from us about the authority of that epistle yet we both agree here that uncontroverted scripture is the determiner And for the numerick question it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first querie so we needed not this tauâ—oligie to make the Reader nauseat If I had to do with a Lutheran then I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle but you do not deny it therefore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you Mr. Hooker whom you cite maketh nothing against us as is alledged for that which he sayes is first that the light of reason rightly managed is a requâ—sit mean for the knowledge of scripture books and what sayeth that against us seeing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be â—ational men that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture Secondly Mr. Hooker directly disclaimeth your traditions page 86. and affirmeth that they who betake themselves to that testimonie as divine have not the truth but are in an errour Thus he condemneth you as erronious so it had been your advantage to have spared this tradition neither was it needful to tell us that the Manichees denyed Moses and the Jews the New Testament We have to do with Papists who hold all the books of the Old and New Testament which we hold for Canonick At lest what some others make disputable as Melchior Canus telleth us you put it out of dispute so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us seeing ye question none which we mantaine albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writtings which ye put into the Canon Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontroverted Scriptures then by the dictats of mutable self-contradicting Popes When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted Believers have continued orthodoxe as in the time of the Arrian persecution The Fathers who lived the first 300. year believed without either Pope or General Council as propounders of their faith For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy They had no infallible testimony from the Church they acknowledged not her testimony to be such And for ought I can learn theâ—e be no testimony of your Church nor statute enacting her testimony to be infallible If so it is nor according to you de fide however ye make a great noise amongst people with it And if all the faith you have depend upon the testimony of the present Church which is your doctrine your faith is not one with Abrahams faith for the word of God did beget his faith but it is the testimony statute of the Trent Council that begettâ—th yours and I would gladly hear from you whither there was universal consent there or not Such clashing and pocket orders as the author of that history telleth to the world will not permit you to say without a blush that the Council was unanimous and Gospel-like in their way Therefore unless it be against us all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuffe like the Delphian responses this is purposely coÌ„trived to cover debates with general termes And if their testimony make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief if you say that the testimonie of the ancient Church was their rule then ye go contrar to your own Doctors who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former councils and their authority dependeth on her testimony See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp 1. quest 1. Further that the supream power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope that he is above a general Council that he cannot be subject to it See Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. Valentia tom 3. disp 1. Suarez disp 5. de fide and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins 20. book de civit Dei cap. 26. telleth us how little ye make of Councils or of the ancient Church when they militat against you Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in textrina aut thermis i. e. These appear to be Councils to them which make for them the rest are no more esteemed by them then the sables of old women in the weavers shop or sloves Brisâ—â—erius writting against Collag a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dalleus †See Dâ—lleus de usu Patrum saith Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia i. e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church This appeareth to be true from experience for ye agree not with the primitive either in doctrine worship or government The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church See Epiph. epist ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum vidissem Imaginem penderâ— in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae i. e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches and that debitus honor reverentia Sess 25. eis impertiatur i. e. Due honor and worship be given to them The Fathers thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin so saith Ambrose Augustin Chrysostom as Melchior Canus de loc Theol. lib. 7. telleth The Council of Trent Sess 5. will not conclude heâ— under Original sin The Fathers excluded Tobias Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and both the books of the Maccabees out of the canon of Scripture So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis Epiph. lib. de Pond mens cap. 2. pag. 162. Gregorie Nazianzen câ—rm 3. Athanasius epist fest But the Council of Trent anathematizeth them who exclude these books out of the Canon Sess 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church it is not so with you The 4. Council of Carthage did forbide women
any other Papist Reply Reply In your twelfth Sect you make us teach that lawful Magistrats may be deposed by the Pope and that we canonize such Where citing Rom. 13. and 1. Pet. 2. you sight with your own shaddow and make up tenets contrar to Scripture which Catholick detest and abhorre But this is proper to Heresie and particularly yours to cause rebellin from lawful Princes and Magistrats as it did every where even in its first beginning witness the revolting of the Princes of Germany against the Emperour The bloody warre of the subjects in France 20. years against their King Holland against Spain to this day the Suitzers amongst themselves SCOTLAND first against Queen Mary and then our late gracious King Nevertheless Ministers are so bold as to speak this who can neither be subject to Kings Magistrats nor Bishops if they oppose their whimsyes in the least Every one of them taking greater power to himself then Catholicks gives to St. Peter Duply Any one may here perceive a Prote ∣ stants Answer studied shift by way of recrimination Because ye date not declare your selves herein And do you indeed detest the Doctrine of the whole Canonists the whole Jesuits that the Pope may depose a lawful King If it be so I am glade you renounce this point of Poperie But because you say I fight with my own shaddow herein to shew how ignorant and impudent you are in this denyal Let any read either the bull of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth the Emperor or of Sixtus the 5 against Henry the third King of France or of Pius the fifth against Elizabeth Queen of England and there ye will find this tennor Nos in supremo justitia throne collocati supremam in omnes Reges Principes Terrae universae cunctosque populos gentes Nationes non humana sed divina institutione obtinentes nobis traditam potestatem declaramus praecipimus jubemâ—s c. Viz. That none of their subjects should owne oâ— acknowledge them For your better information in this particular know that the power of the Pope in this particular is one way explained by the Canonists and another way by the Jesuits For the Canonists say that the Pope hath jura omnia caelestis terrestris imperii sibi à Deo concessa The Jesuits that Pontifex ut Pontifex non habet directe ullum temporalem potestatâ—m sed solum spiritualem tamen indirecte ratione spiritualis habet potestatem quandam eaâ—â—que summam disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum See more of this in Dr. Barclay de potestate Papae in Principes Christianos They hold it beyond doubt that in ordine ad spiritualia which is a broad charter the Pope may depose any King and loose their subjects from all allegiance to him cum subest causa rationalis †Anno 1654. When it was Printed at Naples by authority that the Pope should not exercise jurisdiction civil in the territories of Spain without the Kings leave this was condemned at Rome by Innocent the tenth Secondly They hold that Bishops may omnem moverâ— lapâ—dem and that is a broad word ne degant sub Haeretico Principe Baron anno 438. Sect. 89. Thirdly When the knowledge of the fault is evident Subjects may lawfully if they have sufficient strength exeem themselves from subjection to their Prince Baniâ—s on Thomas quastion 12. and that ante judicis sententiam declaratoriam Lastly Privat persons may kill an Heretical King after sentence is given against him Suarez defens fidei Cathol lib. 6. cap. 4. only their tenderness appeareth in this that the King be not constrained wittingly or willinglie to be the cause of his own death the sense is thiâ— if you can poyson him by his gloves garment or saddle you may do it But by meat or drink you may not for then he taketh his own poyson So John Mariana de Reg. instit lib. 1. cap. 7. Is it not then true that by principles of doctrine no Papist adhering to the Pope can be a loyal subject to the King As for our Reformations ye look on all such with an evil eye But our doctrine in the reformed Church concerning the Magistrat is such that no Christians on earth give him more then we do Witness out Confession of Faith to which we will adhere while we live what ever the scripture and pure antiquitie giveth to Kings that we willingly tender for conscience sake All sound Protestants do abhorre and detest the murther of our late Soveraign Lord the King and we in this Nation did protest and declare against it for which our Commissioners were committed close prisoners and sent with a guard to the border As for the Reformation abroad I desire that famous Mr. Baxter his Key for Catholicks and disswasive from Popery may be read by you who hath written so well on this point that I hope all men satissiable may be satisfied with his reasons which I need not here transcribe See also the testimonie of the Ministers at London against that horride murther to which testimonie we do still adhere and then adbered But Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione c. †See Bilson of Subjection page 382. Doth not your great Cardinal Allen write an Apologie for Stanles treason against Queen Elizabeth Doth not Bellarmin shew lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 8. in how many respects Kings may be deposed by their subjects Did not Pope Sixtus the fifth make an Oration at Rome in commendation of the Friar who murthered Henry the third King of France Was not Tyrones treason commenced and commended by your Party who then did take on the coâ—â— of Armes and sound the trumpet of rebellion When the Popes Bull roared in England against Queen Elizabeth how many treasons were hatched and evil humours bred in the people Thirteenthly Ye say we are justified partlie by faith partlie by workes but the § 13. Inst Scripture saith that we are justified by faith without the works of the law and that the man is justified to whom the Lord imputeth faith without workes Rom. 4. 6. and that we are saved by grace through faith not of workes lest any man should boast Neither can any good workes be wrought by us till we be justified and sanctified how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit Nor can we understand any good work which the law doth not require seeing it was tendered under the Covenant of grace Beside our best worksare leavened with many imperfections and debt for the present so these cannot absolve us for bygones or the time to come And whereas the Apostle James chapter 2. speaketh of Justification by workes his purpose there is onlie to declare what justifieth faith Now justifying faith must be a lively working faith and if it be dead it availeth not and if he hint at personal justification which verse 29. implyeth it is before men and that before the Tribunal of GOD there
as appeareth from Aug. contra Cresconium lâ—b 2. cap. 3. and ep 48. This was one of the weapons whereby they did bâ—at the Donatists Answer The ground of separation of the Donatists was the personall vices of men Prote ∣ stants Answer not the doctrine professed in the Church For in that they agreed with the universall Church as is clear from the above mentioned ep Now we did not separat from Rome because their Popes whom they take for a patron have been Atheists Hereticks denyers of the soules immortalitie Whore mongers c. as their own writters confess in the lives of Silvester 2. Alexander 6. Iohn 22. and many moe but because ye apostatized from the Apostles doctrine and corrupted the worship miserably so these testimonies concern not us Secondly If interrupted succession make void the Ministry ye Papists have none at Ans 2. all For ye often had Anti-Popes and the Councill at Pisa deposed two Popes at once as Hereticks departing from the faith The Councill of Constance deposed Iohn 23. for denying the immortality of the soul and the resurrection Behold then your succession and the infallibility of your Popes Eugenius the fourth was deposed by the Council of Basil and all the following Popes were his successours albeit the Council judged Faelix the fifth to be Pope Yea further this place hath vaiked for many years together so that a line of immediat successours cannot be drawn by your selves Thirdly We have a lawful Ministry as Ans 3. powerful as the world affordeth honoured by the blessing of the Lord by begetting souls to himself and many can from their experience say that it hath been the power of GOD to their salvation how then can you challenge our Ministry Is not this near of kine to that old Anti-Christian question proponed to our Master by what authority dost thou these things And if personal succession had such weight as you say the Priesthood under the law had been at a great loss For the line of it was interrupted oftner then once before the coming of Christ yet he commendeth submission and obedience to them so long as they did sit in Moses chair and no further Matth. 23. 1. So that in Ministers it is the Doctrine and not the Genealogy of persons that is so much regarded Reply In your eleventh Answer you grant personal vices are not a sufficient ground Papists Reply of sepaâ—ation from the Church and say that Protestants did only separat themselves from the worship miserablie polluted and because the Roman Church had Apostatized from the Apostolick Doctrine But Sir let me ask you when the Catholick Roman Church which before your Reformation at least was a true Church Apostatized And who was a competent judge to declare her Apostacie and give you leave to separat Was â—t Scripture as according to your first rule you must say Then I ask if two or three under pretence of a Reformation may adhere to what they think to be in Scripture against the judgement of the whole Church at that time Which â—ssuredly all must grant who teach that the true Church may erre and so give the same libertie to all Sectaries which they take so boldly to themselves But albeit you say your separation was not from our personal vyces yet you impute in the by going heresie denying of the souls immortalitie whoredom to two or three of our Popes Silvester the second Alexander the sixth John the twenty two How justly we shal presently see But however this were true it could no more wrong the Popes authority in his Canonical decrees then Davids adultery or Solomons Idolatrie in penning Scripture Neither is it a great wonder that amongst 240. Popes there have been two or three evil Since even amongst twelve Apostles there was one Judas Nor do Catholicks canonize all their Popes although for these three whom ye name wicked they have 33. most famous Martyrs and Saints What ever they teach as privat doctors as it mâ—keth no law in the Church so it cannot derogat in the least to their decision and doctrine as Popes But to answer for these three what Martinus Polemius and the Magdeburgh say against Silvester the second as a Magician is known by all the learned to be meer fables imputed to him for his eminent knowledge and learning in the Mathematicks which made the ninth Age wherein he lived to call him a Magician because of its gross ignorance Alexander the sixth is also blamed for lewdness by no impartial writter And what Calvin saith lib. 4. instir against John 22. is known to be errour and lies speaking of him as Pope whatever was his opinion as a privat Doctor of the soul before the day of judgement which he disclaimed to be his at his death professing and protesting that he had never any belief but that of the Catholick Church saith John Williams lib. 11. hist cap. 19. But Hereticks speak of Popes as Rebels of Kings discontented subjects of Ministers of state and criminals of their lawful judges which no wise man will much regard Then to shew that we have not an uninterrupted succession you speak first of Anti-Popes as if they did interrupt the succession of Popes more then Usurpers the succession of Kings Secondly Of Popes deposed by Councils but you cannot instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by any general Council what ever Thirdly You say the See of Rome hath vaiked for many years To which I answer as Kings die not so neither Popes as it doth not interrupt the succession of Elective Kings that after the death of one there be long debate before the Election of another the royal power then residing in the Electours so neither interrupteth it the succession of Popes and their Election You speak nothing of your own succession because ye have none You bragge much of a powerful Ministrie but shews no call you had to the Ministrie from GOD nor his Church so we had good reason to challenge it albeit you call this an Anti-Christian question to ask at new upstarts who pretend to reforme the Church who gave you a call because the Jews had such a question to Christ But Christ John 15. 24. saith if he had not shewed himself to be the Son of GOD by his words and works which none else could do no man had been obliedged to belive him Yet ye will have us to believe you are lawful Ministers without succession or a call and that Luther and Calvin were extraordinarily sealed for Reformation without the least sign mark or miracle shewing that they were sent for that end So that in Ministers you conclude it is the Doctrine more then the Genealogie of persons which is so much regarded As if preaching of true doctrine were sufficiant to make a man a Minister without any ordination or call the Scripture expresseth another thing saying how shal they preach except they be sent And as to seek true successsion of Bishops and Pastours in