granted to belong to the Catholick Church yet that can signifie nothing to her till she hath proved her self to be that Catholick Church to which alone those promises confessedly belong Thus you see how candid and faithfull our Explainer hath been in this first Point and now let us examine whether he acquit himself any better in the next The EXPLAINER 2. We humbly believe the Sacred Mystery of the blessed Trinity One Eternal Almighty and Incomprehensible God whom onely we adore and worship as alone having Sovereign Dominion over all things to whom alone 1 Tim. 1.17 we acknowledge as due from Men and Angels all Glory Service and Obedience abhorring from our Hearts as a most detesta bld Sacrilege to give our Creator's Honour to any Creatures whatsoever And therefore we solemnly protest That by the Prayers we address to Angels ane Saints we intend no other than humbly to solicit their assistance before the Throne of God as we desire the Prayers of one another here upon Earth not that we hope any thing from them as Original Authours thereof but from God the Fountain of all Goodness through Jesus Christ our onely Mediator and Redeemer Neither do we believe any divinity or vertue to be in Images for which they ought to be worshipped as the Gentiles did their Idols but we retain them with due and decent respect in our Churches as Instruments which we find by experience do often assist our memories and excite our affections The ANIMADVERTER Our Explainer here in behalf of the Roman Catholicks makes a very good confession of Faith telling us That they humbly believe the sacred mystery of the blessed Trinity One Eternal Almighty and Incomprehensible God whom only they adore and worship as alone having Sovereign Dominion over all things to whom alone 1 Tim. 1.17 they acknowledge as due from Men and Angels all glory service and obedience abhorring from their hearts as a most detestable Sacrilege to give their Creator's honour to any Creatures whatsoever This is true Primitive Christianity good Catholick Divinity without any mixture of Popery and is it not great pity that any thing should be added thereto or mixed therewith to spoil so good a Confession Thus far we can readily and heartily joyn with them but when they superadd Articles of their own such as were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles nor owned by the primitive Catholick Church and set them in equal place with those of Divine Revelation and primitive practice then we cannot keep pace with them but are forced to stay behind and sit down contented with primitive Christianity so that in truth it is not we that leave them but they that leave us and consequently are guilty of the Separation And this is the case here between us and our Explainer For after all this glorious profession of adoring and worshipping the One Eternal Almighty and Incomprehensible God and him only and abhorring the giving of his glory to any Creatures as a most detestable Sacrilege he introduceth Prayers to Saints and Angels and the Worship of or beofre images as things equally necessary to be performed by Christians Now if Prayers and Adoration be acts of religious worship and the Objects to which they are offered be Creatures then it must needs follow that either all Religious Worship is not due to God alone or else that they do give part of his honour to something that is not God It is true indeed that he endeavours to palliate these practices with some pretended qualifications thereby to shift off the weight of this charge which lieth so heavy upon them but they are so thin and threedbare so empty and insignificant and have been so miserably baffled of late especially in the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented as also in two other little Treatises the one intituled A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints printed in the year 1684 and the other intituled A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship c. printed 1685 that I cannot but admire at our Explainer's confidence to produce them at this time These Treatises are or upon easie terms may be in every man's hands and there is therein so much said upon this Subject and so much to the purpose as may very well spare me the labour of enlarging thereupon to them therefore I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction But by these short Remarques which I have made upon this part of our Explainer's Confession it is plain that he hath been no more candid and ingenuous in this than in the former Let us therefore try him in the next The EXPLAINER 3. We firmly believe that no force of Nature or dignity of our best Works can merit our Justification but we are Justified freely by Grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3.24 And though we should by the grace of God persevere unto the end in a godly life and holy obedience to the Commandments yet our hopes of eternal glory are still built upon the mercy of God and the merits of Christ Jesus All other Merits according to our sense of the word signifie no more than Actions done by the assistance of God's Grace to which it hath pleased his goodness to promise a Reward A Doctrine so far from being unsuitable to the sense of the Holy Scriptures that it is their principal design to invite and provoke us to a diligent observance of the Commandments by promising Heaven as a reward of our obedience 1 Tim. 4.8 Rom. 2.6 Rom. 8.13 Hebr. 6.10 Nothing being so frequently repeated in the word of God as his gracious promises to recompence with everlasting glory the Faith and Obedience of his Servants Nor is the bounty of God barely according to our Works but high and plentifull even beyond our Capacities giving full measure heaped up and pressed down and running over into the bosomes of all that love him Luke 6.38 Thus we believe the merit or rewardableness of holy living both which signifie the same thing with us arise not from the self value even of our best actions as they are curs but from the grace and bounty of God And for our selves we sincerely profess when we have done all those things which are commanded us we are unprofitable Servants Luke 17.10 having done nothing but that which was our Duty so that our boasting is not in our selves but all our Glory is in Christ The ANIMADVERTER If this be really the Faith of Roman Catholicks we shall not stick to acknowledge it is ours too and then we shall have no occasion to differ in this point But I am afraid our so near an Agreement is too good news to be true Our Explainer I doubt hath either mistaken or to gain a Proselyte or for some other end which might be serviceable to Holy Church hath very much misrepresented the Doctrine of his own Church in this point For sure I am the Council of Trent which they so much magnifie and
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
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
on whose decisions they so much depend hath a quite different Notion of Justification and Merit That Council after some Months debate upon the Point of Justification at last came to a decision and declared That the only formal Cause of our Justification is God's Justice not by which he himself is just but by which he makes us just wherewith being endowed by him we are renewed in the Spirit of our Minds and are not only reputed but are made truly just receiving every man his own measure of justice which the Holy Ghost divides to him according to each mans predisposition of himself and co-operation And withall denounceth a flat Anathema to all those who shall dare to say that we are formally justified by Christ's righteousness or by the sole imputation of that righteousness or by the sole remission of our sins and not by our inherent grace diffused into our hearts by the Holy Ghost Sess 6. Can. 10 11. And the same Council speaking of the Merit of good Works saith If any man shall say that the good Works of a justified Person do not truly merit the increase of Grace and eternal Life let him be Anathema Sess 6 Can. 32. Now one would think the choice were very easie which of these to believe whether the Council of Trent or this Explainer The accounts they give are too different to be both believed and can there be any question which of them is most authoritative Certainly our Explaâ—ner must be a very bold Person who in defiance of such a celebrated Council durst deliver what he hath done for the belief of Roman Catholicks in this point and he must look upon his Persons of Quality to whom he presents it as a parcel of unthinking and inconsiderate Animals who would swallow any thing without Examination Either he was in earnest or he had a mind to put a cheat upon them if the latter he plainly discovers how good a Christian and how true a Catholick he is If the former surely he did not well consider how fatal the Consequences of that Doctrine would be to the Church of Rome For 1. If this be really the Faith of Roman Catholicks then What becomes of that gainful Trade of Indulgences which is wholly founded upon the Treasure of the Church wherein are heaped up piles of satisfactions of Saints of which the Pope only keeps the Keys and hath power to dispense them where he lists There was a time indeed when Indulgences were look'd upon to be nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Sinners according to their several Degrees of Demerits But this is a Doctrine out of date with the present Church of Rome insomuch that Greg. de Valentia saith That this Opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things de Indulg c. 2. And their great Champion Bellarmine among several other Arguments against this Doctrine brings this for one That if this were so there would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he takes a great deal of pains to prove to be the Foundation of Indulgences But 2. What will become of the profitable Doctrine of Purgatory which is built upon Indulgences and they upon the Treasure of the Church wherein the Merits of Saints are kept to be dispensed by the Pope for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory But 3. What will become of the Pope's Coffers which being once emptied and this Spring dried up which should have supplied them can have no prospect of any other so effectual way to replenish them again Had our Explainer well considered these ill Consequences of his Explanation he would certainly have thought of it more than once before he had exposed it I cannot imagine what should perswade him to such an Explanation unless he had obtained a dispensation to guild his Bait the more easily to catch what he angled for And if this be it is it not a great Argument of the Candour and Ingenuity of our Explainer and a mighty motive to his Persons of Quality to swallow all that shall be propounded by him And now we are come to the last point which he undertakes to explain and shall examine whether he be more ingenuous in that than he hath been in the other The EXPLAINER 4. We firmly believe and highly reverence the Moral Law being so solemnly delivered to Moses upon the Mount Exodus 20. Matth. 19. Eccles 12 13. so expresly confirmed by our Saviour in the Gospel and containing in it self so perfect an Abridgment of our whole Duty both to God and Man Which Moral Law we believe obliges all men to proceed with faithfulness and sincerity in their mutual Contracts one towards another and therefore our constant profession is That we are most strictly and absolutely bound to the exact and intire performance of our promises made to any Persons of what Religion soever much more to the Magistrates and Civil Powers under whose Protection we live whom we are taught by the Word of God to obey not only for fear but Conscience sake and to whom we will most faithfully observe our Promises of Duty and Obedience notwithstanding any Dispensation Absolution or other proceedings of any foreign Power or Authority whatsoever Wherefore we utterly deny and renounce that false and scandalous Position That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks as most uncharitably imputed to our Practices and most unjustly pinned upon our Religion 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 The ANIMADVERTER Our Explainer would have the World believe that those of his Communion do highly reverence and have a mighty regard for the Moral Law We do the same but we know and believe the Second Commandment to be part of that Law and therefore dare not be guilty of Image-Worship which perhaps the Explainer did not think of He further tells us that they believe that this Law doth contain in it self a perfect Abridgment of our whole Duty both to God and Man We believe the same and we do further believe that whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all James 2.10 And therefore we dare not worship Images nor give divine Honour to any Creatures nor disobey Magistrates nor deal falsly with our Neighbours under any pretence whatsoever nor do any thing that is there forbidden nor leave undone any thing that is there commanded Whether the Explainer thought of all this I know not but he cannot but know that the Practices of those of his Communion are not correspondent thereunto But the two great things that he would have the World believe of them upon the Credit of his Explanation are these
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
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 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