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 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
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
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
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
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
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