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
in all Ages were in order chosen and Authorized as Pastours and Church Magistrates to preserve teach and promulgate those binding Rules to all Nations Ans That the blessed Jesus out of his abundant care and goodness for the carrying on of that great work which he had begun for the promoting of that holy Religion which he had instituted and the well ordering of that Church which he had founded did appoint certain orders of Men and endow them with gifts which might qualifie them for their several employments we do verily believe For St. Paul tells us God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then gifts of healing helps governments diversities of tongues 1 Cor. 12.28 And in another place he saith He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers Eph. 4.11 But that he ever instituted any Officer in the Church by the name of a Church-Magistrate I never read Yet if by his Church-Magistrate he mean no more than St. Paul doth by Governments we shall not quarrel with him about the word And that it was the work of these Officers to preserve those Laws and Rules which he left and to teach and promulgate them to all Nations we readily grant But then what shall we think of those who either add thereto or diminish therefrom who either alter those binding Laws and Rules or make new ones of their own and impose them upon others as if they were of equal Force and Authority with those delivered by Christ and his Apostles I could easily give instances to shew that the Church of Rome is guilty both ways but I am not willing to transgress the method which the Enquirer hath propounded by entring upon discourses of things not demanded Qu. 7. Were they Clergymen or Laymen by whom immediately they were chosen and authorized in those high Functions Ans We do verily believe being well assured by the Holy Scriptures by the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles and primitive Christians and by the usage and custome of the Church of God in all Ages that it onely appertains to Clergymen by the solemn imposition of hands to set apart others to those Sacred Functions and that they have sufficient Power and Authority to authorize them to perform those Holy Offices I never heard this denied by any of the Reformed Religion and therefore this Enquirer might if he had so pleased have spared this Query Qu. 8. Were all Christians in succeeding Ages bound to believe what those succeeding Pastours or Supreme Church-Magistrates taught them as binding Laws of Christ and his Apostles and that the Writings by them collected preserved and delivered in a different Language from the Original were the true Copies of Original Apostolick Writings and that the sentence interpretation and use thereof delivered by them in Supreme Councils for unity and peace and to prevent Schisms and Errours were Rules which all Christians were bound to follow Ans This Query is a Song of three parts to answer all which directly I shall be obliged to take it in pieces and consider the parts severally And though the Answers thereunto would very well admit and do almost necessarily require a long discourse yet I remember the Enquirer hath confined me to a Method which I have promised to observe and therefore in my answers thereunto I shall be as short as possible without entring upon discourses of things not demanded Qu. 1. Were all Christians in succeeding Ages bound to believe what those succeeding Pastors or Supreme Church-Magistrates taught them as binding Laws of Christ and his Apostles Ans Whatever hath been taught as a binding Law of Christ and his Apostles by all the Pastors and Governours of the Church in all Ages at all times and in all places we have no reason to suspect For Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the World Matt. 28.20 And to build it upon a Rock so that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Matt. 16.18 And by his spirit of truth to guide it into all truth Joh. 16.13 The universal Church therefore being thus secured from errour we have no apprehensions of being deceived thereby But though we owe this deference to the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and the united Body of the Pastors and Governours thereof yet no particular Church nor any particular Pastor or Governour thereof nor any number of them less than the whole have any reason to claim the same for whilst Men are Men they are and will be fallible and being so they may and oftentimes do err and though the whole Body cannot yet any particular Member may be deceived and therefore we ought not greedily to swallow all that is taught by them but to examine well what they teach before we give our assent thereunto otherwise we may easily be imposed upon Qu. 2. Were all Christians in succeeding Ages bound to believe that the writings collected by those succeeding Pastors or Supreme Church-Magistrates and by them preserved and delivered in a different Language from the Original were the true Copies of Original Apostolick Writings Ans That the Holy Scriptures were faithfully collected and preserved by the Church and that the Copies handed down to us though in a Language different from the Original are true Copies we do not at all doubt For we cannot imagine that the universal Church should conspire together to impose a falshood upon posterity But that these Scriptures are the Word of God we believe not onely upon the Authority of the Church but for several other reasons as this Gent. cannot but know if he have been conversant in our Writings which reasons might here fitly be produced if I were not confined by the Enquirer to a short Method and had promised to observe the same I shall therefore onely add that if by being bound to believe he means that it is a binding Law of Christ and his Apostles that for this reason we should believe those Copies to be true we deny it because we cannot find any such Law delivered by them But if by being bound to believe he onely mean that considering by whom they are handed to us we have no reason to doubt of them we readily comply with him Qu. 3. Were all Christians in succeeding Ages bound to believe that the sentence interpretations and use of those Writings delivered by those Pastors or Supreme Church-Magistrates in Supreme Councils for Unity and Peace and to prevent Schisms and Errours were Rules which all Christians were bound to follow Ans What this Enquirer meaneth by Supreme Church-Magistrates and Supreme Councils is somewhat hard to be understood for to constitute two Supremes in one and the same body will make it look a little monstrous If by the Council being Supreme he mean that is above the Supreme Church-Magistrate i. e. the Pope for I do not doubt but that he intends him all along by that
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