Expression I am afraid his Holy Father will give him but small thanks for that opinion But if by his Supreme Church-Magistrate he mean that the Pope is above tha Council then what signifieth the sentence or interpretation of a Council if not confirmed by him So that till this case be rightly stated and agreed upon amongst them both they and we shall be at a loss whose declaration is to be the Rule which we are bound to follow We do highly reverence the Authority of Councils truly general and for any thing in disserence between us and the Church of Rome we dare appeal and stand to the determination of the four first general Councils But to be Hood winkt and bound up by an implicit Faith to receive and embrace every thing that is offered to us by those who call themselves Pastors or Supreme Church-Magistrates or by every Convention which calls it self a Supreme Council is more than we can consent to and more indeed than either Christ or his Aposdes required of their hearers When neither the Doctrine preached by Christ nor the Miracles done by him for the confirmation of that Doctrine could convince the stubborn and unbelieving Jews that he was the Messiah whither doth he send them he bids them search the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 And St. Paul highly commends the Bereans saying They were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17.10,11 Our Saviour and his Apostle St. Paul did not trouble their hearers with puzling questions Whether those Writings were the Word of God How they were assured that they were so What was the sense and meaning of them How they came to know it c. Nor did they send them to the Sanhedrim or any other Council to be instructed therein but they send them directly and immediately to the Scriptures themselves It was taken for granted then and ought to be so now that the Writings transmitted to them and us did really and indeed contain the Word of God and both our Saviour and St. Paul well knew that God had delivered his mind in words so intelligible that there was no fear of sending any one thereunto And indeed it were an unreasonable thing that every private Christian should be obliged to consult what sense and meaning is put upon the Holy Scriptures by a general Council before he receive and embrace them Nor will it suffice to say that they may learn it from their Pastors and Teachers for how shall they know that their Pastors and Teachers understand it any better than they do or if they do that they give them the true and genuine sense and interpretation for they may with as much reason suspect them as they can those Copies of the Sacred Writings which they have though in a Language different from the Original So that at this rate Christians will be involved in such Intricacies and Meanders that they will never know what they should believe and what not And therefore though we have a great veneration for what is delivered by Councils truly General yet can we not consent that that is the onely rule which all Christians ought to follow Qu. 9. If not then What other order was there left by Christ and his Apostles for the Christians of succeeding Ages to be truly and undoubtedly informed what Christ and his Apostles taught or wrought so many Ages before as binding Laws to them that should come after who never heard them speak nor saw any of their Original Writings Ans Even the same which our blessed Saviour recommended to the Jews and St. Paul so highly commended in the Bereans i. e. to search the Scriptures which whosoever doth and that with an humble and teachable temper of mind may therein easily discover such evident footsteps of Divinity as will plainly speak their Original and sufficiently inform us whence they are and by what manner of Persons they were written Therein may we find all things necessary to our Salvation writ in Characters so legible that he that runs may reade them so plain and easie that the meanest capacity may understand them So that to fortifie our perswasion that these are the Laws and Rules delivered by Christ and his Apostles if we had no other way left us this alone might suffice But if any private Christian meet with any thing therein which requires some help for satisfaction he hath Pastors and Teachers at hand to apply himself unto who are an Order of men instituted by Christ for that very end and purpose and in whom if he hath not some apparent reason to the contrary he ought to repose great confidence Qu. 10. Whether to the Testimonies and Decrees of those succeeding Pastors and Supreme Church-Magistrates and to their sentence given upon the Controversies of Religion risen in divers Ages is due at least as much Credit and Obedience although perhaps some of them might be vicious in Life as in temporal matters is due to the Laws Interpretations and Sentences of Supreme Civil Magistrates Ans That as much Credit and Obedience is due to the Testimonies and Decrees of the Pastors and Governours of the Church in matters of Religion as to the Laws Interpretations and Sentences of Civil Magistrates in temporal matters I readily grant But then we may do well to consider how far that Credit and Obedience ought to extend both in the one and other Case For as in temporal matters if the Commands of the Civil Magistrate do concern matters of Faith i. e. things which I am required to believe in that Case his Laws ought to be so clear and evident as may convince my reason and judgment otherwise I am not bound by a blind resignation to surrender up my faith and belief for it is not in the power of man to make me think otherwise than I do without such convincing reasons as may satisfie me that I think amiss But if I cannot believe as he would have me to believe yet ought I not by publickly opposing his Sentiments to raise a Faction and thereby disturb the Peace of that State in which I live Or if the Commands of the Civil Magistrate concern matters of Fact wherein my obedience is required in that case if I can with a safe conscience and without disobeying God do it I ought actively to obey the Civil Magistrate but if I cannot do it without displeasing God and wounding my own Conscience in that case I ought not to resist but passively to obey For here the Apostles Rule will hold good Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye So in matters of Religion If the Testimonies and Decrees of the Pastours and Governours of the Church do concern matters of Faith I do acknowledge that there is a great deference due to their sentence and opinion and unless there be very clear evidence to the contrary I ought rather to
1. This Inference doth plainly imply a necessity of a visible Judge of Controversies to whom in all matters in difference there should be an Appeal and whose decision should be final Now if this be really so Then 1. It is mighty strange that Christ and his Apostles who pretended faithfully to deliver the whole mind and will of God to mankind should never once mention such an Officer in the Church Or 2. If they should omit to mention so necessary a thing in their writings and only deliver it by word of mouth to their immediate Successors it is no less strange that they should either not know or never make use of such an Expedient for the ending of those Controversies that arose in their days 3. We must conclude that either the Church hath been mighty careless of her own peace or that this Judge hath been very negligent in his business to suffer so great and so fatal Controversies to continue so long in the Church of God when there was so ready a way to put an end to them 2. Our Explainer in this Inference acquaints us with the great ends for the sake of which such a Judge is necessary viz. The ending of all controversies in our Religion and settling of peace in our Consciences These indeed are great things and greatly to be desired But whether there be any such Expedient or if there be whether it be sufficient for these ends are the things in question Now that from the first foundation of the Christian Church to this very day these great ends have not been universally attained is very plain and evident which to me is a very great Argument that either God never instituted any such expedient or if he did that it was not sufficient for these ends which would be a mighty reflection upon the power and wisedom of God But because some things in Scripture are hard to be understood doth it therefore necessarily follow that there must be a visible Judge of Controversies to deliver the sense of those places to us without whom we can never attain thereunto and from whose decision there lies no appeal I confess I cannot see the necessity of this consequence For if it be granted as it is on all hands that the Scriptures which we now have are the Word of God revealed by him and of infallible Authority we must believe that either God would not or could not explain his mind to the sons of men in words as plain and intelligible as any such Judge will or can do or else there can be no such necessity of any such Judge upon that account If there be no other way to attain the sense of Scripture but only the decision of such a Judge then what way or means is left us to understand the sense of the declaration of that Judge will there not want another Judge to determine that and another to explain his and so in infinitum But let us for once suppose though we do not grant it that there ought to be a Judge of Controversies in order to the attaining of these great ends let us see how he ought to be qualified and where we shall find him This Judge must be a person or number of people who must have a superiority not only of order but influence over all others to whose decisions and determinations all Christian people ought to conform their judgments and practices Nor must that influence be precarious but authoritative for nothing can warrant their Impositions but the Authority by which they are imposed Nor can any Authority suffice to oblige mankind to believe that which is neither necessary as to its matter nor evident as to its proof antecedently to the definition of such an Authority but only such an one as is infallible Now where shall we und such an one seeing there are so many pretenders to it If we believe the Popes themselves the Jesuits and the rest of the high Papalins then his holiness will carry away the Bell but if we believe General Councils and those who defend their Supremacy then they will carry it from the Pope and if we believe others of equal credit then the Catholick Church diffusive will carry it from both So that if there ought to be such a Judge you see it is not agreed upon among themselves who he is But 3. Our Explainer determines this Controversie telling us that it is the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council that we ought to submit to And in this we heartily joyn with him for we profess to have as great a deference for the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council as they have or can have and to have as great a regard to the sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles as they nay it may be greater than they will pretend to have for we are so far from declining it that as to the matters in difference between them and us we appeal thereunto and are willing to be concluded thereby being as well assured as the Records of those Ages still remaining can assure us that it is on our side But if by Church here he mean the present Church of Rome as it stands divided from other Communions we deny that she hath any more authority to impose a sense of Scripture upon us than we upon her or any other particular Church upon either of us Or if by Councils he mean those Western Councils which have been held in these parts of the World in latter Ages we cannot allow them either to be free or general and consequently cannot grant nor have they any reason to claim any such authority over us But if by Councils he mean those primitive Councils which indeed were the most free and general and best deserved to be styled the Church Representative we have so great a veneration for their Opinion and Judgment that we shall not decline to submit the Umpirage of our Cause to them But what is all this to the present Church of Rome which at this day so arrogantly claims a right and authority to interpret Scripture and impose her sense upon us For unless she can prove her self infallible all her pretended authority in this case will fall to the ground If she be indeed infallible she would do well to let the world know whence she had her Infallibility She must have it either immediately from God or by delegation from the Catholick Church diffusive If from God let her produce her Charter If from the Catholick Church diffusive then it depends upon her authority and by the same authority she may recall it again when she pleaseth So that upon this ground it will prove but a very Fallible Infallibility We know she challenges it by virtue of those promises of the Spirit in the Scriptures which promises they themselves do confess to have been made only to the Catholick Church and therefore though an Infallibility even in Judgment were
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