A17219:109
Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the sameQuestions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the aduersaries of the same
Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the same: and answered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurick: reduced into .17. common places. Translated into English by John Cox. 1572Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the aduersaries of the same: and aunswered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurick: reduced into .17. common places. Translated into Englishe by Iohn Coxe. 1572
London: printed by Henry Bynneman for George Byshop, 1572London: printed by Henrie Bynneman for George Byshop, 1572
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The Answer.
The Answere.
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: