The whole scope and drift1 of this question is this, that if there chance a free conference or disputation in any counsel, wherein they are required to render a reason of their faith and Religion, and so may not refuse the same, that then they may have at the least some kind of prerogative, to the end that nothing may be decreed against them, & that they may not be drawn from their sins, errors, & other abuses, to a virtuous & acceptable life before god. ⟨p. 37⟩Therefore seek they by all means, that them selves only may be placed in th• councils, and that they may not be constrained to admit any lay man, or such as are not of their stamp, amongst them, but that they alone may have full power and authority to accuse, to be witnesses, to determine and to judge, and that by this means nothing may be done, but as it listeth them. And even in this sort, have some of their forefathers now a great while holden councils, being the ready way (as they thought) to provide for them selves. But whether this were acceptable before God, upright before men, or profitable to the church, the time it self, the oppressing of the truth, the slaughters of most godly men, and the miserable government of the thurche, doth evidently declare, yea and all faithful and wise men, may easily judge. Of this2 question there is two parts. The first is, whether the Apostles in the first council at Jerusalem, did take into the same, those heretics which went about to thrust upon the godly circumcision ⟨image 48⟩and the law of Moses? Now here they suppose, we must needs deny the same: whereupon they will conclude, that because we are Heretics, we neither ought to be heard, nor be admitted into the council. But although there were no place nor licence given to the heretics in the council at Jerusalem to speak, yet it followeth not, that we ought not to be heard, or ought not to be admitted into a lawful council, (for as touching other Councils which are unlawful, and fosterers of their factions, we do not pass) because we are not Heretics as they were, which contended against Paul: but we defend, preserve, and purely teach the Apostolic doctrine, which Paul proponed in that council, whereas our adversaries defend the doctrine of Pauls enemies, and by all violence and force, thrust the same upon men. The sum of Pauls doctrine was this:
THe whole scope and drift1 of this question is this, that if there chance a frée conference or disputation in any counsel, wherin they are required to render a reason of their fayth and Religion, and so may not refuse the same, that then they may haue at the leaste some kinde of prerogatiue, to the ende that nothing may bee decréed agaynst thē, & that they may not be drawen frō their sinnes, errors, & other abuses, to a vertuous & acceptable life before god. ⟨p. 37⟩Therfore séeke they by al meanes, that them selues onely may be placed in th• councels, and that they may not be constrained to admit any lay man, or suche as are not of their stampe, amongste them, but that they alone may haue ful power and aucthoritie to accuse, to be witnesses, to determine and to iudge, and that by this meanes nothing may be done, but as it listeth them. And euē in this sorte, haue some of their forefathers nowe a great while holden councels, being the readye waye (as they thought) to prouide for them selues. But whether this were acceptable before God, vpright before men, or profitable to the church, the time it selfe, the oppressing of the truthe, the slaughters of moste godly men, and the miserable gouernement of the thurche, dothe euidently declare, yea and all faithfull and wise men, may easely iudge. Of this2 question there is two partes. The first is, vvhether the Apostles in the firste councell at Ierusalem, did take into the same, those heretickes which wente about to thrust vpon the godly circumcision ⟨image 48⟩and the lawe of Moses? Now héere they suppose, we must néedes denie the same: whereuppon they will conclude, that bicause we are Heretickes, we neither oughte to be heard, nor be admitted into the councel. But althoughe there were no place nor licence giuen to the heretickes in the councell at Jerusalem to speake, yet it foloweth not, that we ought not to be heard, or ought not to be admitted into a lawfull councell, (for as touching other Councelles which are vnlawfull, and fosterers of their factions, we doe not passe) bicause we are not Heretickes as they were, which contended againste Paule: but we defende, preserue, and purely teache the Apostolicke doctrine, which Paule proponed in that councel, whereas our aduersaries defend ye doctrine of Pauls enemies, and by all violence and force, thrust the same vpon men. The summe of Paules doctrine was this:
- 1The Papists will be both accusers and Judges.The Papistes will be bothe accusers and Iudges.
- 2Whether the Apostles admitted Heretics into the Counsel.Whether the Apostles admitted Hereticks into the Counsel.
