reason is given by Aquinas 2. part q. 97. Art 3. Because the Law of God proceedeth from the will of God and therefore may not be altered by Custome proceeding from the will of Man 7. In that regard very well doth S. Cyprian write lib. 2. Epist 3. ad Caecilium If only Christ is to be heard we ought not to regard what any before us hath thought fit to be done but what Christ who is before all hath first done For we must not follow the Custome of Man but the truth of God And in another place Custome without truth is nothing but Antiquity of Error Idem ad Pomp. cont Epist. Steph. Papae God alone is the Law-giver of his Church Nothing must be ordained concerning the Things which belong to Religion without the Word of God 1. THe Reason of that is because God alone is the Law-giver of his Church And the onely Author of the Doctrine Concerning Faith or Belief And Religious Worship That God is the onely Authour of the Doctrine concerning Faith or Belief we prove it by the following Arguments 1. THe 1. is taken from the Nature of Faith For all the Doctrines of Faith in regard of the matter which is to be believed must have a certain infallible and undoubted Truth Now it is the property of God alone to be infallibly true of his own nature Let God be true but every man a lyar saith S. Paul Rom. 3.4 And therefore God alone is the Author of the Doctrine of Faith 2. The 2. Argument is taken from the Quality of the Articles of Faith For the proper documents and Doctrines of Faith do exceed the capacity and apprehension of the Creature And therefore they could not be revealed but onely by the Creator Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity of the Persons in the unity of an Essence Such is the Doctrine of the Eternal Birth of the Son of God Such that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost And such that of the hypostaticall union of the two Natures of Christ Divine and Humane And such are all other Articles concerning Faith properly and strictly taken which in that they are above the naturall knowledge of the Creature cannot be known by us but by the supernaturall Revelation of the Creator Of all them this of Christ may be said Flesh and Bloud hath not revealed these things unto mankind but God the Father which is in Heaven Matth. 16.17 3. The 3. Argument is taken from the reward of Faith and the punishment propounded to unbelief and infidelity Which doe manifestly argue that it belongeth to God alone to frame and prescribe to Men Articles and dogmes concerning beliefe and Faith For the reward propounded to Faith is Eternall Life Iohn 3.36 And that is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6.23 And the punishment denounced against infidelity is Eternall Death Which punishment God alone is able to inflict Christ teacheth it Matt. 10.28 in these words Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul But rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell He teacheth it also John 3.36 when he sayes that he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him 2. That God is the onely Author of the Doctrine concerning Religious Worship We prove it by the following Arguments 1. THe 1. Argument is taken from the Relation which is between God And the Church God alone in the Spiritual Government of the Soul is Soveraign Monarch Is the Housholder Is the Husband In regard of his Church This Church in regard of her Relation to God Is Called The City of God The House of Cod The Spouse of God Now who should be so Impudent As to prescribe Laws to a Foreign City Concerning her Duties to her King Or to Another Mans Family Or to Another Mans Wife Concerning the Manner Of Obeying And Rendring Service To her Master Or to her Husband 2. The 2. Argument is taken From the Reward And Punishment Annexed to the Works of Divine Worship For the Works of Divine Worship Piously observed have from the Munificence of God a Promise of Eternal Reward But being Neglected or Contemned a Commination of Eternal Death From whence it may be Gathered That God Alone who is the Lord of Life and Death Hath the Power To Ordain such Works And to Injoin Them By the Empire of a Law-giver 3. The 3. Argument is drawn from the Prohibition of God For God himself by an Expresse Law hath attributed to Himself Alone The Authority to Ordain his Service Deut. 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it Thou shalt not adde thereto nor diminish from it From whence also is that of our Saviour Matth. 15.9 But in vain they do worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of men 4. The 4. Argument is Because the Works of Worship depend from the Will of God who is to be Worshipped Therefore God is not Worshipped at all by those Works By which he did not declare whether he would be Worshipped or Not. But in This None can know the Will of God unlesse he doth reveal it and Injoines it For who hath known the Mind of the Lord Or who hath been his Counsellour That is Confirmed by This That all whosoever did think to Worship God with their own Invented Works Did provoke him to Anger rather than honour him Nay they are found To have worshipped the Devil Or the Idols of their own heart rather than God They went a whoring with their own Inventions Therefore was the wrath of God kindled against his People Psal 106.39 40. §. The onely Ground and Rule of Faith And Divine Worship Is the Holy Scripture 1. NO Mortal Creature can Teach Religion 2. Nor Carnal Man can attain true knowledge unlesse God Instructs Him And his Spirit lead Him to the Truth 3. The Phrophets Agree to the Truth of this Doctrine Esa 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony 4. So doth Christ Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal Life and they are they which testifie of me 5. And so do the Apostles calling the Scriptures a Rule As S. Paul doth Gal. 6.16 And as many as walk according to this Rule And Philip. 3.16 Let us walk by the same Rule 6. And so do the Ancient Fathers and Doctors Sequi Divinas Literas De fide ad Reginas c. To follow this Rule saith Cyrill is the Path unto Heaven And to be led by this Canon is the way to Salvation And S. Irene Non per alios Dispositionene Salutis cognovimus By the Scriptures we Learn to be saved §. Also The Holy Scripture ought to be among us the Supream Interpreter of Scriptures And the Judge of Controversies 1. FOr Confirmation of That this Language of the Reformed is to be noted and observed How better say They would it stand with
condemned the Popes Supremacie Can. 6. In the Second is established the Idolatrous Worship of Images The First Belief the Papists will not allow The Second is detested by us Reformed 8. Let Councils therefore be esteemed as they deserve 9. And let them be tried as hath been said §. Objection of the Popish Writers against our Rejection from the rule of Faith the Catholick Church and General Councils IF the Church say they and general Councils be not Grounds and Rules of Faith Why then did the Ancient Fathers draw an Argument from them to Refute the Errors of the Antient Hereticks Answer of the Reformed to that Objection 1. VVE know say the Reformed That the Ancient Godly Fathers in Confuting all Hereticks used onely Arguments drawn out of the Scriptures and plainly taught That by no other Weapons an Heretick can be put to flight 2. The same Reformed do know That the Ancient Fathers did charge the Hereticks sometimes With the Judgment of Churches With Determination of Councils With Succession of Bishops With the Name of Catholicks Not as though this were a necessary Conviction of it self but thereby the rather to induce them to believe the Doctrine to be true which they did see from the first planting thereof in the Church to have remained 3. The case of the Papists drawing Arguments of Conviction from the Doctrine of their Popish Church is nothing like seeing they have onely the bare Title of the Church without the Thing and as it were the empty Casket without the Treasure 4. The Reformed justly exclude from the Rule of Faith The Ancient Fathers 1. VVE Reformed as hath been said of General Councils do esteem and regard them in their place We thank God God for them We Read Allow and Commend them So far forth as they agree with Gods word 2. For it cannot be truely said that they never disagree from it 3. We grant that they were Learned and Godly Men but yet were they Men having their Infirmities and Imperfections 4. Their Learning Their Zeal Their Ages Were not Priviledge unto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceived in their Writings and in their Expositions of Scripture 5. And let the Popish Doctors take this for a sure Conclusion That in the Sayings of Those who are all of them subject to Error there is no stable and stedy Ground to build our Faith upon least perhaps we build upon Error in stead of Truth 6. So that without Tryal and Examination no Sentence of a Father nor of all Fathers may safely be Received §. Objection of the Popish Writers against our Rejection from the Rule of Faith the Ancient Fathers SInce the Reformed Exclude the Ancient Fathers from the Rule of Faith Why say the Popish Writers do they make use of them and alledge them Answer to this Objection 1. THe Reformed do read the Ancient Fathers And oftentimes they rehearse their Sentences and their Expositions of the Scripture 2. But not as Proofs in Doctrines of themselves For they do not acknowledge them as Rule and Ground of the Faith 3. It is to stop the Papists Mouthes that cry so loud in the ears of the simple that all the Fathers are against them 4. It being most true That they are notably and generally for them § How the Reformed carry themselves in regard of the Scriptures in regard of the Ancient Fathers 1. This is their Carriage in regard of the Scriptures 1. THey receive that which the Scripture delivereth 2. They reject that which the Scripture reproveth 2. This is Their Carriage in regard of the Ancient Fathers 1. THey read the Fathers with Indifferent and Free Judgement 2. Weighing all their Doctrine in the Balance of Gods Word and thereby either allowing or refusing the same 3. This they must do or else of Fathers they make Gods of Mens Writings They make Canonical Scriptures Of Doctors Opinions they make Articles of Faith 4. And herein they do no otherwise then they are taught both by Scriptures and by Fathers to do 5. They declare to the Popish Writers That concerning these two Heads they shall never get at their hands more than this § Of Bishop Jewels Challenge to the Fathers that flourished 600 years after Christ The Popish Writers IOhn Jewel say they challenged the Catholicks calling upon and desiring the help of the Fathers as many as flourished 600 years after Christ Answer of the Reformed to that Relation 1. They Answer this THat Bishop Jewel proved all the Ancient Fathers to be against the Church of Rome in Disputing with Doctor Harding as he had affirmed at Paul's Crosse 2. They Answer this 1. THat the present Popish Writers may be ashamed to make mention of that Challenge which they have so long ago given over as a Desperate Cause 2. Wherein Doctor Harding the chiefest Adversarie could not make shew of Proof without using the Testimonies of forged and Counterfeit Writers As Amphilochius Clemens Abdias Hippolytus And such Others of which no more Account is to be made then of Fables and shamelesse Forgeries Such were the Chiefest Proofs which Dr. Harding was able to bring 2. And whatsoever he brought hath been fully Answered in the Reply by the Bishop himself Which Book as yet though it hath been in some parts nipped at by Divers yet throughly confuted was it never what the present Popish Writers can do in this Case may easily be guessed 3. They Answer This. 1. THat what which Bishop Jewel promised to give over and to subscribe If any of the 27. Articles of Controversies propounded by him could be proved by Scriptures Councils or Doctors within 660. years after Christ was not because he meant ever to subscribe to the Popish Doctrine or was unstayed in his Religion but it was of a most assured knowledge and resolute perswasion That the Popish Doctors were utterly destitute in this behalf of all Truth and Antiquity as indeed they are 2. Otherwise the Popish Doctors may remember That our Religion is grounded onely upon the Holy Scriptures of God 3. And therefore though the said Doctors brought against us Reformed Writers and Fathers never so many for these Matters as they can bring not one of Credit and Age. Yet will we never subscribe unto them having once subscribed to the certain Truth of God revealed unto us in his holy perfect and written word 4. By which all Sentences Opinions and Writings of Men whatsoever must be examined §. Notwithstanding some Errors of the Ancient Fathers we Reformed esteem them as Gods Saints and holy Men and holy Fathers 1. THe Ancient Fathers holding the Ground and Foundation of Doctrine did oftentimes build thereon Stubble and Straw partly by some Superstitious Opinions which themselves conceived of such Inventions and partly by the sway and violence of Custome whereby they were carried to a liking of those Things which they saw commended and practised by others 2. And yet God forbid that because of some Errors which they held we Reformed
Nor Chrysostom Nor Ammianus Nor the Tripartite Historie Nor Dantasus Nor Bede Nor Orosius So Carerius The Charter or Edict of Constantines Donation is a base and improbable Fiction 1. ALL that which is proved by Reformed Writers of the supposed Leprosie Persecution and Baptism of Constantine by Pope Sylvester are undoubted Demonstrations of the Forgerie of this Edict of Donation 2. For in the Charter are all these Not onely related as certain truths but they are made the very ground and occasion why Constantine made this Charter 3. Seeing then there is neither truth nor reality in the foundation Certainly there is no truth at all in the Charter it self 4. But leaving these we will propose a few other Considerations in this Cause 1. In this Edict is mentioned the See of Constantinople as one of the Patriarchal Sees Whereas neither it had Patriarchal Dignitie before the Second General Council that is more then fiftie years after the Donation is supposed to be made Nor was there at that time so much as the name of Constantinople For this City was then called Byzantium And divers years after when Constantine had much enlarged it and made it as Socrates saith Parem aequalem Romae equal to Rome choosing it for the Imperial Seat It was then first called by his Name Constantinople And this was done as Baronius himself acknowledgeth a little after the Nicene Council was ended But as Sigonius more truely teacheth five years after that Nicene Council when Gallicanus and Symachus were Consuls So very stupid was the forgerer that to gain to the Pope to the See of Rome principality over Constantinople he makes Constantine write of that City which was not no nor the name of it so much as extant in the World at that time 2. Had Constantine given principality to the Roman See above all Churches in the World as the Charter saith he did What folly was it in John Bishop of Constantinople in Cyriacus and in others to strive for that Preheminence What meant Boniface the third that he would never shew this Charter and grant of principalitie made by Constantine Why did he use so much intreaty and means to Phocas a murtherer that the Church of Rome might be called the first of all Churches when the same was long almost 300. years before given by a fair Charter to the Roman See by Constantine so Worthy and Renowned an Emperour 3. In this Edict Constantine is made solemnly to give unto Pope Sylvester the Lateran Palace whereas not only Sigonius witnesseth that this was given long before to Pope Meltiades Augustale Palatium in Later ano impertiit Constantine gave to Meltiades the Lateran Palace but Baronius and Binnius avouch the same for a certainty and say that no wise body will doubt thereof Those Augustissimae Lateranenses Aedes say they That most princely Palace of the Lateran was given by the same Constantine to Pope Miltiades the Predecessor of Sylvester and to his Successors and that in the Seventh year of Constantine which was twelve years before he was either Baptized or made this Charter of Donation Is not this now a piece of great munificence in the Emperour to give that which it is not his own to give or to give that to Sylvester which many years before that gift was Sylvesters own and his Successours for ever 4. To the above said considerations let us add the Testimony of their great Cardinal Baronius to whom accords Gretser who hath written an Apologie for him in this very point He by many Reasons and at large proves the Edict to be Commentitium prorsusque falsum A meer Figment and Forgerie And as Gretser saith Commentis accensendum docuit He hath taught that it is a Counterfeit One Reason is That this Edict was not in the Ancient Acts of Sylvester but was by forgerie inserted into them The time when this was done he defines to have been after the 1000 year of Christ The Parties by whom this forged Edict was made and published he also declares It was fained by some Grecian under the name of Eusebius and set forth by Theodorus Balsamon whereas a nullo Graecorum hactenus in lucem editum until then no Grecian had published it And from the Grecians it came to the Latins and Western Church Leo the 9. being the first Pope who makes mention thereof Thus the Cardinal By whose acknowledgment it may be seen what truth there is in the Popes specially in Pope Leo who in his Decretal Epistle most solemnly commends this Edict for an Ancient and undoubted Evidence Such as he knew by sight and sense to be the true deed of Constantine Which yet their great Cardinal after long sifting of Monuments and Records testifieth to be a Forgerie and that of the Grecians First of all devised as he saith about 700. years and published 800. years after the Death of Constantine Fraud Of the Fraud and Imposture of the Popes and of the Church of Rome in regard of pretended Revelations both by Dreams and by Extraordinary Visions and Apparitions of the Dead 1. THe Pope and the Church of Rome make use of these pretended Revelations to lead the poor People by the Nose and to make him believe some Doctrines which the word of God doth condemn 2. So was it said that some were Appeared who had said That to come out of Purgatory such and such things were to be done so Sing Masses and by some certain kind of persons that by such forged Impostures the Fable of Purgatory should be established 3. Likewise was it said that some were Appeared who said That they had seen some Tormented in Hell Fire who told them That they were there for sundry Sinnes but particularly for having Stolne a Chalice from the Convent of the Benedictine Monks 4. Others who being Tormented did say That it was because they had Taken and Appropriated to themselves some Possessions belonging to the Church 5. Besides others said That some certain Priests godly persons singing Masse did see an Angel which did accompany them 6. In the Times of the deepest ignorance there was nothing more common then the speech of such Visions and Apparitions either Imaginaries and Phantastical or proceeding from the Devil to abuse the poor people and to establish his False Doctrine Fraud It is a Fraud and a meere Cavillation for the Refutation of the Falshood of a Religion and also for the Proofe of the Truth of a Religion to demand only Formal Places of Holy Scripture contained word by word in it Which Fraud and Cavillation is used by many Doctors of the Church of Rome disputing with the Reformed but wrongfully BEcause if all that which is not opposed by Formal Texts cannot be said to be grounded in the Word of God Then there are none so abominable Heresies nor any so monstrous opinion which may not boast although wrongfully to have the word of God for its Ground So for Example 1. The Heretick Arrians could say
discoursing of the Waldenses a People for substance of the Protestants Religion saith in these termes They are in all the Cities of Lombardy and of Provence No Sect hath continued so long Some say it hath been since Pope Sylvesters time Some since the Apostles These Waldenses believe all Articles concerning God but they hate the Church of Rome 3. So that the Reformed have had a Church and their Religion before Luther A Refutation of this shift of the Jesuites That because Luther was in Error in Regard of his doctrine of Consubstantiation Therefore his Refutations of their Opinions and Doctrines is not to be considerable 1. THis is a strange shift indeed for is it not a miserable perverseness in the Jesuites and others Popish Doctors and Writers that being not able to maintain their own Heresies against Luther they will think to escape in the Judgement of Men from being condemned because Luther himself in one point of Doctrine erred 2. May no man convince Error but such an one as is free from Error at all Himself 3. The Scriptures are left unto us to be our Rule of Truth by them must all Doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the highest Seat of Judgement to give Sentence in every Cause 4. With Them did Luther cut down the Popish Errors 5. But one Error of Luther cannot serve to excuse infinite Errors in the Popish Church The Reformed of England France Holland c. do not Believe whatsoever the late Writers have said 1. VVE are not so addicted in these Reformed Churches as to Believe whatsoever the late Writers have said 2. We are no more partial unto them in this behalf then we are unto the Ancient Fathers 3. Our Religion and Faith hangeth not upon the sayings of Men be they old or young but onely upon the Canonical Scriptures of God 4. And if they be against us so long as Scripture is for us our Cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof 5. From hence it followeth That therefore most false is it that the Papists say That our Divity resteth upon these late Writers and young Fathers whom the Jesuites and other Popish Doctors do so scornfully compare with the Old Fathers 6. We use not to alledge for proofs authentical of any Doctrine and as the Rule of our Faith Calvin Bucer or others 7. But our Traditive and Use is this Thus saith the Lord Thus say the Prophets Thus say the Apostles Thus the Evangelists Thus it is written in the Scriptures Thus we read in some Book of the Old or of the New Testament Again If Luther or any other Learned Man among the Protestants or of the Reformed in the Churches above mentioned have either Interpreted the Scripture in somthing amiss or have doubted of some one Book of Scripture whereof doubt also hath been made of old in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their Expositions or to approve their Judgement Again The particular Opinions of Luther and Lutherans are not to be objected by the Papists against the Reformation of England France the United Provinces c. 1. FOr these Reformed Churches are not bound to justifie all Luthers sayings and the Lutherans and their private Opinions no more then the Papists will be content to avouch whatsoever hath been spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their Sect. 2. Which thing if they will take upon them to perform then let them profess it or else they offer us the more injury that object still against us a saying which was never either uttered or allowed by us 3. This might suffice men of indifferent Reason § Of Luthers Error concerning the Bodily Presence in the Sacrament LVther retained this Error of his old leaven wherewith in time of Papistry his Judgement was corrupted § Another Answer of the Reformed to the Objection made by the Jesuites against Luther in regard of his Error of Consubstantiation That therefore his Refutation of their Doctrine is not to be considerable THe Reformed again return this answer to that Objection 1. That although Luther therein somthing swarved from the Truth yet that he might bring in other Causes assured thereof out of the Word of God reject the Opinions of such as dissent from the same word 2. Otherwise no Man in Defence of Gods Truth may challenge or bid Defiance to the Adversaries thereof seeing they have no Priviledge or Charter granted to them but that themselves also may be deceived § Again Concerning Luther 1. LVther say the Reformed was an excellent Man and a worthy servant of Christ 2. Whose Ministery especially it pleased God to use in revealing to these Times the Son of Perdition who fitteth in the Temple of God and advanceth himself above God 3. Yet Luther was a Man 4. And therefore no marvel if he were not exempted altogether as from Ignorance so also from Infirmities § Concerning the Contention between Luther and Zuinglius about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 1. 1. THis Contention and Dissention was a very hard one hotly debated in many Books 2. And the same hath continued since to the great hinderance of the Gospel and offence of many 3. In which contrary Writings and Discourses are found oftentimes harder speeches of either against other then were to be wished 4. Now do come in the Popish Writers like crafty enemies and gathering a heap of such speeches out of sundry of their Books do insert the same in their Books to make their Readers acquainted therewith that seeing such earnest contention among the chiefest Professors of the Gospel they may be further withdrawn in alienation of mind from the love and liking thereof 2. Examination of that matter 1. THose speeches of either against other which are harder oftentimes then were to be wished are yet such as the godly Servants of the Lord in contention about the Truth somtimes are moved to utter against their Brethren 1. S. Paul openly and sharply reprehended S. Peter to his face whereat wicked Porphyrie catched a like occasion to rail at Christian Religion long since as our Adversaries do at these dayes 2. What a violent and troublesome contention was there between Theophilus of Alexandria and good Chrysostome of Constantinople 3. Who knoweth not how sharply Cyrillus a learned and wise Bishop of Alexandria hath written against Theodoretus a good and Catholick Bishop in a Controversie touching the Catholique Faith both Bishops both Catholiques both Learned both Godly both Excellent Pillars of the Church And yet he that readeth both their Writings would think that both were dangerous Enemies of the Church and of the Faith of Christ and to be avoided of all Christians 2. So in the Books of Luther and of Zuinglius and of those that maintain either part appeareth we grant great sharpness and bitterness of Dissention who all notwithstanding if we set the heat of Dissention aside were as godly as learned as zealous Christians as the World had any The Reformed
Papists give the Churches Authority to the Pope And take all Authority quoad nos from the Scripture So that by the Church they understand the Pope 1. THe Papists 1. take all Authority from the Scripture 2. They give it to the Church And 3. They give the Churches Authority to the Pope 2. I say 1. That the Papists take all Authority quoad nos from the Scripture which appears in that they teach that it is not the ground or pillar of truth Nor properly and of it self any Cause or Means of Belief or of Charity And that God doth not immediately speak by it Neither is the Holy Ghost joined with the writing of the Scripture And that the Church is not subject to the Scripture And that put case any person living out of the Communion of the Roman Church do read or study the Scripture it is not the word of God to them or of greater Authority then Aesops Fables 3. I have said 2. That the Papists give all Authority to the present Roman Church This appears in that they make it the onely External ground and pillar of Truth The sole Judge of Controversies The principle or first ground and foundation from whence the Scripture in regard of men receiveth all Authority 4. I have said 3. That the Papists give the Churches Authority to the Pope And no Papist in these daies can or will deny This. For 1. the Positive Speeches of their greatest Doctors thereupon manifestly confirms it Ecclesiae nomine saith Gregorius de Valentia intelligimur ejus Caput Romanum Pontificem Tom. 3. Dist 1. q. 1. part 1. pag 30. And Bannes 2.2 q. 1. Ar. 10. Animadvertendum est cum Cajetano c. quod apud Thomam pro eodem omnino reputatur Authoritas Ecclesiae universalis Authoritas Concilii Et Authoritas Summi Pontificis 2. The same Assertion followeth upon the main principles of their Doctrine which are That the Pope is the prime subject of Ecclesiastical Authority And that the whole Authority of all the Body and of all the Members thereof is derived by and from him And that the promise of the perpetual Assistance of the Holy Ghost And the Infallible Judgement and the Supream Authority And other Priviledges are intailed upon his Tribunal The 2. of those Fraudes is That The Pope also is Taught by the Papists To be the true and Lawful Interpreter of the Sense of the Scriptures And the Supream Judge of Controversies Concerning Faith and Divine Worship 1. IT is most clear that the Jesuites make both the Scripture it self and the Interpretation of it to Depend upon the Authority of the Church 2. And the Church they call not the whole Multitude of Christians and Faithful Men. 3. But they Restrain both the Name and the Nature of the Church 1. unto their Bishops 2. If Thereupon we Reformed object That their Bishops may Differ touching the Sense of the Scriptures so shall we be uncertain and shall not resolve which of them to Believe but they help this and Answer That General Councils must Decide and Determine all Questions and Controversies 3. Shall we then Rest in them No more then in then the other For the Pope must be Judge over the Councils 4. So in the Conclusion The whole Interpretation of Holy Scriptures is transferred to the Pope and must be fetched out of his Breast yea and as a proper Right he so challengeth the Power of Interpreting of the Scripture That whatsoever he thinketh That must be accounted the Sense and Meaning of them Refutation of this Doctrine of the Jesuits by the Reformed Doctors 1. THat which hath been said above is the Jesuites constant and perpetual property and disposition in interpreting the Scriptures 2. Which is full of Dotage Error and Falsehood void of Advise Knowledge and Wisdome 3. For what an Absurd and horrible Thing is it that the Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scripture should depend upon one mans Judgement and Voice 4. Specially being such a one as commonly the Bishops of Rome have been Unlearned Wicked Heretical 5. And hence have proceeded all the following goodly Interpretations 1. Take Eate That is you Priests say Private Masses 2. Drink ye all of This That is onely the Priests must Drink 3. Be ye Holy for I am Holy Therefore it is unlawful for the Ministers of the Word to marry a Wife Exception of the Jesuites Which of the Popes or what Catholick Writer ever concluded this out of that place Answer to this Exception Pope Syricius did first of all so Collect And after him Pope Innocent As it may be read in Gratian Dist. 31. cap. Tenere and Dist 82. cap. Proposuisti cap. Plurimos 4. This is another like Interpretation Give not holy things unto Doggs Therefore the people must be forbidden to read the Scriptures 5. What should we number up Innumerable more of the Popes and Papists Interpretations By which they do nothing but pervert and wrest the Scriptures In Particular These be the Frauds of the Church of Rome Concerning Her first Principle Which is the Scripture 1. Fraud The Papists making Shew to Receive the Scriptures for Ground and Rule of Faith Do Disgrace Them in Joyning Traditions with Them 1. FOr as the Scriptures are Grounds And Rule of true Doctrine So are They onely Grounds And Rule 2. And as in Matters of Faith Arguments ought principally to be drawn from Them so such Arguments onely conclude necessarily As even the Schoolman Thomas Aquinas doth Directly confesse 1. Part. 1. Quaest. Artic. 8. Ad. 2. 2. Fraud The Church of Rome which Produceth Scriptures for one of Her Principles And Rules hath indeed no sufficient Scriptures For in making an old rotten Translation which we may boldly call so being compared with the Original Word of Scripture to be the Authentical Word of God and denying the Original Faithful Texts which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Evangelists did write to be the Word of God What doth she else but plainly as it were with one dash of a Penne Cancel the whole Scriptures 2. This Homely Latin Translation is the Papists Scripture 3. Coined and Canonized of late in the Councel of Trent And never before 4. And other Scripture have They none §. Of the Corruption of the vulgar Latine Translation more Fully 1. THe Reader of the vulgar Latin Translation may manifestly perceive That in it are manifold and almost infinite Faults of all sorts 1. By Adding 2. By Omitting 3. By Mistaking Of Letters Of Points Of Syllables And of Words 4. By wrong Interpreting the Original Text. 2. Which Faults The Popish Doctors shall never be able to Approve or Justifie Though They weary Themselves never so much with Traveling and Toiling and seeking some Defence 3. When They have said what They can say for Maintenance of These Corruptions it shall for all that Appear By all Learning and Evidence of Reason that They have Neither the Old nor the New Testament in the Entire and Original
was the first in Order and the Rector of the Parish as hath been said was called the principal or Cardinal Priest For that comes to one as Pandulphus Pisanus doth teach and after him Onuphrius 4. And at this time all Cardinals are Priests or Deacons of some of the parishes of Rome 5. In that regard they sate at the last in Councils As namely in the sixth Council of Carthage And in the Council of Gregory the first And the Gallicane Church in her Remonstrances to the Council of Canstance saies these words Cardinals are the Rectors or Parsons of the Parochial Churches at Rome They have their Dignities in their parishes and their First and principal Office is To hear Confessions To preach and to Baptize c. 6. But Onuphrius saith in Libro de Cardinalibus That when Pope Clement the 2. about the year 1046. had strengthened the Papal Majesty Leo the 9. about the year 1049. did begin to raise up the State of Cardinals at Rome 7. Unto whom afterwards Innocent the 4. about the year 1244. gave the priviledge of the Red Hat Of the Scarlet Gown And to go on Horseback through the Citie 8. And in the year 1470. Paul the 2. did confirm it 9. And since Clement the 5. went so far in his Clementines as to make them march before all the Princes of the earth 10. But that the beginning of Cardinals had been such as hath been represented Besides the consent of the whole History it doth appear by the following things 1. It doth appear by this That Antiently there were onely 28 of them That is to say as many as of Titles and of the parishes at Rome 2. That doth appear by this That as the Popes were willing to make a great number of Cardinals they did also increase the number of the Parishes of Rome 3. That doth appear by this That above a thousand years lasting the least Bishop had the precedence of a Cardinal how Ancient soever he might be And even the Dean likewise 4. That doth appear by this That the Cardinalat was a Degree to become Bishop And that he who of a Cardinal was made Bishop did cease to be Cardinal which was not altered but about the year 1190 by Pope Clement the third 5. That doth appear by this That among the Cardinal Bishops the Precedence was taken from the Promotion to the Bishoprick and not to the Cardinalship The Cardinals being esteemed inferiours to Bishops and onely more then simple Priests Alexander the 3. did change that after he had troden under feet the Emperor Frederick about the year 1180. making thenceforth the Cardinals Bishops and the Cardinals not Bishops to have the precedence of Bishops Archbishops Primates Patriarchs c. 6. That doth appear by this That the Church of Ravenna in Italy had her Cardinals and kept them a long time which also in the time of Charles the Great did maintain That she held nothing of Rome 11. Concerning Cardinal Deacons the books of the Church of Rome do teach us That there was but one there in the beginning which was called so because he was the Principal Deacon called by us Arch-Deacon of the seven Deacons that were in that City that is to say one for two Regions which were called Regionarie Deacons having the care of the Alms. Since they were 14 one for a Region and afterwards 18. To give 4 of them to Latran and at last they were all Cardinals and that without Number 12. It must not be wondred at Then if the Canonists do Dispute that the Cardinals have no Rank in the Church and that they are neither Instituted by Christ nor by his Apostles c. 13. Neither also must we wonder if even the Cardinal of Alliaco Libr. de Reform among the Articles which he presented to the Council of Constance at the Request of the Emperour Sigismond did give counsel to extinguish them as superfluous and added without cause This is an Observation greatly to be considered namely That the Arguments used in the Church of Rome for Defence of their Erroneous Doctrines before the coming in of the Jesuites are declared by the Jesuites themselves to have been but sleight and weak Arguments Jesuites OUr Ancestors saies one of the Jesuites otherwise most wise men having not alwaies to Debate with wilful Spirits did not strictly stand upon exact Form of Teaching Answer to that by the Reformed 1. THe cause is the more desperate when such wise men could find no better Arguments to maintain it but such as even the Jesuites themselves confesse to be but weak 2. And both their Heresies were then too credulous to believe And the Jesuites are now ridiculous to defend such loose Arguments as they do § By the above observation it doth manifestly appear That the Jesuites that now have taken upon them to defend the Doctrine Erroneous of the Church of Rome of all the Sophisters of that Church are the greatest 1. THe Jesuites puts now down all the Ancient Sophisters of the Church of Rome for deceipt and fraud themselves being yet but upstarts 2. For if there were ever any kingdom of poor blind men over the stark blind questionless it is now wholy descended unto the Jesuites 3. To whom the former Popish Doctors as also the Ancienter Orders of Monks and Friars do willingly yeild the Garland because they think that they see something Of all the Sophisters Jesuites Bellarmine a Jesuite is the greatest and most Vniversal as appears by the Representation and Observation of his Faults 1. REading the Controversies of Cardinal Bellarmine concerning Religion we find two kinds of Faults in them Some are General And the others are Particular 2. These be some of his General Faults 1. To make shew and parade of his Learning he propounds and moves Questions too curious as also unprofitable 2. He refutes the Antient Errors with too great prolixitie and labour which were not to be drawn out of Hell wherein in times past truth had made them fall 3. He unjustly reproves the Reformed Doctors and slanders them being beholding unto them for many matters that he hath taken from them though he doth not vouchsafe to acknowledg it 4. When he loses all hope to be helped by holy Scriptures he doth strengthen himself by the Authority of the Fathers and of the Councils and of Miracles 5. Against all right and reason to maintain and uphold his Capitolin god which is the Pope he alleadges unto us the Popes in their own Cause as Judges or witnesses 6. Also to prove his Assertions he alleadges and produce that which hath been done by the Pope Whereas it was to be known in regard of Right whether they ought to do such things 7. To procure glory and fame unto himself and being stirred by Ambition he blames and rebukes every kind of persons even his own Doctors and moreover the holy Scriptures 8. Having undertaken to uphold an Error he hoth sink in the mud the more
themselves to forgive sins but God alone forgiveth sins Mark 1.7 2. But having the word of Reconciliation committed unto them from God they offer pardon and in his Name pronounce pardon to the sinner that believeth and that turneth from his wickednesse and sinnes unto the Lord. Refutation of this Accusation of the Jesuites and other Popish Writers that in the Religion and Doctrine of the Reformed their is no Stay or Certainty 1. VVHat greater stedfastnesse in Religion can be required then to hold Gods Word which we Reformed profess to be the Ground we build our Faith 2. If the Popish Doctors can shew wherein we swarve from it we will not refuse their Instruction 3. But that they cannot do for we plant not our Religion in mans Judgement and in the uncertainty of Traditions in vain Ceremonies and Devices as the Papists do 4. But in matters of Faith and Religion we depend upon God who in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament hath delivered to his Church one certain Uniform and perfect Doctrine to which we add nothing from which we take nothing away in which we settle and ground our selves §. In matter of Points of Religion the private Judgement of some few is not to be objected by the Popish Doctors against the consent of a whole Reformed Church And therefore conclude that in our Reformed Religion we have no certain staie 1. FOr then may we Reformed in like manner and by as good reason argue against the Papists for a thousand such matters wherein hath been no small dissention among the Popish Divines That the Papists have no certain ground of their Faith 2. That appears by the following Examples 1 A Cardinal of Rome hath openly defended and taught that the Apostle S. Paul permitteth one Wife to Priests and to others more And that plurality of Wives is not forbidden either by the Law of God or by the Law of Nature This Cardinal was Caietan the Popes Legate in Germany and the great Adversary of Luther Katherine hath noted this among his manifold Errors 2. And another Popes Legate writ and published in print a Treatise in commendation of a foul sin for which he was greatly and grievously punished by the Pope being preferred to a great Archbishoprick 3. Pighus saith that Justice in us is a Relation wherein he hath exceedingly offended the other Popish Doctors and Writers 3. May we Reformed Now by the Papists Example hereof conclude that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church That thus the Papists do believe generally or else that there is no stay in their Religion Refutation of this Accusation of the Jesuites and others Popish Doctors that in the Reformed Churches There is no Vnity but great Differences 1. VVE Reformed say that greater Difference shall not the Popish Doctors find among the true Professors of the Gospel and Reformed Churches then may be amongst the children of God 2. When such bitter Dissention was between the East and the West Churches about the day of Passeover and the same continued so many years with great offence and Alienation among the Faithful yet they ceased not for all that to be the Churches of Christ 3. Neither is it ever to be hoped for that such perfect concord shall be among the Professors of Christs Religion that they shall agree most joynly together in the Truth or in every particular point thereof 4. Yet let us add That although the Tyrannical and the worldly and the carnal provisions for keeping of Unity above Represented be not amongst the Reformed Churches notwithstanding through Gods grace and blessing all Churches Reformed agree soundly in all Articles of Faith that are substantial and necessary to Salvation and shall so do unto the end Refutation of this Accusation of the Jesuites and other Popish Doctors that in the Doctrine and Religion of the Reformed Churches many Paradoxes are to be found and that in General 1. HIerome said that he would not have any man to be patient if he were suspected of Heresie 2. And therefore in so much the worser part do we Reformed take it that so many Paradoxes false and horrible be by the Jesuites and other Popish Doctors objected against us 3. And indeed those Jesuites and others of the Popish Clergy that do object them to us do in this place manifest an horrible Impudence and audaciousnesse for unlesse they had quite and clean put off both all Religion of God and Reverence towards Men they would never have admitted so much Impudencie into themselves as to upbraid us with these monstrous Opinions 4 But we perceive what they intend for they hope that by slandering boldly somewhat would alwaies cleave fast which one of them was wont to say 5. For sith they lack true Imputations whereby they might oppugn our Churches it remained that either they should leave off writing which were their honestest way or at least devise some slanders which they would cast like venomed darts upon us 6. Which thing is both in it self very filthy and also a sure Argument of their desperatenesse 7. When we handle in particular the Controversies that are between us by Gods grace we shall so wipe away these their Paradoxes and Impossibilities that all men shall perceive that they are ascribed to us by them most falsly and most impudently 8. In the mean time we intreat the Reader to observe this That those pretended Paradoxes are either such things as that nothing can be truer then they or else that they are craftily and treacherously wrested by them in a perverse meaning §. It is the Doctrines and Religion of the Church of Rome that many Paradoxes are to be found 1. THe Jesuites publish that there are Paradoxes in great number in the Reformed Religion and Doctrine and do endeavour to manifest it by many Instances which they propose But although they have stirred this Puddle to the bottome with all their diligence yet they have found so much as one Paradox or a piece of a Paradox of the Reformed 2. 1. BUt now if the said Reformed should but a little make search into the most filthy Puddles of the Popish Writers as to reckon up what they have affirmed Of God Of the actual Providence of God Of Predestination Of the Person and of the Offices of Christ Of Original Sin Of the Law Of Righteousnesse and Justification Of Purgatory Of the Pope of Rome Of the Sacraments And of the rest of the greatest Matters in Reliligion how many Carts should they fill with Paradoxes horrible to be spoken or thought 2. We forbear at this present handling but general Observations to stirre this common Sewer but we will do it hereafter by Gods grace when we take in hand the particular Controversies about the said common places that have been mentioned The Renowned Doctors of the Reformed Churches are impudently accused of Ignorance by the Jesuites and others of the Roman Clergie 1. FOr we Reformed do ask of these Jesuites and their fellows and