teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
witness And he shall be intestate and not have power to make a Will nor come to succession of inheritance And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause but he shall be forced to answer others And if he be a Judge his sentence shall be invalid and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing If he be an advocate his Plea shall not be admitted If a Notary or Register the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void and damned with the damned Author And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed Thus the Council The Summ of which is that all the Pope calls Hereticks must be condemned and destroyed That all Kings Princes or Lords that will not execute his sentence and root them out must be dispossessed of their Dominions and the subjects absolved from fidelity whatever Oaths they had taken and all others that do but favour or receive them be utterly undone and exterminated Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth and we have this with the decernimus firmiter statuimus of a general Council this must be acknowledged to be so Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees Epist Monit ad Johannem Barclaium But against this Eudaemo-Johannes asks if the business were so Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Vnus quidem reclamavit cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire ausus sit Yea why is it so generally Extant in all Editions Coâ—t Barclaium 2. Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant omnibas consentientibus laudantibus to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place who all consented to and applauded the determination and by another at Rome under Paschal the second by one at Colen under Gelasius the second at Rhemes under Calixtus the second at Beneventum under Victor the third at Placentia under Vrbane the second and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy and as many in Spain fifteen in France twelve in Germany England and Scotland seven besides many others which unquestionably he had not read I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperours and deprive them of their Kingdoms if they be Hereticks and must it not thence follow that this Dominus fac totum this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King and exterminate all that do oppose them all that are Loyal to their Soveraigns doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them and may make insurrections against them without scruple and then not to add their Jesuites Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts CHAP. II. Why this Work was undertaken by the Author Sect. 1. M. C ' Protestation incredible Sect. 2. His Slur cast upon his Majesty Sect. 3. OCcasionally perusing this Author Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book that was not either disingenuously forged or fully and satisfactorily answered already by Protestant Divines and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I though I should profess no greater abilities then to write and read to evince this unto the world and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties but old and bafled arguments such as any man may Answer who can write and read And here I tremble to consider Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent to say no worse to call God to witness upon his soul Pag. 10. that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavilling distortions either of Text of Scripture or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called pâ—as fraudes corruptions of either And that he would alledge nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church Purgatory Invocation of Saints Celibacy of Priests but especially Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacy and if he do not find Scriptures miserably distorted Fathers not only wrested but corrupted I will forfeit presently my life And is it possible that any man should believe him perswaded that his proofs are unanswerable who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the famous Chillingworth and Reverend Dr. Hammond out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments He that considereth his Discourse upon the Churches practice of Praying in the Latine tongue will find it altogether unpossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God And Thirdly Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty Pag. 11. of transgressing his injunctions to his very face doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face CHAP. III. The Challenge of Bishop Jewel owned by us Sect. 1. M. C's malitious accusation of our Church Sect. 2. His mistake Sect. 3. Antiquity not acknowledged to run contrary to us Sect. 4. His abuse of Dr. Hammond ib. Not We but the Romanist self-condemned Sect. 5. This evidenced from their Indices expurgatorii Sect. 6. M. C's Mistake rendring his whole Book impertinent Sect. 7. An Answer to his Questions Sect. 9. Scripture not abused by the Doctor ib. IN this third Chapter You begin with a bold assertion Sect. 1 Defen Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s 3. Ecclesia illius temporis ad 600. annos sola nostra est nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum vide quae sequuntur Demonst of the Problem in fine Defence of the way c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church whereas we
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
evidently known to be such or openly declared such obligeth no man that the Kings Oath is unjust is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoak and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron is less then straw Yea further cannot good Pope * Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy Suarez adv sect Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s 14 c. 6. s 22 24. Azorius Iâ—st Moral part 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Jansenians mysterie of iniquity Abbots Antilogia Clement the VIII suggest to You as he did to the King of France tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England that your Oath is made to an Heretick but you stand bound against her and her Succcessors in another Oath to God and to the Pope Fourthly What is his Majesty the better for your subscriptions to his due Supremacy whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him no obedience is due unto him yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant and may be dealt with as such an one and consequently be slain by a private man Suarez defens fid Cathol l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra Will you plead your fidelity Sect. 5 and zeal in serving and defending of our Princes See p. 7. and even the Religion of the Kingdom in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you when the whole Colledge of your Jesuits in London say Mr. Baxters Key for Cath. c. 45. That they will rather promote the cutting off of the Kings Majesty then hinder it least they the Puritans should make use of his extremities to any advantage nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoycing at that unsavage butchery 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so was it so in Ireland In two Letters to Arch B. Laud extant in Print introduc p. 102 112. Vide Bax. ibid. no Bishop Bedle will assure us his Majesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King but at the Popes discretion and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council which since is justified by themselves in Print constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congregation de propaganda fide lately erected at Rome 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesties dominions even this because you are not able to manage a war against him In Th. 22. qu. 13. art 2. non licet eis tolâ—rare talem Regem Bell. l. 5. de Paul c. 7. s 3. And again they are obliged not to suffer him s probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions Bull. Pauli 5. cont Hen. 8. yea t is meritorious of eternal life saith Card. Commens in his letter to Pareus thus Bannes The faithful Papists in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors nor make war against them because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars and great dangers hang over them were they then strong enough not to rebell would be unexcusable But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence Sect. 6 Pag. 4. is That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched not one could be found to testifie the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion In Answer to this I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third as Binius and others of your own record it where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholick Faith two Articles of which are 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ the appearances remaining And in the third Chapter they say We Excommunicate and Anathematise every Heresie extolling it self against this holy Orthodox Catholick Faith which we have before exponed condemning all Hereticks by what names soever they be called And being condemned let them be left to the present secular powers or their Bayliffs to be punished the Clergy being first degraded of their orders and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate if they be Lay-men but if they be Clergy-men let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends And those that are found notable only by suspition if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency according to the considerations of the suspition and the quality of the person let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema and avoided by all men till they have given sufficient satisfaction and if they remain a year excommunicate let them then be condemned as Hereticks And let the secular powers in what office soever be admonished and perswaded and if necessary compelled by Ecclesiastical censure that as they would be reputed and accounted believers so for the defence of the faith they take an Oath publikely that they will study in good earnest according to their power to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Hereticks from the Countries subject to their Jurisdiction So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual or Temporal power he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter But if the Temporal Lord being required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Countrey of Heretical defilement let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be tyed by the bond of Excommunication And if he refuse to satisfie within a year let it be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity and may expose his Countrey to be Seised on by Catholiques who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and may keep it in the purity of faith saving the right of the principal Lord so be it that he make no hinderance hereabout and oppose not any impediment and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords And the Catholikes that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Hereticks shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy priviledges which were granted to those that go to the relief of the Holy Land Moreover we decree that the Believers Receivers Defenders and favourers of Hereticks shall be excommunicate firmly decreeing that after any such is noted by excommunication if he refuse to satisfie within a year he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous and may not be admitted into publick offices or councils or to the choice of such nor to bear
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to