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
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
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
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
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