member is guilty of a sinful and dangerous Schism and whilst he continues therein can have no roason to expect the blessing of those promises 3. That there may be sometimes a just cause of Separation as when a Church makes the conditions of her Communion such as a man cannot communicate with her without sin and danger But in this case particular members ought to be mighty wary and cautious for it is not every dissatisfaction of their own or every irregularity of that Church that will be a sufficient cause of Separation unless the terms of her Communion be manifestly and apparently sinful 4. That the great end and design of Excommunication is the repentance and amendment of the person excommunicated It doth not therefore make void the promises of God nor utterly deprive the sentenced person of the benefits thereof but onely by a temporary correction shews him his folly and danger and calls upon him by a timely repentance and amendment to recover himself out of the one and prevent the other But it must be acknowledged that if a man obstinately continue in that condition and live and die under that sentence his condition will be very dangerous These may serve as general Answers to this Query but if by the Separation or Excommunication here mentioned be meant as no question it is a Separation of Excommunication from the Society and Unity of the Church of Rome Then we have this further to say 1. That the present Church of Rome hath separated her self from the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church by setting up such Doctrines and practices as were never taught practised nor allowed either by Christ or his Apostles or their Successors in the Primitive Church 2. That the present Church of Rome hath made the conditions of her Communion such as none without sin and danger can Communicate with her and by that means hath justified a Separation from her 3. That the Church of Rome hath not nor ever had any lawful Power or Authority over the Church of England nor are we Subject to the Jurisdiction of that See whether we consider it as Episcopal or as Metropolitan or as Patriarchal and therefore we cannot be justly charged with a Separation therefrom It is true indeed that for some time she had Tyrannically usurped an unjust power over us and kept us in Bondage and Slavery to her but God be thanked we at last found an opportunity to shake off those Chains and deliver our selves from the servitude under which we had so long groaned And this we have done and are still ready to justifie to the whole world to be no sinful Separation 4. That an Excommunication thundered out by the Church of Rome against us of the Church of England is but only Brutum fulmen an insignicant Scare-Crow which upon mature consideration we have no cause to be afraid of for she having no power over us we are not accountable to her nor subject to any sentence pronounced by her And therefore notwithstanding that pretended Separation or Excommunication from the Society and Unity of that Church which they make so much noise with we are in no apprehension of losing the benefits of those promises which God hath made to his One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of Grace here and Eternal Happiness hereafter Qu. 3. Doth Christian Religion consist in matters of Morality or Ceremony of indifferency to be accepted or rejected and altered at the Choice Judgment and well liking of private Persons Corporations or States Ans Religion in general may be considered either in its Essentials or as it is cloathed with Circumstantials The former of which are unalterable but the latter may be subject to change The Christian Religion in particular falls under the same consideration the Being whereof consists indeed in matters of Morality which being innituted and ordained by Christ are not alterable by Men. But the order and decency which are things necessary to the well being of that Religion consists in Ceremonies and things indifferent which are in their own nature alterable and being the institutions of Men may be altered by Men but not by any private Persons For whatsoever hath been established by the whole Body cannot be altered by any particular member or any number of Men who are members of that Body nor by any Authority less than that by which at first it was established And here the Church of Rome may do well to consider by what power and authority she hath made so bold with the very Essentials of the Christian Religion altering some and adding others making new Articles of Faith which were never taught by Christ nor his Apostles and imposing them as necessary to be believed by all those of her Communion Qu. 4. Or doth it consist in the Laws and Rules of Faith and life of Christians so important and binding as that by the contempt thereof one must lose Eternal Happiness Ans This Query is very little different from the former and hath I think received a sufficient answer in the solution of that For by matters of Morality there wherein I say the Being of the Christian Religion doth consist I mean Moral and unchangeable truths which are to be received and believed by all Christians and Moral actions which are to be done by them and for our belief and performance of these things we have such laws and rules delivered by Christ and his Apostles as are binding unto all the contempt wherof may very much endanger and without a serious and seasonable repentance and amendment will certainly forfeit eternal happiness And therefore it will highly concern the Church of Rome to consider whether she be not guilty of such contempt whether in some of her publick Orders and Decrees she have not apparently contradicted some of these important Laws and Rules Qu. 5. Whether those Laws and Rules taught by Christ and his Apostles bind as well the Christians of succeeding Ages who could not be present to see and hear them as they bound those who were present heard them taught and saw their Original Writings Ans That these Laws and Rules are as binding to me now as they were to any of the Disciples in our Saviour's or his Apostles time I willingly grant And if this concession will do this Enquirer any service much good may do him with it For if the seeing of the Original Writings of Christ and his Apostles or being present to hear them deliver those Laws and Rules were necessary to make them obligatory then ought we to have Christ and his Apostles come down from Heaven and write and preach the same things over again not only in every Age but in every year every day of that year and in all places of the world too But let us proceed and see what mighty use this Enquirer will make of this wire drawing this Query Qu. 6. Whether after the death of Christ and his Apostles and Disciples by his institution other persons successively
suspect my own than theirs yet whatsoever Testimonies and Decrees are propounded by the Church they are propounded to rational men and it must necessarily be supposed that men ought to exercise that reason which God hath endowed them withall in judging of the evidence upon which those Testimonies and Decrees are built which evidences if they do not prove convincing and satisfactory they cannot command their own belief much less can any Power or Authority do it For to act by an implicit faith in that case were to act more like Brutes than Men. And therefore though we willingly own that there is as much credit due to them as to Civil Magistrates in the like case yet can we not grant any more Or if their Testimonies and Decrees concern matters of Fact wherein our Obedience is required i. e. matters of Discipline which respect the order and decency of Religion we grant that obedience is due to them and as much obedience as is due to Civil Magistrates in the like case yet still a Judgment of discretion is to be allowed to the Subject how far he can with a safe Conscience actively obey and when and where he is to exercise his passive obedience But this caution ought to be observed by every private Christian that by an imprudent management of his different Sentiments he do not disturb the Peace nor break the Order and Unity of the Church Qu. 11. Or hath Christ left such liberty to all succeeding Christians that they need not believe credit or obey any the Testimonies Laws Interpretations or Sentences given by any supreme Legal Governours Civil or Ecclesiastical in their respective Councils further than every particular person in his private Judgment shall like chuse and accept of Ans This Query I take to be fully answered in the Answer to that immediately preceding wherein the case is plainly stated How far the Credit and Obedience of Inferiours is due to the Sentences and Determinations of their Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical And therefore without saying the same things over again or enlarging thereupon I shall refer you thereunto Qu. 12. Whether a few particular persons or some few of the Magistrates Civil or Ecclesiastical for discontent or differing in Judgment from the united body of the rest may under pretence of Conscience or Reformation separate themselves from the United body and society and make new translations and interpretations of written Laws different from the former and by force and perswasion draw People from their old Society Unity and Obedience to new Congregations Institutions and Rules of their framing opposite and destructive to the former Ans This Query consists of several parts and therefore to give a direct and apposite Answer thereunto I shall endeavour to obviate the several parts thereof by these Propositions following Viz. 1. That no person or number of men whether they be private Persons or Magistrates Civil or Ecclesiastical ought to separate themselves on any pretence whatsoever from the body of the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 2. That discontent or differing in Judgment only are no sufficient grounds of separation from any particular Church whereof we are Members 3. That a bare pretence of Conscience and Reformation will not justifie a Schism nor excuse those who are guilty of a Schismatical separation either in Church or State For the peace of the whole Community is far more valuable than any private man's satisfaction and ought not to be laid open to the attempts of any Schismatical pretenders whatsoever 4. That the written and established Laws of God or his Vicegerents upon Earth are not reversible nor alterable by any man or number of men Because they cannot pretend to that Authority by which at first they were established and without that they cannot be altered For if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed saith St. Paul Gal. 1.8 5. That it is not lawfull for any person or persons who are Members of an established Church either by force or perswasion to draw People from the Communion of that Church and so break the Unity and disturb the Peace thereof or by any Artifices whatsoever either to undermine or batter down the Ramparts i. e. the established Laws and Constitutions of that Church These Propositions put together may suffice as a general Answer to this Query but now to apply them to the matter in hand i. e. the difference between us and the Church of Rome for on that account was the Query propounded And this I shall now do in these following particulars 1. That the Church of Rome though she mightily pretend to it is not that One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church That she is a Member of the Catholick Church we grant though we can scarce allow her to be a sound Member thereof but that she should pretend to be the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church either diffusive or representative we cannot consent nor hath she ever yet or ever will be able to make goad her claim thereunto 2. That the present Church of Rome is guilty of a sinfull and schismatical Separation from the United Body of the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church we affirm And that for these reasons 1. Because she usurps an higher place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto her thereby breaking the Union and disturbing the Peace of the Church 2. Because she hath voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by her innovations 3. By separating both by her Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from her Communion and as much as in her lyes from the Communion of Christ 4. By rebelling against general Councils and usurping an Authority over them 5. By breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves 6. By challenging a temporal power over Princes either directly or indirectly which hath been a great occasion not only of Schism in the Church but of Sedition and Rebellion in the State All which instances have been charged upon and made good against the Church of Rome by our Writers and may be so again whenever we are called to it 3. It is not therefore we that have separated from them but they from us whilst we adhere to the united Body of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which they have forsaken 4. Nor is it we but they who have altered the written and established Laws of God and his Church by adding new Articles of Faith such as were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles nor taught by the primitive Church nor comprised in any of those Creeds received by the Church and making them necessary Conditions of their Communion As the Doctrines of Supremacy and Infallibility of Indulgences and Purgatory of Transubstantiation c. 5. It is they therefore and
Communion so sinful and dangerous that no man with safety to his Soul can continue in it it will be high time to come out of it Qu. Whether he or Protestants at present do pretend to such Demonstration for those Tenets they hold contrary to the Roman Church the then onely visible Church in the West that no understanding to which it is sufficiently proposed can in the least doubt of it Ans We have such evidence for the Doctrines which we hold and teach in opposition to the Church of Rome as being sufficiently proposed no man can reasonably doubt of And as for those who will scruple without reason notwithstanding the clearest evidence that the nature of the thing will bear we can only pity and pray for them Qu. Or whether they do not rather say that being fallible they may err even in what they think a Demonstration and if they may err perhaps they have erred even in their Reformation Ans We do not pretend to infallibility nor do we think that the claim which the Bishop of Rome makes to it is any more than a groundless pretence only But à posse ad esse non valet consequentia from a bare possibility of erring to argue a certainty that we have erred in every thing we have done is an argument fitter to be offered to Children than Men. Qu. Whether therefore denying these Doctrines thus delivered by the Church in all Ages as Doctrines delivered by Christ and his Apostles upon no better grounds than these perhaps they may be true and perhaps not be not a putting ones self into the danger of erring even in fundamentals Ans We deny no Doctrines delivered by the Church in all Ages as Doctrines delivered by Christ and his Apostles nor do we own any Doctrine upon such weak grounds as perhaps they may be true and perhaps not But we say that the present Church of Rome doth teach such Doctrines as the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles which were never taught by the Church in all Ages nor delivered by Christ and his Apostles And in these things we oppose our selves against them and think we have great reason so to do having the holy Scriptures and the Primitive Church on our side And whilst we are thus supported we have no fear of erring in fundamentals Queries of Religion or Liberty WHo this Enquirer is as I am at present ignorant so am I not much concern'd to know but I take him to be one who hath conceived a mighty opinion of himself and his performances He thinks that by these Queries he hath struck at the root of Protestancy as he and those of his Perswasion call it i. e. Reformed Christianity that he hath given it a fatal blow a mortal wound and left it groveling in the dust without the least hopes of recovery Like that overgrown uncircumcised Philistine he defieth the Armies of the Living God and calls for a Man to fight with him For in the close of his Queries he maketh this proud and confident challenge If any give answer As if he should have said if any be so bold and daring so over confident and fool-hardy as to undertake an Answer to these Queries It is desired to be Categorical and short without any discourses of things not demanded Now whether this man do not triumph before the Victory or whether those Queries be so unanswerable as he believes them to be is the thing under consideration And because he hath not only given the Challenge but appointed the Weapon I shall neither decline the one nor the other but according to his own method shall undertake his Queries in the same order as he hath propounded them Qu. 1. Whether the Flock and Church of Christ to whom was promised grace and eternal happiness be that company and society of People christened in his Name who by order of Government Rules and Decrees from him and his Apostles were united in Faith Worship Discipline and manner of Life called Religion Ans The Church of Christ is either Militant or Triumphant the one on Earth the other in Heaven of the former of which we are now to speak The Church Militant is either Universal or Particular the former comprehending all and every Member of Christ's Mystical Body wheresoever dispersed upon the face of the whole Earth the latter comprizing only a certain Number of Christians formed into a select Body or Society under certain Laws and Rules not differing from those of the Universal Church Such are all Provincial and National Churches and though none of them may arrogate to themselves the Title of the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church yet none will deny but that they are true Members thereof This I have premised to prevent confusion and misunderstanding for the confounding of these two as it often happens in discourses of this kind hath been the occasion of great mistakes Those of the Romish Perswasion by the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church do usually understand the Church of Rome which though it be a manifest Contradiction being the same with a Particular Universal yet do they run away with it and by that specious and gorgeous Title think to bear down all before them aloud proclaiming that to be the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches This thus premised I shall now be as Categorical and short in my Answer to his Query as he can desire Viz. That the Flock and Church of Christ is a Company or Society of People Christned in his Name who by Order of Government rules and decrees from him and his Apostles are united in Faith Worship Discipline and Manner of Life called Religion Qu. 2. Whether by Separation or Excommunication from that Society and Unity are lost those promises Ans Separation and Excommunication are two things for though every one that is excommunicated be thereby separated from that body of which before he was a member yet a man may be in a state of Separation without being under the doom of Excommunication For Separation may be a voluntary Act whereas Excommunication is a formal and Judicial Sentence delivered by a lawful Judge authorized and appointed by the Church to pronounce the same by virtue whereof the sentenced person is divided from the Body separated from the Society and shut out of the Communion of God's Church The case thus stated my answer to this Query will be as followeth viz. 1. Whosoever upon any pretence whatsoever doth separate himself from the Society and Unity of the One Holy Catholick and Aposstolical Church doth in so doing cast himself out of the paternal care and protection of God For it is a certain and undoubted truth He that hath not the Church for his Mother cannot have God for his Father And consequently can have no pretence to the promises of grace here or eternal happiness hereafter 2. Whosoever without just cause doth separate himself from the Society and Unity of that particular Church of which he is a
not Ans When the universal Church by her proper Representatives is lawfully assembled in a Council truly General that Council without all dispute will be a very proper Judge of what is fundamental and what not but this is rather to be prayed than hoped for Qu. Whether an obstinate denial of any one truth delivered by Jesus Christ or his Apostles though the delivery was not absolutely necessary to Salvation may not be called a fundamental errour seeing it brings the rest he delivered in question as also his veracity Ans The denial of any one truth delivered by Jesus Christ or his Apostles is a very great fault and if that denial be obstinately continued in after plain conviction that it is such a truth it is a very dangerous Errour Qu. Whether therefore the denial of any one truth delivered to us by an uninterrupted tradition as taught by Christ and his Apostles would not be a fundamental Errour Ans There is a great difference between a thing delivered as taught and plainly taught by Christ and his Apostles for we meet with many things delivered as taught by them and tradition pretended for them which really and in truth were never taught by them or either of them aed to deny such is so far from being a fundamental Errour that it is no Errour at all There is also a great difference between traditions If by tradition he mean the holy Scriptures we grant that to deny any thing that is plainly and clearly taught therein is a very great Errour But if by tradition he mean such as is meerly humane and not clearly warranted by the Word of God we think we ought to reject such how uninterrupted soever they be for if an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel than hath been preached let him he accursed saith St. Paul Qu. And on the other side whether the teaching of any Doctrine onely piously believed but sufficiently known not to have been expresly or by a natural consequence delivered by Christ and his Apostles and which may upon that account be false not having Divine Revelation which alone is infallible for its ground whether I say the teaching such a Doctrine so known as one that was delivered by Christ when they know it was not would not be a fundamental Errour Ans Whosoever teacheth such Doctrines as are mentioned in this Query and in that manner is highly guilty and when the Enquirer shall think fit to be more particular and produce his instances he may expect a more particular answer and perhaps be told at whose door this charge will lie In the mean time this general answer may suffice Qu. Whether Christ having taken care as some grant that his Church should not err in fundamentals hath not consequently taken care that she should not teach any one Doctrine as delivered by Christ and consequently of Faith which was not taught by him and consequently might be an Errour Ans Christ hath taken all care possible to secure his Church from Errour and hath given her his gracious promise to be with her to the end of the World But the Church being composed of men and such as are fallible the security is not promised to particulars Particular persons and particular Churches too we know not only may but have grosly erred The security therefore is only promised to the Universal Church and when he tells us what he means by that he may expect a more direct answer to his Query Qu. Whether those Doctrines or most of them controverted now by Protestants have not been taught and believed in the Church as Doctrines delivered by Christ long before Luther yea and delivered in the most General Councils those Ages would permit and accepted of by the Church diffusive none that we know of dissenting but those condemned in those Councils for Hereticks and whose Heresies expired almost with themselves Ans It is now plain that this Enquirer by the Church and universal Church so often mentioned by him doth all along mean the Church of Rome which we are so far from complying with him in that though we own that Church to be a Member yet we cannot allow it to be a sound Member of the Catholick Church And if by the Decisions and Declarations of the Church he mean the determinations of that Church they are no further obligatory than to her own Members nor many of them to them neither if strictly enquired into As for Luther we do not receive our Religion from him but from Jesus Christ and for any Doctrines now controverted we are content to have the same determined by the Holy Scriptures and the four first General Councils As for the Councils our Enquirer hints at we deny that they were truly General or that all their decisions were ever accepted of by the Church diffusive And he cannot but know that there were many more not only Persons but whole Churches which did dissent from them Qu. Whether there was from the first 400 years till the time of Luther any known body of Pastors and Teachers declaring a dissent in any Age from those Doctrines and opposing those Councils and whether the Greek Churches did not and do to this very day consent with this Western Church in most points now controverted by Protestants Ans This Query is preposterously put for how should any body of Pastors and Teachers in the first 400 years oppose themselves to those Councils which were not then in being nor heard of till many hundred years afterwards But that the Fathers in those first Ages did teach the same Doctrines we now do we appeal to the Records of those times And that those after-Councils by him mentioned were dissenters from those of the first Ages we are contented to be tried by comparing the Acts of both together And that the Greek Church did or now doth agree with the Church of Rome in all or most of those points now in difference between her and us we utterly deny and challenge him to the proof of it Qu. Whether Luther the first Author of Protestancy did not separate himself from the whole visible Church at that time spread over the West contradicting all the Prelates and Pastors then living in the universal practice of that Church and the General Councils received as such by the foregoing Ages Ans As for the names of Protestant and Papist I look upon them as names of distinction not of Religion The Religion we both own is Christian This we do not receive from Luther nor they from Ignatius Loyala St. Francis or any such but both of us from Jesus Christ The only question is Whether they or we hold that Religion in greatest purity 'T is true that Luther in his time did more narrowly look into the corruptions of the Church of Rome declared against them and on that account separated from her Communion and for any thing yet appears may be very well justified in so doing For if any Church shall make terms of her
not we who by force and perswasion and by all manner of Artifices endeavour to draw People from the Unity and Obedience of the Holy Catholick Church unto new Congregations Institutions and Rules of their own framing opposite to and destructive of the former Like the Scribes and Pharisees of old they compass Sea and Land to make one Proselyte and when he is made they make him twofold more the Child of Hell than themselves Matth. 23.15 Qu. 13. Whether Persons so acting are better than Rebels and Usurpers or such as Simon Magus and those that deserted the Apostles to follow him and therefore to be avoided as Persons separated from the flock of Christ Ans That they are no better than such as he hath here named and described we willingly grant and upon that very account is it that we now avoid Communion with the present Church of Rome Thus have I given an Answer and I hope a sufficient one to these Enquiries and that short without entring upon discourses of things not demanded or at least not implyed in those demands and so observed the Method propounded by the Enquirer An Explanation of Roman Catholick's Belief concerning these IV. Points Their Church Worship Justification and Civil Government as it was presented to some Persons of Quality for their particular Satisfaction THese are four great Points and if well and truly explained the Explanation of them may be of very great use but if otherwise if he only guild the Pill that the Patient may be more easily perswaded to swallow it it may prove of dangerous Consequence instead of informing it may debauch the minds and understandings of men Let us therefore look before we leap let us consider well whether this Explainer hath been honest and faithfull in his Explanation before we receive all he saith for Gospel And for your assistance herein I shall set down his own words then animadvert thereupon and when that is done present you with both for your better satisfaction The EXPLAINER 1. We believe the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Infallible Authority and whatsoever is therein contained we firmly assent unto as to the word of God the Author of all truth But since in the Holy Scriptures there are some things hard to be understood which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction we therefore profess for the ending of all Controversies in our Religion and setling of Peace in our Consciences to submit our private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free general Council The ANIMADVERTER 1. The Explainer tells us that the Roman Catholicks do believe the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Infallible Authority c. A very fair and good profession wherein we do heartily joyn with them And is it not a great pity there should be a secret reserve to spoil and overthrow it They believe this but is this all they believe Do they not believe also that some things which before the Church's definition of them might have been innocently disbelieved yet after they are once defined and determined by the Church to be matters of Faith and of equal Authority with any other things delivered by Christ and his Apostles Do they not believe also that some Apocryphal Books are of Divine Inspiration also and of as infallible Authority as the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles Do they not believe Traditions to be the unwritten Word of God to be divinely inspired and of Equal infallible Authority with the written Word If they do then the Explainer hath not been so fair and candid so just and faithfull as he ought to have been in his Explication though he hath told us the truth he hath not told us the whole truth And that they do believe all this though I might easily produce a Cloud of Witnesses and those none of the least admired of their own Authours yet because I design brevity I shall content my self at present with the Evidence and Authority of one of their most magnified Councils which they call both free and general though in truth it was neither and that is the Council of Trent Which Sess 4 8. Apr. de Canon Script takes the Books of Toby Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom and Maccabees into the Canon of Scripture though they could not but know that they never were in the Jewish Canon nor ever universally received by the Christian Church and anathematized all those who do not upon this Declaration believe them to be Canonical And the same Council in the same Sess professes to receive and reverence Traditions with no less pious Affection than the Books of the Old and New Testament and that not in matter of Rite and History only but of Faith and Manners also Now what is this but to add to the Scriptures and to accuse them of insufficiency and imperfection And if so then what doth this Explainer do but deceive those Persons of Quality to whom he presents this as the Summ of their Belief But the Explainer goes on and saith since in the Holy Scriptures there are some things hard to be understood which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction And here I shall by the way only remarque these two things 1. The Apostle indeed saith there are some things hard but not impossible to be understood For if men will use the means if they will apply themselves with an humble and teachable temper of mind diligently to reade the Holy Scriptures if they will seriously meditate on what they reade and earnestly and devoutly pray unto God for the assistance and direction of his Holy Spirit therein the difficulty may be removed and they may be enabled rightly to understand those Scriptures at least so far as is necessary for them to know 2. The Apostle tells us to whom those things are hard to be understood viz. the ignorant and unstable So that the difficulty seems to be not in the things themselves but in the incapacities of men For if men will be ignorant still and not use the means to know better or if they will content themselves with some airy Notions which float and fluctuate in the brain without ever endeavouring to bring them to a consistency not only some but all things in Scripture and even the clearest declarations of the Church may be hard to be understood by them and so they will be as much at a loss in the one as in the other But how much this Text is misunderstood and misapplied a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church in a Treatise intituled Search the Scriptures hath plainly demonstrated to which I refer the Reader But let us see what Inference he draws from hence Therefore saith he we profess for the ending of all Controversies in our Religion and settling of peace in our Consciences to submit our private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council In which Inference I cannot but remarque these things
1. This Inference doth plainly imply a necessity of a visible Judge of Controversies to whom in all matters in difference there should be an Appeal and whose decision should be final Now if this be really so Then 1. It is mighty strange that Christ and his Apostles who pretended faithfully to deliver the whole mind and will of God to mankind should never once mention such an Officer in the Church Or 2. If they should omit to mention so necessary a thing in their writings and only deliver it by word of mouth to their immediate Successors it is no less strange that they should either not know or never make use of such an Expedient for the ending of those Controversies that arose in their days 3. We must conclude that either the Church hath been mighty careless of her own peace or that this Judge hath been very negligent in his business to suffer so great and so fatal Controversies to continue so long in the Church of God when there was so ready a way to put an end to them 2. Our Explainer in this Inference acquaints us with the great ends for the sake of which such a Judge is necessary viz. The ending of all controversies in our Religion and settling of peace in our Consciences These indeed are great things and greatly to be desired But whether there be any such Expedient or if there be whether it be sufficient for these ends are the things in question Now that from the first foundation of the Christian Church to this very day these great ends have not been universally attained is very plain and evident which to me is a very great Argument that either God never instituted any such expedient or if he did that it was not sufficient for these ends which would be a mighty reflection upon the power and wisedom of God But because some things in Scripture are hard to be understood doth it therefore necessarily follow that there must be a visible Judge of Controversies to deliver the sense of those places to us without whom we can never attain thereunto and from whose decision there lies no appeal I confess I cannot see the necessity of this consequence For if it be granted as it is on all hands that the Scriptures which we now have are the Word of God revealed by him and of infallible Authority we must believe that either God would not or could not explain his mind to the sons of men in words as plain and intelligible as any such Judge will or can do or else there can be no such necessity of any such Judge upon that account If there be no other way to attain the sense of Scripture but only the decision of such a Judge then what way or means is left us to understand the sense of the declaration of that Judge will there not want another Judge to determine that and another to explain his and so in infinitum But let us for once suppose though we do not grant it that there ought to be a Judge of Controversies in order to the attaining of these great ends let us see how he ought to be qualified and where we shall find him This Judge must be a person or number of people who must have a superiority not only of order but influence over all others to whose decisions and determinations all Christian people ought to conform their judgments and practices Nor must that influence be precarious but authoritative for nothing can warrant their Impositions but the Authority by which they are imposed Nor can any Authority suffice to oblige mankind to believe that which is neither necessary as to its matter nor evident as to its proof antecedently to the definition of such an Authority but only such an one as is infallible Now where shall we und such an one seeing there are so many pretenders to it If we believe the Popes themselves the Jesuits and the rest of the high Papalins then his holiness will carry away the Bell but if we believe General Councils and those who defend their Supremacy then they will carry it from the Pope and if we believe others of equal credit then the Catholick Church diffusive will carry it from both So that if there ought to be such a Judge you see it is not agreed upon among themselves who he is But 3. Our Explainer determines this Controversie telling us that it is the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council that we ought to submit to And in this we heartily joyn with him for we profess to have as great a deference for the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council as they have or can have and to have as great a regard to the sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles as they nay it may be greater than they will pretend to have for we are so far from declining it that as to the matters in difference between them and us we appeal thereunto and are willing to be concluded thereby being as well assured as the Records of those Ages still remaining can assure us that it is on our side But if by Church here he mean the present Church of Rome as it stands divided from other Communions we deny that she hath any more authority to impose a sense of Scripture upon us than we upon her or any other particular Church upon either of us Or if by Councils he mean those Western Councils which have been held in these parts of the World in latter Ages we cannot allow them either to be free or general and consequently cannot grant nor have they any reason to claim any such authority over us But if by Councils he mean those primitive Councils which indeed were the most free and general and best deserved to be styled the Church Representative we have so great a veneration for their Opinion and Judgment that we shall not decline to submit the Umpirage of our Cause to them But what is all this to the present Church of Rome which at this day so arrogantly claims a right and authority to interpret Scripture and impose her sense upon us For unless she can prove her self infallible all her pretended authority in this case will fall to the ground If she be indeed infallible she would do well to let the world know whence she had her Infallibility She must have it either immediately from God or by delegation from the Catholick Church diffusive If from God let her produce her Charter If from the Catholick Church diffusive then it depends upon her authority and by the same authority she may recall it again when she pleaseth So that upon this ground it will prove but a very Fallible Infallibility We know she challenges it by virtue of those promises of the Spirit in the Scriptures which promises they themselves do confess to have been made only to the Catholick Church and therefore though an Infallibility even in Judgment were
I say will outweigh any Authority which this Explanation can pretend to then what becomes of all this goodly Profession which he here makes where shall we find all that faithfulness and sincerity which he here boasts of if making and breaking of promises if swearing and forswearing if the violation of all the most sacred Bonds wherewith mankind can be obliged may pass for faithfulness and sincerity we may expect great store of it amongst them And indeed whilst there is a power given to the Pope to dispense with Oaths and Promises and a liberty given to the People to make good all they say or swear by the Law of directing the Intentions by the Power of Equivocation and the force of Mental Reservation I cannot see any reason why we should expect better But if this be the Faithfulness and Sincerity they boast of we bless God that we know none such amongst us and we hope this will never prove an Argument sufficient to perswade any of ours to desert the Communion they are of for a Communion that allows such things as these And thus have I given you an account of their Faithfulness and Sincerity 2. The other thing which he boasts of is their Loyalty For he tells us They are most strictly and absolutely bound to an exact and entire performance of their promises made to the Magistrates and Civil Powers under whose protection they live whom they are taught by the word of God to obey not only for fear but Conscience sake and to whom they will most faithfully observe their promises and duty of Obedience notwithstanding any dispensation absolution or other proceedings of any foreign Power or Authority whatsoever We do indeed firmly believe That both they and we and all Subjects are most strictly and absolutely bound to an exact and entire performance of all those promises which we make to Magistrates and Civil Powers and that there is no power on earth either Foreign or Domestick that can dispence with our Oaths and Promises or absolve us from our Duty and Allegiance But whether this be the Belief of Roman Catholick we are not so well assured If we will take it upon the bare word of our Explainer it is but having found him faulty and disingenuous in the former points we may suspect him in this and therefore must not swallow all that he saith for Gospel till we have examined it We very well know that the Doctrines of learned and allowed Casuists and Practices of those who have greatest authority in the Roman Church have been quite contrary to this Explanation and we never found any disposition in them to so great a condescension nor ever heard that there was any such Reformation made in their principles and practices by any publick Authority among them If our Explainer had produced any authentick Records of any such thing we should with a great deal of readiness and rejoycing have embraced them but we cannot admit of his bare word as a sufficient evidence in this case Our blessed Saviour assureth us that no man can serve two Masters Matth. 6.24 Whilst therefore those of the Roman Communion do own the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church and allow him a sovereign and uncontrollable power over them both in Temporals and Spirituals by virtue of which he can dispense with their Oaths and Promises when he pleaseth we cannot see how they can be so exact in the performance of their promises made to Civil Powers For it is not only possble but often happens that the Civil Power under whose protection they live doth not own the Papacy nor hath any regard for the pretended power and dominion thereof and in such a case it is very likely their commands will interfere which if they do as we know they very often do how a Roman Catholick will carry himself even and so exactly divide his obedience to these different Sovereigns and their different commands as to please both I cannot as yet imagine How our Explainer will resolve this case I know not but I very well know that the Doctors and Casuists of the Roman Church and their Popes too will roundly tell us That the Power of the Pope is superiour to that of the Prince and therefore he is to be obeyed in the first place And if so then what becomes of all that Loyalty and Fidelity to Civil Powers which our Explainer so much boasts of To shew you therefore that notwithstanding this so specious Explanation of their Faith in this point we have sufficient reason to suspect the candour and ingenuity of the Explainer and the truth of what he says I shall only confront him with the declared Doctrines and avowed Practices of their own Church in this case All the Jurisdiction of all the Kings and Princes of the World dependeth on the Pope saith P. Clem. 5. in Concil Vienn And Pope Pius 5. in his Bull against Queen Elizabeth doth strictly will and command all her Subjects to take Arms against that Heretical and Excommunicate Queen The Deposing and King killing Doctrine dispensing with Oaths of Allegiance c. were made Articles of their Faith by the fourth General Council at Lateran under Pope Innocent 3. And it is pleasant to observe how nicely scrupulous some of their great men are in resolving this case gravely telling us That private men may not kill a King till he be deposed but if once he be excommunicate then he is no King and then they may kill him without scruple Or if he be an Heretick which the Pope can make him when he pleaseth then they may kill the Heretick but not the King Thus Suarez advers Sect. Anglic. l. 6. c. 4. Sect. 14. And c. 6. Sect. 22.24 Thus also Azorius the Jesuite Instit Moral part 1. l. 8. c. 13 And thus Mariana de Reg. Instit l. 1. c. 7 c. The Rebellion of a Clergyman against his Prince is not Treason because he is not his Prince's Subject saith Emman Sá Aphor. verb. Clericus When a Prince is Excommunicate before the Denunciation the Subjects are not absolved from their Oath of Allegiance as Cajetan says well yet when it is denounced they are not only absolved from their Obedience but are bound not to obey unless the fear of Death or loss of Goods excuse them which was the case of the English Catholicks in the time of Henry the Eighth saith Card. Tolet. concâ—r Eccles in Angl. fol. 336. It is the Sentence of all Catholicks that Subjects are bound to expell Heretical Princes if they have strength enough and that to this they are tyed by the Commandment of God the most strict tye of Conscience and the extreme danger of their Souls saith F. Creswel in Philopat Sect. 2. n. 160 161. Nay even before the Sentence is declared though the Subjects are not bound to it yet lawfully they may deny Obedience to an Heretical Prince saith Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3 disp 1. q. 12. punct 2. An Excommunicate
King may with impunity be deposed or killed by any one saith Suarez Desens Fid. l. 6. c. 6. Sect. 24. The Pope can make that he who is a King shall be no King and then you are disobliged saith Bellarm. contr Barcl c. 7. The Secular power is subject to the Spiritual The Pope hath a sovereign power over Christian Kings and Princes to correct depose and appoint others in their places If a King be guilty of Heresie Schism or any intolerable crime against his People if he be guilty of negligence or sloth in his government if he fail in the performance of his Oaths and Promises or oppress the Church the Pope may divest him of his Royal Dignity saith Abrah Brovius de Pontif. Roman c. 46. p. 621. Col. 2. Which Book was printed at Cologne Anno 1619. and solemnly recommended and approved by his Superiours and Licensed by the Apostolick Inquisitor I might be infinite in instances of this kind but having almost wearied my self with raking in such a Dunghill I am not willing to tire my Reader too I shall therefore only produce one unexceptionable Witness more and that shall be their great and renowned Champion Bellarmine out of whose 5th Book De Romano Pontifice I shall take the pains to transcribe some passages and having subjoyned thereunto some instances of their practices suitable to their declared principles I shall then leave it to the judgment of any indifferent person what kind of Loyalty and Fidelity Sovereign Princes especially those who are of a different persuasion may hope to find from their Roman Catholick Subjects Bellarmine in the first Chapter of his fifth Book De Romano Pontifice having rejected two extreme Opinions concerning the Pope's power the one taught and maintained by Augustinus Triumphus Alvarus Pelagius Hostiensis and others of his own Communion viz. That the Pope by a Divine Right hath a most plenary power over all the World as well in Political as Ecclesiastical affairs And the other delivered by Calvin Peter Martyr Brentius and others whom he calls Hereticks viz. That the Pope as Pope hath not by Divine Right any Temporal power at all nor upon any account can command Secular Princes much less deprive them of their Kingdoms and Principalities and that Spiritual persons ought not to exercise Temporal Dominion He at last lays down a middle Opinion between both which he tells us is the common Opinion of Catholick Divines viz. That the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediately any Temporal power but only a spiritual yet by virtue of that Spiritual power he hath indirectly at least a supreme power in Temporals This Opinion he undertakes to explain in his Sixth Chapter where he tells us That in Order to a Spiritual good he hath a Supreme Power of disposing all the Temporal things of all Christian People Which Power is just such over Princes as the Soul hath over the Body or sensitive Appetite by Virtue of this Power he may change Kingdoms and take them from one and give them to another he may make and alter suspend and abrogate Civil Laws as the Chief Spiritual Prince if it be for the safety of Souls In his Seventh Chapter he endeavours to prove this Exorbitant Power of the Pope by reasons all which are founded in the Subordination and Subjection of the Temporal to the Spiritual Sword which is a Foundation that will certainly fail him However upon this Foundation he thus builds The Ecclesiastical Republick can command and compel the Temporal which is indeed its Subject to change the Administration and to depose Princes and to appoint others when it cannot otherwise defend the Spiritual good And again it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Infidel or Heretical King if he endeavour to draw his Subjects to his Heresie or Unbelief But to judge whether a King do draw to Heresie or not belongeth to the Pope to whom the Care of Religion is committed therefore it belongs to the Pope to judge whether a King be to be deposed or not And if any one ask why the Christians of old did not depose Nero and Diocletian and Julian the Apostate and Valens the Arian He roundly answers it was not because they wanted Right but because they wanted Power to do it But lest any scrupulous Christian should boggle at those horrid things which these declared Principles must of necessity lead them to as Rebellion Murder Breach of Faith Violation of Oaths c. He will tell them that they are not answerable for any of these things For if the Pope should mistake and command Vice and forbid Vertue yet it were a sin against Conscience for the Church not to believe those Vices to be good and those Vertues to be evil All these instances that I have now laid before you were of men who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome and most of them men of great Eminency both for their Parts and Places and therefore very likely to understand the Religion they professed Now either these men or our Explainer must be very much out and strangely unacquainted with the Principles of their Religion or else the Explainer must industriously design to put a chear upon those Persons of Quality to whom he presents his Scheme For nothing can be more different than his Explanation and this Declaration which these men have left upon Record But I think the choice is very easie which of these ought to be believed in this case and if this Cloud of Witnesses carry it as undoubtedly they will against one single unauthorized Explainer then certainly he was in the wrong box when the so much boasted of the Loyalty of the Roman Catholicks And now I shall only subjoyn an account of some few of their Practices correspondent to these Principles and they being put together will I suppose sufficiently discover the mistake of our Explainer Leo Isaurus Emperour of Constantinople was excommunicated by Pope Gregory the II d. his Country given away to the Lombards by which means he and his Successors lost all the Western Empire which the Pope and the French King afterwards shared between them Henry the IV th Emperour of Germany was excommunicated by Pope Gregory the VII th his Subjects absolved from their Obedience Rodulph Duke of Sueden and Burgundy set up against him to whom a Crown was sent by the Pope with this Inscription The Rock gave the Crown to Peter and Peter gives it to Rodulph Childericus King of France by the Advice and Authority of Pope Zachary the I st had his Head shaven was thrust into a Monastery and Pipinus Son of Carolus Martellus who was but a Subject and Servant to the King was anointed King in his stead Henry the III d. King of France was killed at the Siege of Paris with an empoysoned Knife by a Jacobine Fryar called Jaques Clement Which Murther Pope Sixtus the V th by a solemn Oration in the Consistory September the 2d 1589. commended to the Skies as Rarum insigne memorablile facinus So publickly was the King killing Doctrine owned by them at that time And what effect this Papal approbation did produce is evident for upon this encouragement King Henry the IV th Successor to Henry the III d. was also stabbed with a consecrated Dagger by a Jesuite named Ravilliac How frequent the excommunicating and deposing of Princes the absolving of Subjects from their Duty and Obedience and the stirring up of Tumults and Seditions against them by Popes and Papalins hath heretofore been History is so full that it would be an Herculean labour to transcribe all the instances thereof Now these declared Principles and avowed Practices of Roman Catholicks being put together and compared with our Explainer's profession may sufficiently evince how much he hath abused those Persons of Quality and how unfairly and dishonestly he hath dealt with them in his Explanation of the Roman Catholick's Belief in this Point But one would think he durst not deal thus considering what a solemn Protestation he makes in the Close of his Explanation For thus he concludes These we sincerely and solemnly profess as in the sight of God the searcher of all Hearts taking the words plainly and simply in their usual and familiar sense without any Equivocation or Mental Reservation whatsoever Were we not so well acquainted with the Power of Dispensations and the force of Mental Reservation among them did we not know that by these Artifices they can elude the most solemn Protestations make void all Oaths and Promises and dissolve any the most sacred Bonds which can be invented to oblige men it would look very uncharitably to suspect any man after such a solemn Protestation But that they can do all this and think they can do it with a safe Conscience notwithstanding their Protestation to the contrary is a ruled Case among their Casuists I shall only at present trouble you with one instance which is very applicable to the case in hand and with that conclude On occasion of the Powder-plot here in England an Oath of Allegiance was thought necessary to prevent such horrid attempts in time to come which a Roman Doctor cited by Arch-Bpishop Usher under this Character B. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistol I. R. Impres An. 1609. taking notice of laughs aloud at the simplicity of it His words are worth remembring Sed vide in tanta astutia quanta simplicitas c. But see what simplicity here is in so great Craft When he had placed all his security in that Oath he thought he had framed such a manner of Oath with so many Circumstances which no man could any way dissolve with a safe Conscience But he could not see that if the Pope dissolve the Oath all its Knots whether of being faithfull to the King or of admitting no Dispensation are accordingly dissolved Yea I will say a thing more admirable you know I believe that an unjust Oath if it be evidently known to be such or openly declared such it obligeth no man That the King's Oath is unâ—… is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself You see now that the Obligatian of it is vanished into smoke and that the â—…nd which so many wise men thought was made of Iron was 〈…〉 Straw FINIS