shall be excommunicated as an Heretick as Gods Law hath told us who in specie and so is the Rule of decision about individuals so to try individual persons and cases according to this Law belongs to the Governours of the Church but not to the Governours of other Churches a thousand miles off that never received such an authority and are not capable of the work but to the Governours of the Church in which the party hath Communion and into which he shall at any time intrude and seek communion And all men have a Judgement of discerning that are concerned in the Execution So that if a disputing Papist will say that his business is not to Dispute with you but to Excommunicate or hang or burn you for an Heretick then I confess it s all the reason in the world that you should first agree of the Judge But why the Pope should be the Judge I know not unless it be in his own charge CHAP. XIV Detect 5. VVHen you have proceeded on these grounds the Papists will tell you that in their way there is an End of Controversies but in yours there is none For if you will not stand to ones Judgement as infallible you may dispute as long as you live before you come to an End To direct you in discussing this part of the Deceit also 1. We confess that on earth there will be no End of all controversies among the best nor of the great controversies which salvation lyeth on between the believers and the unbelievers that is there will be still Infidelity and Heresie in the world and errour in the godly themselves 1. Hath it not been so in every age till now And why should we expect that it should now be otherwise 2. Doth not Paul tell us that here we know but in part and prophesie in part and when is it that that which is imperfect will be done away but when that which is perfect is come While we know but in part we shall differ in part 2. Hath your way put an End to controversies any more then ours Are you not yet at controversie with Infidels Whether Christ be the Redeemer and with Hereticks whether he be true eternall God Are you not yet as full of controversies among your selves as any Christians on the face of the earth I do not believe but in the many Volumes of your Schoolmen Casuists and Commentators I can shew more controversies yet depending then you can find amongst any sort of Christians in the world yea then you can find among all other Christians in the world set together 3. And is there any thing in your way that better tendeth to the deciding of controversies then in ours Nothing at all but contrarily you have made more Controversies then you have ended For 1. We have a Certain infallible Rule to decide our controversies by even such as you confess your selves to be infallible Even the Holy Scriptures but you have an uncertain Rule even the Decrees of your Popes and Councils and the many Volumes of the Fathers which are at odds among themselves your very Rule is self-contradicting and your Judges are together by the ears as hath been shewed 2. Our Faith consisteth in those points which are granted by your selves and so are beyond Controversie between us and you But yours lyeth also in a mixture of mens corruptions which will ever be controverted and condemned 3. Our Faith consisteth in the few ancient Articles by which the Church was alwayes known as to its essentials But you confound the Essentials with the integrals and the Number of your necessary Articles is so great as must needs be matter of more controversie then ours 4. We know our Religion and where to find it For it is perfect at the first and receiveth no additions or diminutions One generation cometh and another goeth but the word of the Lord endureth for ever But you never know when you have all because you know not when your Pope will have done defining that is an article of faith to you one year that was none the year before nor ever before 5. We need no Judge to decide any controversies among us in the points of Absolute necessity to salvation both because the Scripture is so plain in those points as to serve for decision without a Judge and because we abhor to make a controversie of any of them and where there is no controversie there needs no Judge We are all agreed through the plainness of the Scripture that there is but one Eternal most Wise and Good and Omnipotent God and that there is one Mediator between God and man who is himself both God and man that was crucified dead buried went to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rose again ascended intercedeth for us and is King and Head of the Church and will raise the dead and judge the world some to Heaven and some to Hell These and all the rest of the Essentials of our faith and many more points that are not essentials are so plain in Scripture that we are past making them matter of Controversie If any man deny an Essential point of faith he is none of us no more then of you But you are it seems so deep in infidelity that you must have a judge to decide your Controversies in the necessary Articles of Faith For whatever is de fide you make to be of such equal necessity that you deride our distinguishing the Fundamentals from the rest as may be seen in Knots Infidelity unmaskt against Chillingworth Seriously tell us Do you think Christians need a Judge or must put it to a Judge to decide whether Christ be the Messias or not whether he died and rose again or not Whether he will judge the world or not or any such points If he be a Judge he must have power to oblige you to stand to his Determination on which side soever he determine And what if John 22. determine that the soul is not immortal or John 23. that there is no resurrection or life to come but a man dieth like a beast would you stand to this decision 6. If you say that your Judge hath power to oblige you only on one side that is when he judgeth right and so make no Judge of him but a Teacher we have such Judges as well as you even Teachers to shew us the Evidence of truth 7. If you say that you have a Judge to determine of heresies in order to the Punishing of them by the sword So have we as well as you and better then you For your Pope is a Priest that hath nothing to do with the sword at least out of his own Principalities but our Princes and other Rulers are lawful Magistrates that are appointed to be a terror to evill doers Rom. 13. 4 6. 8. If you say that you have a Judge to determine of heresie in Order to Excommunication so have we in every Church even the Pastors of the Churches who are
at Anatolius his rising and the equaling him with Rome but they never excepted one word that ever I found against the saying that it was because of the Empire that Rome by the Fathers had the Primacy given it And the Reason given by themselves Concil Constant Can. 5. is because Constantinople is new Rome But Binnius saith that Rome receiveth not the Canons of this Council neither but only their condemnation of Macedonius And he saith that every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolick seat bestoweth on it For saith he unless this be admitted no reason can be given why some Councils of greater numbers of Bishops were reprobated and others of a smaller number confirmed Bin. Vol. 2. p. 515. What would you have more Sirs Do you not see yet what the Popish Catholick Church is and what they mean when they mouth it out to you and ask you whether your private Judgement be safer or wiser then that of the whole Church or of all the Christian world You see they mean all this while but one man whom Gretser and others plainly confess they call the Church So that indeed it is General Councils and all the Christian world or Church that are the ignorant fallible and oft erring part and it is one man that sometime is reputed an incarnate Devil by a General Council too that is the unerring Pillar of the Church and wiser then all they Do you not see that they make a meer nothing or mockery of General Councils any further then they please the Pope And can you expect that any thing should please them that is against his Greatness or as Julius the second calls it his holding the place of the great God the Maker of all things and all Laws What a vile abuse is it then of the Pope to trouble the world by the meetings and Consultations of General Councils when he can sit at Rome and contradict them infallibly and Good man is fain to save the Catholick Church from the Errors that General Councils the Representative Catholick Church would else lead them into and therefore could he not with less ado infallibly make us Laws Canons and Scriptures without them For sure that which the Pope can do against a General Council he can do without them If he can Infallibly contradict a General Council and Infallibly Rule us contrary to their Judgement he may no doubt Infallibly Rule us without them And therefore of late times they have learnt so much wit that you may look long enough before you see a General Council And I think the Council of Constance were no better Prognosticators then William Lilly nor no more effectuall Lawgivers then Wat Tyler when they Prognosticated or Ordained Decennial Councils And I will be judged by all the world And here also you may see what account the Papists make even of the first General Councils It s all one with them to judge others Hereticks for contradicting especially the four first General Councils compared to the four Evangelists as the Scripture it self and yet who would have thought it they profess themselves to reject the Canons or Decrees of both these the first of Constantinople and that of Calcedon in part And now I think on it by this priviledge I cannot see but the Pope is priviledged from all possibility of being an Heretick personally But these things are on the by I return to the point in hand which is to prove to you that not only the Romish Universal Monarchy and Vice-godhead but even its Patriarchal Primacy was no Apostolical Tradition but an Humane Institution founded on this Consideration that Rome was the Imperial Seat and City 5. And Humane it must needs be 1. For we find that Councils did not declare it as any part of the Law of God but Ordain it as an act of their own 2. We find them adding the Patriarchate of Constantinople which was a new seat neither Patriarch nor Bishop residing there in the Apostles dayes or long after 3. Yea we find them giving this new Patriarch the second place and once making him equal with old Rome which they would never have presumed to do if they had thought that the Patriarchship of Alexandria Antioch or Rome had been of Divine Institution for what horrible arrogancy would that have been when the Holy Ghost by the Apostles had made Alexandria second and Antioch third and Rome first for a Council to set Constantinople before two of them and equal with the first 6. And therefore we have reason to think that if Patriarchs be desirable creatures there may more and more new ones now be made as lawfully as Constantinople was 7. And we do not think that a General Council or Pope can make a man of one Nation to be Patriarch of the Church in another Nation that perhaps may be in wars with the Prince of the first Nation but that each Prince with the Church under their Power hath more to do in it then either Pope or Council And if Portugal and France set up Patriarchs at home they do as lawfully as the Patriarch of Constantinople was set up 8. And therefore we must needs judge that to disobey the Pope or withdraw from his subjection if he had never forfeited his Patriarchship by the claim of an Universal Headship were no greater a sin then to disobey or withdraw from the Patriarch of Alexandria Antioch or Constantinople either the Government by Patriarchs and Arch-bishops is of Gods ordaining and approving or not if not as most of the Protestants hold then it is no sin to reject any of them If it be of God then to reject any of them though in simple error is a sin of disobedience through ignorance but is far from proving a man to be no member of the Catholick Church for sure Patriarchs are far from being Essential parts of the Catholick Church For 9. We conclude as in the Papists own Judgement the Catholick Church may be without the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexandria or Antioch so may it therefore without the Pope of Rome CHAP. XX. Detect 11. THE great endeavour of the Papists is to advance Tradition The Council of Trent Ses 4. hath equalled it with the Scriptures as to the pious affection and reverence wherewith they receive it On pretence of this Tradition they have added abundance of new Articles to the faith and accuse us as Hereticks for not receiving their Traditions And this is a principall difference betwixt us that we take the Scriptures to be sufficient to acquaint us with the will of God as the Rule of faith and holy living and they take it to be but part of the word of God and that the other part is in unwritten Tradition which they equal with this as afore For the maintaining of Tradition it is that they write so much to the dishonour of the holy Scripture as you may find in Rushworths Dialogues and Tho. Whites Defence of them and
taken or catcht How think you now in the Judgement of Augustine and Gerson whether there have any Novelties been brought into the Church and whether all your Presumptions and burdens and as Gerson calls them halters for souls have come from the Apostles or are your own When all is thus overcome with Novelty do you make any question whether any thing be new It seems that Bernard thought that humane Traditions were too much befriended when he thus describeth the Assemblies that he approveth Epist 91. Such a Council do I delight in in which the Traditions of men are not obstinately defended or superstitiously observed but they do diligently and humbly enquire what is the good and well pleasing and perfect will of God And it seems to me that General Councils by error introduced Novelties when Later Councils were fain to undo what the former had done For so doth blessed Augustine profess they did saying De Baptis cont Donat. lib. 2. cap. 6. And Councils themselves that are gathered through several Regions or Provinces do without any scruple yield to the authority of more plenary Councils that are gathered out of the whole Christian world and those same plenary Councils do often yield or give place the former to the later when by some experiment of matters that which was shut is opened and that which lay hid is known Sure here are alterations made even by General Councils that correct one another And what should hinder the Introduction of Novelty when General Councils do so often err Nay if such Councils be Morally and Interpretatively the whole Church as the Papists say then the whole Church doth err in the reception of some Novelty before they declare it by their decrees If you say that General Councils cannot err nor introduce such Novelties your Champion Bellarmine and many of your own will give you the Lie saith he De Concil lib. 2. cap. 11. Neque potest c. It cannot be answered that those Councils erred because they were not lawfull that is the Arrian and other Heretical General Councils at that at Sirmium Millanie Ariminum Ephesus several at Constantinople dissallowed by the Papists For to most of them there was nothing wanting but the Popes assent Yea the second at Ephesus was altogether like that at Basil For both were called by the Pope in both of them the Popes Legate was present at the beginning from both of them the Popes Legate shortly after went away in both of them the Pope was excommunicated and yet that the Council of Ephesus erred the adversaries will not deny Hence he concludeth that the chief Power Ecclesiastical is not in the Church nor in the Council the Pope being removed formaliter vel suppletivè And what should hinder when there is but one mans vote against it even the Popes but that Novelty and error may enter at any time and when that one man is oft so wicked and Heretical as he is For General Councils are but a meer name and mockery The packing of them shews it the Paucity and nonUniversality of them shews it The Management of their affairs shews it They do nothing since the Papal reign but what the Pope will excepting the condemned Councils They have no Being till he Will nor make any Decrees but what he Will Nor are their Decrees of any further power then he is pleased to give them So that his Will is the sense of the General Council or universal Church I need not turn you for this to Sleidan or Uergerius Bishop of Trent that tell us the Holy Ghost came to that Council in a Cloak-bag from Rome nor to Espensaeus in Tit. 1. pag. 42. seeing Bellarmine speaks it out De Concil lib. 2. cap. 11. saying We must know that the Pope is wont to send Legates instructed concerning the judgement of the Apostolick seat with this Condition that if the Council do consent to the Judgement of the Apostolick seat it shall be formed into a Decree If not the forming of the decree shall be deferred till the Pope of Rome being advised with shall return his answer And saith Bellarmine de Concil lib. 2. cap. 11. In the Council of Basil Ses 2. it was decreed by common consent together with the Popes Legate that a Council is above the Pope which certainly is now judged erroneous And the Council of Lateran and Florence decreed the contrary And Pighius saith Hierarch Eccles l. 6. that the Councils of Constance and Basil went about by a new trick and pernicious example to destroy the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and instead of it to bring in the Domination of a promiscuous confused popular multitude that is to raise again Babylon it self subjecting to themselves or to the community of the Church which they falsly pretended that they Represent the very Head and Prince of the whole Church and him that is the Vicar of Christ himself in this his Kingdom and this against Order and Nature against the clearest light of Gospel verity against all Authority of Antiquity and against the undoubted Faith and Judgement of the Orthodox Church it self Mark Papists General Councils with the Popes Nuncio may bring in Novelties in faith against the clearest light of the Gospel and the full Consent of Antiquity and yet these Councils affirmed their opinions to be de fide and the contrary to be Heretical and Damnable and contrary to all Antiquity You see then that Novelties are among you in matters of faith And the French to this day are guilty of those Novelties and also charge their Adversaries with Innovation Nay what will you say if General Councils themselves are but Novelties though they are the foundation of the faith of one half of the Papists as the Pope is of the other I say not so but judge whether your Champion Pighius say so Hierarch Eccles lib. 6. cap. 1. fol. 230. where he saith that Concilia universalia non habent Divinam c. General Councils have not a Divine or Supernatural Original but meerly an humane Original and are the Invention of Constantine a Prince profitable indeed sometimes to find out in Controversie which is the Orthodox and Catholick truth though to this they are not necessary seeing its a readyer way to advise with the Apostolick seat How now Sirs Is your Representative Church the foundation of your faith a Novelty of Constantines invention and yet are you in the old way and must we be put to prove you to be Novelists Do you think those Popes did go the Old way of whom Alvarus Pelagius speaks de planctu Eccles art 15. lib. 2. that they succeeded in authority but not in Sanctity intruding themselves procuring bargaining c. building Towers and Palaces in Babylon that is in Rome according to Hierom Some foul innovation sure they were guilty of that so re-edified Babylon So that this is my first proof that you are Novelists from the General Accusations of others and Confessions of your own 2. Another proof
bound to unite and assist each other in such works What is to be accounted Heresie the Law of God sufficiently determineth And what particular persons are to be Judged hereticks and excommunicated according to that Law the particular Pastors that are on the place can better decide then a Pope that is a thousand or five thousand miles off and cannot hear the witnesses And do you not your selves decide almost all such cases through the world that is of your subjection by the present Pastors or Bishops and not by the Pope And why may not we do so then as well as you 9. But if you lay all upon your Popes or Councils Infallibility I desire you but to read my third Disputation in a Book against Popery called the Safe Religion and then believe that Infallibility if you can I should think my self a miserable man if I were not my self more Infallible then many of your Popes have been Every Christian while such is infallible in his belief of the Christian faith And the Scripture is an infallible ground of our belief 10. Is it not a plain Judgement of God upon you that while you make the Scripture so dark and not intelligible and cry up the Necessity of a living Judge you should not only swarm with differences among your selves but should be utterly disagreed and at a loss to know who is this Judge of Controversies one saying it is the Pope and another that its the Council and what the better are you for saying There must be a Judge as long as you cannot tell Who it must be It s not only uncertain among you Whether Pope or Councill be the Infallible Judge but also which is a true Pope and which is a lawfull General Council For fourty years at least together the Church could not know the true Pope but the more learned and conscionable men were divided Nor is it known to this day Frequently the strongest hath carried it and success been his best title Nay General Councils themselves knew not the right Pope The Council at Constance and Basil knew not the right Pope They of Basil thought Felix the fifth the true Pope and Eugenius no Pope But friends and strength confuted a General Council and proved deposed Eugenius the Pope And for Councils themselves who knows which to take for currant and of Authority What Catalogues have you of reprobated Councils and of doubtfull Councils and partly approved partly reprobate and who knows which and how far but only that is approved that pleaseth the Pope and that reprobate that displeased him and yet perhaps approved by a former Pope So that you are all in a confusion and uncertain about your true Popes and General Councils And if you knew them yet what a loss are you at to know their Decrees and Canons What a Fardel of false Decretall Epistles have you thrust upon the world as Blondell Dalleus Reignolds and others have fully proved Forsooth decretals that use a translation of the Scripture that was formed a long time after the death of the supposed Authors of those Epistles And Decretals which make mention of persons and things that were many score or hundred years after the death of the said Authors These are your new Scriptures and by these our faith must be regulated and our controversies decided And your Canons are abundance of them as uncertain some of your own will have but twenty Canons of the first General Council at Nice some will have the new found rabble of additions Much more uncertainty or certain forgery there is in the Canons called the Apostles and the like we may say of abundance more And now I appeal to all the impartial Reason in the world whether your voluminous apocriphal uncertain faith that needs a living Judge and cannot find one or agree upon him and that leaves your controversies still undecided be a liker way to peace and unity then our short and plain Articles and infallible Scripture faith that hath less matter of contention and better means to prevent it even faithful Teachers and Judges in every Church and Commonwealth which shall so far determine as may preserve the peace of those societies levaing the final full Decision of all to the Eternal Judge that is even at the door 11. Yea and is not Gods hand of Judgement yet more observable against you that when your Popes and Councils have past their judgement the several Sects are unable to understand them witness the late sentence against the Jansenists of which the persons that seem to be condemned say that there is no such thing or words in all Jansenius writings as the Pope saith are in him and condemneth as his and the Controversie is as far from a decision as if the Pope had held his peace Yea your great Disputer here in England Thomas White the Novelist is the same for all the Popes determination Take another instance in the forementioned Case Whether the Pope or Council be supream The Councils of Constance and Basil determined it one way as de fide and yet that made no end of the Controversie The Council of Lateran and Pope Leo determined it the other way and yet it is a Controversie after two contrary decisions and some say one way and some the othe and some say It is yet undecided for fear of angring the French by casting them off as Hereticks Another instance The Council at Basil Sess 36. pag. 80. in Binnius hath fully determined the Controversie between the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception and yet it is undetermined still and Thomas White presumes to affirm that Certainly there is no Tradition for it nor any probability that ever the Negative will be defined Apolog. for Tradit pag. 64 65 66. yea he carryeth it as boldly out as if never Council had made or medled with it I will therefore recite the words of the Council which are these A hard question hath been in divers parts and before this holy Synod about the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary and the beginning of her Sanctification some saying that the Virgin and her soul was for some time or instant of time actually under Original sin others on the contrary saying that from the beginning of her Creation God loving her gave her grace by which preserving and freeing that blessed person from the Original spot we having diligently looke into the authorities and reasons which for many years past have in publike relation on both sides been alledged before this holy Synod and having seen many other things about it and weighed them by mature consideration do Define and Declare that the doctrine affirming that the glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God by the singular preventing and operating grace of God was never actually under Original sin but was ever free from all Original and actual sin and was holy and immaculate is to be approved held and embraced of all Catholikes as godly and Consonant
the second and third Age produced no Councils the greater deceivers then are the Papists that have found us Councils then and so you have no Catholick succession proved Yea but he saith they have successions of Popes Martyrs and Confessors which is sufficient for their purposes See the strength of Popery Any thing is sufficient for your purposes it seems Rome had Bishops therefore they were the Universal Rulers of the Church A strong consequence Rome had Martyrs and Confessors therefore it was the Mistris of all Churches Who can resist these arguments But why did you not prove that your Confessors and Martyrs suffered for attesting the Popes Soveraignty If they suffered but for Christianity that will prove them but Christians and not Papists Thus you see to the confusion of the Papists that they have nothing to shew for the succession or antiquity of Popery for the three first Ages Yea worse then nothing For here he comes in with some of the Decretals forsooth of some of their Bishops Decretals unknown till a while ago in the world brought out by Isidore Mercator but with so little cunning as left them naked to the shame of the world the falshood of them being out of themselves fully proved by Blondell Reignolds and many more and confessed by some of themselves Here you see the first foundation of Papal succession even a bundle of fictions lately fetcht from whence they please to cheat the ignorant part of the world But in the fourth and fifth ages H. T. doth make us amends for his want of proof from the three first But suppose he do what 's that to a succession while the three first ages are strangers to Popery Well! but lets hear what he hath at last His first proof after a few silent names is from the Council of Nice And what saith that why 1. It defined that the Son of God is consubstantiall to his Father and true God And what 's that to Popery 2 But it defined the Popes Soveraignty But how prove you that Why it is in the thirty ninth Arab. Canon O what Consciences have those men that dare thus abuse and cheat the ignorant As if the Canons of the first General Council had never been known to the world till the other day that Alphonsus Pisanus a Jesuite publisheth them out of Pope Julius and I know not what Arabick book These men that can make both Councils and Canons at their pleasure above a thousand years after the supposed time of their existence do never need to want authority And indeed this is a cheaper way of Canon-making in a corner then to trouble all the Bishops in the world with a great deal of cost and travail to make them But if this be the foundation the building is answerable Their Bishop Zosimus had not been acquainted with these new Articles of an old Council when he put his trick upon the sixth Council of Carthage where for the advancement of his power though not to an universall Monarchy yet to a preparative degree he layeth his claim from the Council of Nice as saying Placuit ut si Episcopus accusatus fuerit c. which was that If an ejected Bishop appeal to Rome the Bishop of Rome appoint some of the next province to judge or if yet he destre his cause to be heard the Bishop of Rome shall appoint a Presbyter his Legate c. In this Council were 217. Bishops Aurelius being president and Augustine being one They told the Pope that they would yield to him till the true copies of the Council of Nice were searched for those that they had seen had none of them those words in that Zosimus alledged Hereupon they send abroad to the Churches of the East to Constantinople Alexandria Antioch c. for the ancient Canons From hence they received several copies which all agreed but none of them had either Zosimus forgery in nor the forged clause which Bellarmine must have in much less the eighty Canons of Pisanus the Jesuite or this one which H. T. doth found his succession on but only the twenty Canons there mentioned which have not a word for the Popes Soveraignty And here note 1. That Zosimus knew not then of Pisanus Canons or else he would have alledged them nor yet of Bellarmines new part of a Canon for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome 2. That Zosimus himself had not the faith the wit or the memory to plead either Scripture Apostolical Institution or Tradition for his priviledge but only a false Canon of the Council of Nice as looking no higher it seems for his authority 3. How early the Roman Bishops begun both to aspire and make use of forgeries to accomplish it 4. That there was no such Apostolick or Church Tradition for this Roman power as our Masters of Tradition now plead for which all the Catholick Church must know For the whole Council with all the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch c. that is in a manner all save Rome were ignorant of that which Zosimus would have had them believe and Bellarmine and H. T. would have us to believe 5. Note also how little the Church then believed the Popes infallibility 6. Yea Note how upon the reception of the several Copies of the Nicene Canons they modestly convicted Zosimus of falshood And how the Council resolved against his usurpation See in the African Councils the Epistle of Cyril and Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople and the Epistles of the Council to Boniface and Celestine In their Epistle to Boniface before they had received their answers from other Churches about the Nicene Canons they tell him that they believed they should not suffer that Arrogancy non sumus istum typhum passuri But to Celestine they conclude more plainly though modestly Presbyterorum quoque sequentium c. i. e. Let your holiness as beseemeth you repell the wicked refuges of Presbyters and the Clergy that follow them because this is not derogate or taken from the African Church by any Definition of the Fathers and the Nicene Decrees most plainly committed both the inferiour Clergy and Bishops themselves to the Metropolitans For they did most prudently and most justly provide that all businesses N. B. all should be ended in the very places where they begun and the Grace of the holy Ghost will not or should not be wanting to each province which equity should by the Priests of Christ be prudently observed and most constantly maintained Especially because it is granted to every one to appeal to the Councils of their own Province or to a Universall Council if he be offended with the judgement of the Cognitors Unless there should be any one that can think that our God can inspire a justice of tryall into any one man N. B. and deny it to innumerable Priests that are congregated in Councill Or how can that judgement that 's past beyond sea be valid to which the necessary persons of the witness
gifts may be lost we never denyed it The special gifts that accompany salvation some of us judge are never lost others of us think are left only by those that are not predestinate as Austin thought and your Dominicans think And what cause is here of your quarrell His eleventh Accusation is this Scripture saith that God taketh away and blotteth out our iniquity as a cloud and puts our iniquities far from us as the East is from the West and maketh us as white as snow You say that he takes not away nor blotteth out our sin but only doth not impute it and doth not make us white as snow but leaveth in us the fault and uncleaness of sin which Scripture no where speaks Answ This is half falshood and half confusion raked up to make a matter of quarrel with 1. It s false that we say He doth not take away nor blot out our sin nor make us white as snow Do not all Protestants in the world affirm all this 2. There are these things here considerable 1. The Act of sin 2. The Habit 3. The guilt or obligation to punishment 4. The culpability or reatus culpae 1. As for the Act how can you for shame say that God takes it away when it is a transient act that is gone of it self as soon as acted and hath no existence as Scotus and all your own take notice 2. As to the Culpability you will not sure for shame say that God so put away e. g. Davids Adultery as to make it reputable as a vertue or not a vice 3. As to the Reatus ad paenam the full Guilt we maintain that it is done quite away and if your eyes be in your head you may see that it is in regard of this guilt and punishment that the Scriptures mentioned by you speak or principally speak at least For I pray you tell us what else can they mean when they speak of actual sins that are past long ago and have no existence Learned wranglers would you make us believe that Grace is given to David to put away the Act of his Murder and Adultery so that it may be quid praeteritum non jam existens a thing past and gone which it is without grace so that when you feign us to say that God takes not away sin but only not imputeth it you feign us to make synonymal terms to be of different sences He takes them away by not imputing them 4. But if you speak not of the sence of a particular Text but of the Matter in difference it can be nothing but the habit of sin that you mean that we say that God takes not away And here you play partly the Calumniators and partly the erroneous Pharisees 1. You Calumniate in feigning us to deny that habitual sin is done away Because our Divines say that it is not the work of meer pardon which we call Justification to put it away therefore you falsly say that we hold it is not put away at all whereas we hold without one contradicting vote that ever I read or heard that all that are Justified are Sanctified Converted Regenerate Renewed and must live an holy life And that all their sins are so far destroyed that they shall not have dominion over them that Gross and Wilfull sin they forsake and the least infirmities they groan and pray and strive against to the last and then obtain a perfect conquest 2. But if you mean that no degree of habitual or dispositive sin or absence of holy qualities remaineth in the Justified soul it is a Pharasaical error yea worse then a Pharisee durst have owned And it seems this is your meaning by the words of Calvins which you cite And dare you say that you have no sin to resist or purge or pardon Are you in Heaven already The whole have no need of the Physitian but the sick and have you no need of Christ to heal your soul would you be no better then you are O proud souls and strange to themselves and the purity of the Law Hath not the Holy Ghost pronounced him a Lyar and Self-deceiver that saith he hath no sin 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. In many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. I shall but recite to you two Canons of a Council which if you use the Lords prayer are fit for you to consider Concil Milevit cont Pelagianos Can. 7. Item placuit ut quicunque dixerit in Oratione Dominica ideo dicere sanctos Dimitte nobis Debita nostra ut non pro seipsis hoc dicant quia non est eâ— jam necessaria ista sed pro aliis qui sunt in suo populo peccatores ideo non dicere unumquemque sanctorum Dimitte mihi debita mea sed Dimitte nobis debita nostra ut hoc pro aliis potius quam pro se Justus petere intelligatur Anathema sit Can. 8. Item placuit ut quicunque verba ipsa Dominicae Orationis ubi dicimus Dimitte nobis debita nostra ista volunt à Sanctis dici ut humiliter non veraciter hoc dicatur Anathema fit Quis enim ferat Oraâ—tem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle Corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur debita non habere You see here the Council curseth all those as intolerable Lyars that say the Lords prayer desiring him daily to forgive or remit their sins and yet think that they have no sins to forgive yea or that every Saint hath not such sins What can a Papist say to this but by making Councils as void of sence as they feign the holy Scriptures to be Hus twelfth and last Accusation is this The Scripture saith that Blessedness in the Reward the Prize the Penny the wages of Labourers and the Crown of Righteousness you contend that its meerly the free gift of God and not a Reward which no Scripture doth affirm Answ A meer Calumny and perverting of Calvins words who often saith as we constantly do that Eternal life is given as a Reward and Crown of Righteousness But we distinguish between the Act of God in his Gospel Promise which is a Conditional Deed of Gift of Christ and Life to all that will Accept them and the execution of this by Judgement and Glorification And we say that it was Antecedenter meerly of Gods free Grace that he made such a Deed of Gift the blood of Christ being the purchasing cause and nothing of our works had a handin the procurement Dare you deny this But that our Justification in Judgement and our Glorification which are the Execution of the Law of Grace do make our works the Reason not as having merited it ex proportione operis or in Commutative Justice but as having performed the condition of the free Gift and so being the persons to whom it doth belong And this is the sense of Scotus and of one half of the Papists for still you
false So that here we must break with a Papist even where we might join in dispute with a heathen And how will Papists deal with Heathens if they will deny the proofs from sense and reason 3. But will they stand to the Validity of Proofs from Scripture No For 1. They take it to be but part of Gods word so that we may nor argue Negatively It is not in the holy Scripture therefore it is not an Article of faith or a Law of God For they will presently appeal to Tradition 2. And even so much as is in Scripture though they confess it to be true yet they confess it not to be by us intelligible and will not admit of any proof from it but with this limitation that you take it in that sense as the Church takes it For they are sworn by the Trent Oath to take it in that sence as the Holy Mother Church doth hold and hath held it in and never to take or interpret it but according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers So that they must know what sense all the Fathers are unanimous in before they can admit a proof from Scripture And before that can be done above a Cart-load of books must be read over or searched and when that 's done they will find that most texts were never medled with by most of those Fathers in their writings and in those that they did meddle with they disagreed in multitudes and where they disagree they are not unanimous and there the Papists are sworn to believe no sense at all And if they would have come down to a Major vote it is no short or easie matter to gather the votes And if they know the Fathers unanimous consent yet must they have the sense of the present Church too And is it not all one to make your adversary the Judge of your cause as the Judge of your Evidences and all your proofs 4. Well but at least may we not hope that they will stand to the Judgement of the Catholick Church And if so we will not take it for our adversary No they will not do so neither For 1. When they deny proof from sense and reason they must needs deny all that 's brought from the Church For the Church cannot judge it self but on supposition of the infallibility of sense 2. And when you argue from the judgement and practice of the greater part of the Church they presently disclaim them all as Hereticks or Schismaticks and will have no man be a Valid witness but themselves The Greeks the Aethiopians the Armenians the Protestants all are Hereticks or Schismaticks save they and therefore may not be witnesses in the case So that you see upon what terms we stand with the Papists that will admit of no proofs upon the Infallibility of Sense or Reason or the sufficiency of Scripture or the testimony of the Catholick Church but only from themselves CHAP. XIII Detect 4 UNderstand what the Papists mean when they are still calling to you for a Judge of Controversies If you would dispute with them they are presently asking you Who shall be the judge and perswading you that it is in vain to dispute without a living Judge for every man will be the Judge himself and every mans cause will be right in his own eyes and all the world will be still at odds till we are agreed who shall be the Judge To help you to see the sense of this deceit and then to confute it 1. You may easily observe that this is the plain drift of all to perswade you to make them your judges and yield the cause instead of disputing it For it is no other judge but themselves that they will admit Yield first that the Pope or his Council is the judge of all controversies and then its folly to dispute against them so that if you will yield them the cause first they will then dispute with you after 2. But what is to be said to the pretence of the Necessity of a Judge I answer 1. It s against all reason and experience to think that all enquiries or disputes are vain unless there be a Judge to decide the case A Judge is a Ruling decider not to satisfie mens minds so much as to preserve Order and Peace and Justice in the Society But there are thousands of cases to be privately discussed that we never need to bring to a Judge Every Husbandman and Tradesman and Navigator and other Artificer doth meet with doubts and difficulties in his way which he laboureth to Discern and satisfieth himself with a Judgement of Discretion without a Ruling Judge We eat and drink and clothe our selves and follow our daily labours without a Judge though we meet with controversies in almost all what meat or drink is best for quality or quantity and a hundred like doubts Men do marry and build and buy and sell and take Physick and dispatch their greatest worldly business without a Judge Judges are only for such controverted cases as cannot well be decided without them to the attaining of the Ends of Government 2. Is it not against the daily practice of the Papists to think or say that all disputes and controversies must have a Judge Who is the Judge between the Nominals Reals and Formalists the Dominicans Franciscans and Jesuites in all those controversies which have Cartloads of Books written on them Their Pope or Councils dare not Judge between them Do they not daily dispute in their Schools among themselves without a Judge and still write books against one another without a Judge 3. Understand well the use and differences of Judgement The sentence is but a means to the execution and Judges cannot determine the mind and will of man but preserve outward Order if men will not see the truth themselves Me thinks the Jesuits that are so eager for free will should easily grant that the Pope by his definition cannot determine the Will of man And they see that Hereticks remain Hereticks when the Pope hath said all that he can And if he can cure them all by his determinations he is much too blame that he doth not And if a mans mind be to be settled an Infallible Teacher is fitter then a Judge Judgement then being for Execution when you ask Who shall be the Judge I answer that Judgement is either total absolute and final or it is only to a certain particular end limited and subordinate from which there is an Appeal In the former case there is no Judge but Christ and the Father by him No absolute decision can be made till the great Judgement come and then all will be fully and finally decided And for the limited present Judgements of men they are of several sorts according to their several Ends. When the question is Who shall be corporally punished as an Heretick the Magistrate is Judge For coercive punishment being his work the Judgement must be his also But when the question is Who