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
sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures to others and it were to be wished that none had failed of their duty therein Qu. 12. Whether all that is mentioned in Scripture be not true according to the sense and meaning so delivered Ans All that is mentioned in Scripture is undoubtedly true according to the true sense and meaning thereof Qu. 13. Whether an obstinate Contradiction of any one truth thus delivered in Scripture though there appear no necessity it should have been mentioned in Scripture be not injurious to that divine Authority and veracity and which unrepented of shall bring damnation Ans An obstinate contradiction of any one plain truth delivered in holy Scripture is certainly a very great injury to divine authority and veracity Qu. 14. When difficulties did arise about the sense of Scriptures or matters of Faith whither the dicision of those controversies was carried and whether the present Church of every Age was not to decide it Ans It was undoubtedly the practice and is most rational that the present Church in every Age should decide such controversies For the Priest's Lips should preserve knowledge and they should enquire the Law at his mouth And no question the Church hath Authority to declare matters of Faith but not to make any new Articles of Faith Qu. 15. Whether every particular person was to have an Authoritative power in this decision or whether it was not universally left to the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together Ans Every particular person hath undoubtedly a Judgment of discretion allow'd him in matters of that nature but the Authoritative power of deciding and determining was in the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together for that end Qu. 16. Whether such a force of Hopes or Fears could possibly happen at once upon all the Heads of the universal Church Assembled together or after consenting to those that were Assembled as should make them declare that to be a truth revealed by Christ which was not so delivered to them to have been the ever esteemed sense of Scripture or perpetual tradition which was not so Ans Whilst men are men they will be liable to hopes and fears and subject to the power and force of them if therefore we consider the Heads and Governours of the Church as such we cannot allow them an Exemption therefrom and consequently there may be no impossibility in the things propounded We grant that in a General Council lawfully assembled we have great reason to hope for the presence direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost â—…t how far the passions and humours of men may frustrate our Hopes we know not This we certainly know that the Acts of one Council have been made void by another and therefore it is more than probable that one of them did declare something to be a truth revealed by Christ which was not so delivered unto them Qu. 17. Whether the Decisions of such Assemblies or general Councils were not always esteemed obligatory in the Church and whether particular Persons or Churches obstinately gainsaying such Decisions received by a much Major part of the Church diffused were not always esteemed to have incurred those Anathema's pronounced by such Councils Ans If those Assemblies or Councils be truly general we do very much reverence their Authority and think their decisions to be obligatory But we do not think all to be such that are called so As for instance The Council of Trent is by some sort of men looked upon as a general Council and all their Religion almost built upon the Authority thereof and yet the Church of England never received the decisions of that Council nor did the Galican Church for many years and yet neither the one nor the other did for all that esteem themselves to have incurred the Anathema's pronounced by that Council Qu. 18. Whether the universal Church did not in all Ages practice this way of deciding controversies and whether these be not as universal a tradition of this as the practice was universal without interruption Ans Universal practice will amount to an universal Tradition and that this hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages especially in matters of great weight we deny not nor should we oppose the same course now provided the Council were free and general But the Enquirer goes on Some will perhaps say that such Councils cannot Err in fundamentals but may in not fundamentals I ask these Qu. What are fundamentals and what not Ans Those things which are essentially necessary to the being of Religion may properly be called fundamental but those things which only respect order and decency therein and vary according to time and place and are alterable by the Governours of the Church when they see cause these are not fundamental Qu. Whether there be not some things fundamentals to the Church which are not to every particular Ans There may be some things fundamental to the Being of a Church which are not so to every particular member of that Church but whatsoever things are â—…ndamental to the Being of Religion are equally so to the whole Church and every member thereof Qu. Whether an obstinate denyal of what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church or granting as I may say upon what is fundamental by a particular person be not in time a fundamental Errour especially after an universal declaration of it as truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles Ans This Query as it is here worded is hardly reconcileable to sense but I suppose his meaning is Whether for any particular person obstinately to deny what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church and declared to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles be not a fundamental Errour To which I answer That every particular Christian ought with all deference to submit his own private Judgment to the publick Judgment of the Church and though it do not appear so plain to him yet he ought rather to suspect his own than that of the Church But if in some things he cannot be satisfied and therein happen to differ from the Church provided he do not thereby break the peace and unity of the Church it will hardly amount to a fundamental Errour But what if it be declared by the Church to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles will not that make it so To this I answer That no declaration of the Church how universal soever it be can make that to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles which really is not so And therefore in that case we must have recourse to their Writings and if it be not either in express words contained therein or by sound consequence drawn therefrom we ought not to comply with it nor is it a fundamental Errour to differ therein Qu. Whether the universal Church assembled in a General Council ought not to be justly esteemed the decider of what is fundamental and what
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-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
Expression I am afraid his Holy Father will give him but small thanks for that opinion But if by his Supreme Church-Magistrate he mean that the Pope is above tha Council then what signifieth the sentence or interpretation of a Council if not confirmed by him So that till this case be rightly stated and agreed upon amongst them both they and we shall be at a loss whose declaration is to be the Rule which we are bound to follow We do highly reverence the Authority of Councils truly general and for any thing in disserence between us and the Church of Rome we dare appeal and stand to the determination of the four first general Councils But to be Hood winkt and bound up by an implicit Faith to receive and embrace every thing that is offered to us by those who call themselves Pastors or Supreme Church-Magistrates or by every Convention which calls it self a Supreme Council is more than we can consent to and more indeed than either Christ or his Aposdes required of their hearers When neither the Doctrine preached by Christ nor the Miracles done by him for the confirmation of that Doctrine could convince the stubborn and unbelieving Jews that he was the Messiah whither doth he send them he bids them search the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 And St. Paul highly commends the Bereans saying They were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17.10,11 Our Saviour and his Apostle St. Paul did not trouble their hearers with puzling questions Whether those Writings were the Word of God How they were assured that they were so What was the sense and meaning of them How they came to know it c. Nor did they send them to the Sanhedrim or any other Council to be instructed therein but they send them directly and immediately to the Scriptures themselves It was taken for granted then and ought to be so now that the Writings transmitted to them and us did really and indeed contain the Word of God and both our Saviour and St. Paul well knew that God had delivered his mind in words so intelligible that there was no fear of sending any one thereunto And indeed it were an unreasonable thing that every private Christian should be obliged to consult what sense and meaning is put upon the Holy Scriptures by a general Council before he receive and embrace them Nor will it suffice to say that they may learn it from their Pastors and Teachers for how shall they know that their Pastors and Teachers understand it any better than they do or if they do that they give them the true and genuine sense and interpretation for they may with as much reason suspect them as they can those Copies of the Sacred Writings which they have though in a Language different from the Original So that at this rate Christians will be involved in such Intricacies and Meanders that they will never know what they should believe and what not And therefore though we have a great veneration for what is delivered by Councils truly General yet can we not consent that that is the onely rule which all Christians ought to follow Qu. 9. If not then What other order was there left by Christ and his Apostles for the Christians of succeeding Ages to be truly and undoubtedly informed what Christ and his Apostles taught or wrought so many Ages before as binding Laws to them that should come after who never heard them speak nor saw any of their Original Writings Ans Even the same which our blessed Saviour recommended to the Jews and St. Paul so highly commended in the Bereans i. e. to search the Scriptures which whosoever doth and that with an humble and teachable temper of mind may therein easily discover such evident footsteps of Divinity as will plainly speak their Original and sufficiently inform us whence they are and by what manner of Persons they were written Therein may we find all things necessary to our Salvation writ in Characters so legible that he that runs may reade them so plain and easie that the meanest capacity may understand them So that to fortifie our perswasion that these are the Laws and Rules delivered by Christ and his Apostles if we had no other way left us this alone might suffice But if any private Christian meet with any thing therein which requires some help for satisfaction he hath Pastors and Teachers at hand to apply himself unto who are an Order of men instituted by Christ for that very end and purpose and in whom if he hath not some apparent reason to the contrary he ought to repose great confidence Qu. 10. Whether to the Testimonies and Decrees of those succeeding Pastors and Supreme Church-Magistrates and to their sentence given upon the Controversies of Religion risen in divers Ages is due at least as much Credit and Obedience although perhaps some of them might be vicious in Life as in temporal matters is due to the Laws Interpretations and Sentences of Supreme Civil Magistrates Ans That as much Credit and Obedience is due to the Testimonies and Decrees of the Pastors and Governours of the Church in matters of Religion as to the Laws Interpretations and Sentences of Civil Magistrates in temporal matters I readily grant But then we may do well to consider how far that Credit and Obedience ought to extend both in the one and other Case For as in temporal matters if the Commands of the Civil Magistrate do concern matters of Faith i. e. things which I am required to believe in that Case his Laws ought to be so clear and evident as may convince my reason and judgment otherwise I am not bound by a blind resignation to surrender up my faith and belief for it is not in the power of man to make me think otherwise than I do without such convincing reasons as may satisfie me that I think amiss But if I cannot believe as he would have me to believe yet ought I not by publickly opposing his Sentiments to raise a Faction and thereby disturb the Peace of that State in which I live Or if the Commands of the Civil Magistrate concern matters of Fact wherein my obedience is required in that case if I can with a safe conscience and without disobeying God do it I ought actively to obey the Civil Magistrate but if I cannot do it without displeasing God and wounding my own Conscience in that case I ought not to resist but passively to obey For here the Apostles Rule will hold good Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye So in matters of Religion If the Testimonies and Decrees of the Pastours and Governours of the Church do concern matters of Faith I do acknowledge that there is a great deference due to their sentence and opinion and unless there be very clear evidence to the contrary I ought rather to
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
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
viz. Their sincerity and Loyalty which he would fain insinuate to be the natural Offspring of their Principles and the constant Rule of their Practices These therefore are the things which we are now to take under Consideration and that we may be the more clear therein I shall consider them severally 1. And first as to their pretence of sincerity The Explainer tells us They believe That the Moral Law obliges all men to proceed with faithfulness and sincerity in their mutual Contracts one towards another and therefore their constant profession is that they are most strictly and absolutely bound to the exact and intire performance of their promises made to any Person of what Religion soever And as an Argument to evince the truth hereof he farther tells us that they utterly deny and renounce that false and scandalous position That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks as most uncharitably imputed to their Practices and most unjustly pinned upon their Religion If this position That Faith is not 〈◊〉 be kept with Hereticks be untruly charged upon them then we must acknowledge that it were uncharitable to impute it to their practices and unjust to pin it upon their Religion but if it appear to be the Doctrine and Practice of their Church then it will undoubtedly overthrow all their pretentions to Faithfulness and Sincerity And that this is really the Doctrine and Practice of their Church we have the suffrage of a whole Council by them styled General viz. the Council of Constance by whom this Doctrine was own'd affirmed and practised And John Huss Hierom of Prague and Savanarola though they had the publick Faith for their safe conduct and return yet in defiance thereof by virtue of this Doctrine they were proceeded against and severely suffered The same thing was also fiercely disputed in the Diet at Worms in the case of Luther And had not Caesar been a better Christian than the Ecclesiasticks and more a Gentleman than his Holyness Luther notwithstanding his Safe Conduct had not returned safely from thence But lest any secular Princes hereafter should either through Scruple of Conscience or in point of honour think themselves obliged to keep their Word and so hinder them of their prey when it is in their hands the Doctrine is now improved and we are told There are two distinct Tribunals and the Ecclesiastical is the Superiour and therefore if a secular Prince gives his Subjects a Safe Conduct he cannot extend it to the superior Tribunal nor by any security given hinder the Bishop or the Pope to exercise their Jurisdiction Becanus in Theol. Scholast This Doctrine is also confidently taught and the practice thereof encouraged by their most eminent Doctors and Casuists Some instances whereof for it would fill a Volume to give you all I shall now present you with for your better satisfaction in this point Cardinal Tolet. de instruct Sacerd. l. 1. c. 13. expresly avows That if a man be bound by the Bond of Fidelity or Oath he shall be freed from that Bond if he to whom he is bound fall into Excommunication and during that Debtors are absolved from the Obligation of paying to the Creditor that debt which is contracted by words And the same Tolet. l. 4. c. 21 22. positively declares That Equivocation upon Oath before a Magistrate is lawfull Thomas à Jesu the Carmelite de covers Gentium dub 4. p. 218. puts this question Whether one that denyeth it when he is asked by an Heretick whether he be a Priest or a Religious man or whether he heard divine Service doth sin against the Confession of Faith To which he answers No. For that is no denying himself to be a Christian or Catholick For it is lawfull to dissemble or hide the Person of a Clergyman or a Religious man without a Lye in words lest a man be betrayed and in danger of his life and for the same cause he may lay by his Habit omit Prayers and because humane Laws for the most part bind not the Subjects Conscience when there is great hazard of life as in this case Azorius hath well taught And Cardinal Tolet. de Instruct Sacerd. l. 8. c. 39. n. 4. thus determines a Case propounded If saith he the times be hard or the Judge unequal a man that cannot sell his Wine at a due price may lawfully make his measures less than is appointed or mingle water with his Wine and sell it for pure so he do not lye and yet if he doth it is no mortal sin nor obligeth him to restitution A man may swear to positive untruths by the Law of directing the Intention saith F. Southwel Tract de Equivocat c. 8. p. 42 43. If a man hath taken an Oath of a thing honest and lawfull and in his power yet if it hinders him from doing a greater good the Pope can dispense with his Oath and take off the obligation saith Canus Bishop of the Canar Relect. de poenitent If a man hath promised to a Woman to marry her and is betrothed to her and hath sworn it yet if he will before the Consummation enter into a Monastery his Oath shall not bind him his promise is null but his second promise that shall stand He that denies this is accursed by the Council of Trent Sess 8. Can. 6. I am weary with transcribing such nauseous stuff and therefore omitting many more I shall only add one instance more Pope Pius V. upon occasion of some Missionaries to be sent into England declared That if they were summon'd before the Judges they might Sophisticè jurare Sophisticè respondere and that they were not bound to answer according to the intention of the Judges but according to some true sense of their own i. e. which was made true by the help of a Mental Reservation Apud G. Abbot de Mendacio c. in praef p. 6 c. By these instances you may perceive that the Doctors and Casuists of the Romish Church are not of our Explainer's opinion which to me is a very great Argument that he hath not dealt so fairly and candidly as he ought to have done in his Explanation It may be he will tell us that these were but private Persons and that the Doctrine of their Church is not to be measured by their private Opinions which if he do I shall readily own That the private Opinions of particular men ought not in reason to be charged upon that Society to which they belong And if so then our Explainer ought not to take it amiss if we do not receive his Explanation as the Doctrine of that Church of which he pretends to be a Member But if the united force of the Council of Constance and that of Trent both which they themselves reckon to be General with the concurrent opinions of so many eminent Doctours and Casuists of their own Church too none of which that we know have ever received the least check for publishing their opinions if these