Some QUERIES to Protestants answered.
Qu. 1. WHether Divine Revelation be not the entire object of Faith, which Faith is but one, &c? Eph. 4.4.
Ans. Divine Revelation is both the rule ond object of Faith, which Faith is but one.
Qu. 2. Whether Faith must not give an undoubted assent to all things revealed? Jam. 2.18.
Ans. If the Revelation be Divine, there ought not to be doubting of the things revealed.
Qu. 3. Whether these Revelations do not contain in them many mysteries transcending the natural reach of humane wit or industry? 1 Cor. 1.10. Matth. 16.17.
Ans. There are many mysteries in Religion which are above the natural reach of humane wit and industry, above reason but not contrary to reason.
Qu. 4. Whether it did not become the divine wisedom and goodness to provide man some way or means whereby he might arrive to the knowledge of those Mysteries?
Ans. Divine Wisedom and goodness hath not been wanting in the provision of ways and means, whereby Man may arrive to the knowledge of those Mysteries, so far as is necessary for his happiness both here and hereafter.
Qu. 5. Whether these means must not be visible and apparent to all, proportionable to the capacity of all? Joh. 9.14. Mat. 11.25. 1 Joh. 5.22.
Ans. The means appointed by God are visible or invisible, they are proportioned to the capacity of all, but it is not necessary they should be visible to all.
Qu. 6. Whether these Mysteries were not taught by Christ and the Holy Ghost to his Apostles?
Ans. Whatever is contained in the Divine Revelation, was certainly taught by Christ and the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, for he made known unto them the whole Will of God.
Qu. 7. Did not the Apostles teach these Doctrines in almost all places of the world, before the Scriptures were all of them written or acknowledged to be their writings, or collected into one Body?
Ans. The Apostles were faithfull Stewards, and did dispense the Doctrine of the Gospel faithfully and sincerely in all places where they came, even before the Holy Scriptures were all written or collected into one Body.
Qu. 8. When they began to write the Scriptures, did they profess that they writ in them all and every truth which had been delivered unto them, or did they onely write them upon emergent occasions?
Ans. All and every truth necessary for the Salvation of mankind, is faithfully and fully delivered in the Holy Scriptures. And that being the design of them, we have no reason to be anxious or solicitous about any more.
Qu. 9. Were all divine truths necessary for the Salvation of mankind, for the Government of the Church, and the confounding of Errours designedly and expresly delivered in them?
Ans. The Scriptures are abundantly sufficient to instruct all men in those things which may secure their Salvation, and preserve them from errour; And whatsoever is essentially necessary to the Being or good Government of a Church may there be found; but whatsoever may be accidentally necessary in respect of time and place, is left to the prudence of Governours.
Qu. 10. Was not the sense and meaning of this written word delivered at the same time to the Apostles Successors?
Ans. The Apostles did explain the Mind and Will of God to all to whom they preached, and the written word being designed not onely for the learned but unlearned, was set down in such intelligible words as might comport with the capacities of all.
Qu. 11. Were not those Successors of the Apostles obliged under pain of damnation to deliver the sense and meaning to their Successors, and so consequently to our days, or at least no contrary sense?
Ans. The Successors of the Apostles in all Ages are undoubtedly oblig'd to deliver the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures to others; and it were to be wished that none had failed of their duty therein.
Qu. 12. Whether all that is mentioned in Scripture be not true, according to the sense and meaning so delivered?
Ans. All that is mentioned in Scripture is undoubtedly true, according to the true sense and meaning thereof.
Qu. 13. Whether an obstinate Contradiction of any one truth thus delivered in Scripture (though there appear no necessity it should have been mentioned in Scripture) be not injurious to that divine Authority and veracity, and which unrepented of shall bring damnation?
Ans. An obstinate contradiction of any one plain truth delivered in holy Scripture, is certainly a very great injury to divine authority and veracity.
Qu. 14. When difficulties did arise about the sense of Scriptures or matters of Faith, whither the dicision of those controversies was carried, and whether the present Church of every Age was not to decide it?
Ans. It was undoubtedly the practice, and is most rational that the present Church in every Age should decide such controversies. For, the Priest's Lips should preserve knowledge, and they should enquire the Law at his mouth. And no question the Church hath Authority to declare matters of Faith, but not to make any new Articles of Faith.
Qu. 15. Whether every particular person was to have an Authoritative power in this decision, or whether it was not universally left to the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together?
Ans. Every particular person hath undoubtedly a Judgment of discretion allow'd him in matters of that nature, but the Authoritative power of deciding and determining was in the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together for that end.
Qu. 16. Whether such a force of Hopes or Fears could possibly happen at once upon all the Heads of the universal Church Assembled together, or after consenting to those that were Assembled, as should make them declare that to be a truth revealed by Christ, which was not so delivered to them to have been the ever esteemed sense of Scripture or perpetual tradition which was not so?
Ans. Whilst men are men they will be liable to hopes and fears, and subject to the power and force of them; if therefore we consider the Heads and Governours of the Church as such we cannot allow them an Exemption therefrom; and consequently there may be no impossibility in the things propounded. We grant that in a General Council lawfully assembled, we have great reason to hope for the presence, direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost, [...]t how far the passions and humours of men may frustrate our Hopes, we know not. This we certainly know, that the Acts of one Council have been made void by another, and therefore it is more than probable that one of them did declare something to be a truth revealed by Christ, which was not so delivered unto them.
Qu. 17. Whether the Decisions of such Assemblies or general Councils were not always esteemed obligatory in the Church, and whether particular Persons or Churches obstinately gainsaying such Decisions received by a much Major part of the Church diffused, were not always esteemed to have incurred those Anathema's pronounced by such Councils?
Ans. If those Assemblies or Councils be truly general, we do very much reverence their Authority, and think their decisions to be obligatory. But we do not think all to be such that are called so; As for instance, The Council of Trent is by some sort of men looked upon as a general Council, and all their Religion almost built upon the Authority thereof; and yet the Church of England never received the decisions of that Council, nor did the Galican Church for many years; and [Page 4] yet neither the one nor the other did for all that esteem themselves to have incurred the Anathema's pronounced by that Council.
Qu. 18. Whether the universal Church did not in all Ages practice this way of deciding controversies, and whether these be not as universal a tradition of this, as the practice was universal without interruption?
Ans. Universal practice will amount to an universal Tradition, and that this hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages, especially in matters of great weight, we deny not; nor should we oppose the same course now, provided the Council were free and general.
But the Enquirer goes on,
Some will perhaps say that such Councils cannot Err in fundamentals but may in not fundamentals. I ask these,
Qu. What are fundamentals and what not?
Ans. Those things which are essentially necessary to the being of Religion may properly be called fundamental; but those things which only respect order and decency therein, and vary according to time and place, and are alterable by the Governours of the Church, when they see cause these are not fundamental.
Qu. Whether there be not some things fundamentals to the Church, which are not to every particular?
Ans. There may be some things fundamental to the Being of a Church, which are not so to every particular member of that Church, but whatsoever things are [...]ndamental to the Being of Religion, are equally so to the whole Church and every member thereof.
Qu. Whether an obstinate denyal of what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church, or granting as I may say upon what is fundamental by a particular person, be not in time a fundamental Errour, especially after an universal declaration of it as truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles?
Ans. This Query as it is here worded is hardly reconcileable to sense, but I suppose his meaning is, Whether for any particular person obstinately to deny what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church, and declared to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles be not a fundamental Errour? To which I answer. That every particular Christian ought with all deference to submit his own private Judgment to the publick Judgment of the Church, and though it do not appear so plain to him, yet he ought rather to suspect his own than that of the Church. But if in some things he cannot be satisfied, and therein happen to differ from the Church, provided he do not thereby break the peace and unity of the Church, it will hardly amount to a fundamental Errour. But what if it be declared by the Church to be [Page 5] a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles, will not that make it so? To this I answer, That no declaration of the Church, how universal soever it be, can make that to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles, which really is not so And therefore in that case we must have recourse to their Writings, and if it be not either in express words contained therein, or by sound consequence drawn therefrom, we ought not to comply with it, nor is it a fundamental Errour to differ therein.
Qu. Whether the universal Church assembled in a General Council ought not to be justly esteemed the decider of what is fundamental, and what 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) [Page 6] 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, [Page 7] 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? 'Tis 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 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, [Page 8] 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.
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, [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 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 [Page 16] 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 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 not we, who by force and perswasion, and by all manner of Artifices, endeavour to draw People from the Unity and Obedience of the Holy Catholick Church, unto new Congregations, Institutions and Rules of their own framing, opposite to, and destructive of the former. Like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, they compass Sea and Land to make one Proselyte, and when he is made, they make him twofold more the Child of Hell than themselves Matth. 23.15.
Qu. 13. Whether Persons so acting are better than Rebels and Usurpers, or such as Simon Magus and those that deserted the Apostles to follow him: and therefore to be avoided as Persons separated from the flock of Christ?
Ans. That they are no better than such as he hath here named and described, we willingly grant; and upon that very account is it, that we now avoid Communion with the present Church of Rome.
Thus have I given an Answer, and I hope a sufficient one, to these Enquiries; and that short, without entring upon discourses of things not demanded, or at least, not implyed in those demands; and so observed the Method propounded by the Enquirer.
An Explanation of Roman Catholick's Belief concerning these IV. Points, Their Church, Worship, Justification, and Civil Government, as it was presented to some Persons of Quality for their particular Satisfaction.
THese are four great Points, and if well and truly explained, the Explanation of them may be of very great use; but if otherwise, if he only guild the Pill, that the Patient may be more easily perswaded to swallow it, it may prove of dangerous Consequence; instead of informing, it may debauch the minds and understandings of men. Let us therefore look before we leap, let us consider well whether this Explainer hath been honest and faithfull in his Explanation, before we receive all he saith for Gospel. And for your assistance herein, I shall set down his own words, then animadvert thereupon, and when that is done, present you with both for your better satisfaction.
The EXPLAINER.
1. We believe the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Infallible Authority, and whatsoever is therein contained we firmly assent unto as to the word of God, the Author of all truth.
But since in the Holy Scriptures there are some things hard to be understood which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction, we therefore profess (for the ending of all Controversies in our Religion, and setling of Peace in our Consciences) to submit our private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free general Council.
The ANIMADVERTER.
1. The Explainer tells us that the Roman Catholicks do believe the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Infallible Authority, &c.
A very fair and good profession, wherein we do heartily joyn with them; And is it not a great pity there should be a secret reserve to spoil and overthrow it? They believe this, but is this all they believe? Do they not believe also that some things which before the Church's definition of them might have been innocently disbelieved, yet after they are once defined and determined by the Church, to be matters of Faith, and of equal Authority with any other things delivered by Christ and his Apostles? Do they not believe also that some Apocryphal [Page 22] Books are of Divine Inspiration also, and of as infallible Authority as the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles? Do they not believe Traditions to be the unwritten Word of God, to be divinely inspired, and of Equal infallible Authority with the written Word? If they do, then the Explainer hath not been so fair and candid, so just and faithfull as he ought to have been in his Explication; though he hath told us the truth, he hath not told us the whole truth. And that they do believe all this, though I might easily produce a Cloud of Witnesses, and those none of the least admired of their own Authours; yet because I design brevity, I shall content my self at present with the Evidence and Authority of one of their most magnified Councils, which they call both free and general, (though in truth it was neither) and that is the Council of Trent. Which Sess. 4 8. Apr. de Canon. Script. takes the Books of Toby, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees, into the Canon of Scripture, (though they could not but know that they never were in the Jewish Canon, nor ever universally received by the Christian Church) and anathematized all those who do not upon this Declaration believe them to be Canonical. And the same Council, in the same Sess. professes to receive and reverence Traditions with no less pious Affection, than the Books of the Old and New Testament; and that not in matter of Rite and History only, but of Faith and Manners also. Now what is this but to add to the Scriptures, and to accuse them of insufficiency and imperfection? And if so, then what doth this Explainer do, but deceive those Persons of Quality, to whom he presents this as the Summ of their Belief?
But the Explainer goes on, and saith, since in the Holy Scriptures there are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction. And here I shall by the way only remarque these two things.
1. The Apostle indeed saith there are some things hard (but not impossible) to be understood. For, if men will use the means, if they will apply themselves with an humble and teachable temper of mind diligently to reade the Holy Scriptures, if they will seriously meditate on what they reade, and earnestly and devoutly pray unto God for the assistance and direction of his Holy Spirit therein; the difficulty may be removed, and they may be enabled rightly to understand those Scriptures, at least so far as is necessary for them to know.
2. The Apostle tells us, to whom those things are hard to be understood, viz. the ignorant and unstable. So that the difficulty seems to be not in the things themselves, but in the incapacities of men. For, if men will be ignorant still, and not use the means to know better; or if they will content themselves with some airy Notions, which [Page 23] float and fluctuate in the brain, without ever endeavouring to bring them to a consistency; not only some, but all things in Scripture, and even the clearest declarations of the Church may be hard to be understood by them, and so they will be as much at a loss in the one as in the other. But how much this Text is misunderstood and misapplied, a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church, in a Treatise intituled, Search the Scriptures, hath plainly demonstrated, to which I refer the Reader. But let us see what Inference he draws from hence, Therefore (saith he) we profess (for the ending of all Controversies in our Religion, and settling of peace in our Consciences) to submit our private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council.
In which Inference I cannot but remarque these things.
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, [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 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, [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 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 Expla [...]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. [Page 29] 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, 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, [Page 33] 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, 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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. conc [...]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 King may with impunity be deposed or killed by any one, saith Suarez, Desens. Fid. l. 6. c. 6. Sect. 24.
The Pope can make, that he who is a King, shall be no King, and then you are disobliged, saith Bellarm. contr. Barcl. c. 7.
The Secular power is subject to the Spiritual. The Pope hath a sovereign power over Christian Kings and Princes, to correct, depose, and appoint others in their places. If a King be guilty of Heresie, Schism, or any intolerable crime against his People; if he be guilty of negligence or sloth in his government; if he fail in the performance of his Oaths and Promises, or oppress the Church; the Pope may divest him of his Royal Dignity; saith Abrah. Brovius, de Pontif. Roman. c. 46. p. 621. Col. 2. Which Book was printed at Cologne, Anno 1619. and solemnly recommended and approved by his Superiours, and Licensed by the Apostolick Inquisitor.
I might be infinite in instances of this kind, but having almost wearied my self with raking in such a Dunghill, I am not willing to tire my Reader too. I shall therefore only produce one unexceptionable Witness more, and that shall be their great and renowned Champion Bellarmine, out of whose 5th. Book De Romano Pontifice, I shall take the pains to transcribe some passages; and having subjoyned thereunto some instances of their practices suitable to their declared principles, I shall then leave it to the judgment of any indifferent person, what kind of Loyalty and Fidelity Sovereign Princes (especially those who are of a different persuasion) may hope to find from their Roman Catholick Subjects.
Bellarmine in the first Chapter of his fifth Book De Romano Pontifice, having rejected two extreme Opinions concerning the Pope's power; the one taught and maintained by Augustinus Triumphus, Alvarus Pelagius, Hostiensis, and others of his own Communion, viz. That the Pope by a Divine Right hath a most plenary power over all the World as well in Political as Ecclesiastical affairs. And the other delivered by Calvin, Peter Martyr, Brentius and others whom he calls Hereticks, viz. That the Pope, as Pope, hath not by Divine Right any Temporal power at all, nor upon any account can command Secular Princes, much less deprive them of their Kingdoms and Principalities; and that Spiritual persons ought not to exercise Temporal Dominion. He at last lays down a middle Opinion between both, which he tells us is the common Opinion of Catholick Divines, viz. That the Pope, as Pope, hath not directly and immediately any Temporal [Page 37] power, but only a spiritual: yet by virtue of that Spiritual power he hath indirectly at least a supreme power in Temporals.
This Opinion he undertakes to explain in his Sixth Chapter, where he tells us, That in Order to a Spiritual good, he hath a Supreme Power of disposing all the Temporal things of all Christian People.
Which Power is just such over Princes, as the Soul hath over the Body or sensitive Appetite; by Virtue of this Power he may change Kingdoms, and take them from one and give them to another; he may make and alter, suspend and abrogate Civil Laws, as the Chief Spiritual Prince, if it be for the safety of Souls.
In his Seventh Chapter he endeavours to prove this Exorbitant Power of the Pope by reasons; all which are founded in the Subordination and Subjection of the Temporal to the Spiritual Sword, (which is a Foundation that will certainly fail him.) However upon this Foundation he thus builds.
The Ecclesiastical Republick can command and compel the Temporal, which is indeed its Subject, to change the Administration, and to depose Princes, and to appoint others, when it cannot otherwise defend the Spiritual good. And again, it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Infidel or Heretical King, if he endeavour to draw his Subjects to his Heresie or Unbelief. But to judge whether a King do draw to Heresie or not, belongeth to the Pope, to whom the Care of Religion is committed; therefore it belongs to the Pope to judge whether a King be to be deposed or not. And if any one ask why the Christians of old, did not depose Nero, and Diocletian, and Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian? He roundly answers, it was not because they wanted Right, but because they wanted Power to do it.
But lest any scrupulous Christian should boggle at those horrid things, which these declared Principles must of necessity lead them to, as Rebellion, Murder, Breach of Faith, Violation of Oaths, &c. He will tell them that they are not answerable for any of these things; For, if the Pope should mistake, and command Vice, and forbid Vertue; yet it were a sin against Conscience, for the Church not to believe those Vices to be good, and those Vertues to be evil.
All these instances that I have now laid before you, were of men who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and most of them men of great Eminency both for their Parts and Places; and therefore very likely to understand the Religion they professed. Now either these men, or our Explainer must be very much out, and strangely unacquainted with the Principles of their Religion; or else the Explainer must industriously design to put a chear upon those Persons of Quality to whom he presents his Scheme. For, nothing can [Page 38] be more different than his Explanation, and this Declaration which these men have left upon Record. But, I think, the choice is very easie which of these ought to be believed in this case; and if this Cloud of Witnesses carry it (as undoubtedly they will) against one single unauthorized Explainer, then certainly he was in the wrong box, when the so much boasted of the Loyalty of the Roman Catholicks.
And now I shall only subjoyn an account of some few of their Practices, correspondent to these Principles, and they being put together will, I suppose, sufficiently discover the mistake of our Explainer.
Leo Isaurus Emperour of Constantinople was excommunicated by Pope Gregory the II d. his Country given away to the Lombards; by which means he and his Successors lost all the Western Empire, which the Pope and the French King afterwards shared between them.
Henry the IV th. Emperour of Germany was excommunicated by Pope Gregory the VII th. his Subjects absolved from their Obedience, Rodulph Duke of Sueden and Burgundy set up against him, to whom a Crown was sent by the Pope, with this Inscription, The Rock gave the Crown to Peter, and Peter gives it to Rodulph.
Childericus King of France, by the Advice and Authority of Pope Zachary the I st. had his Head shaven, was thrust into a Monastery, and Pipinus Son of Carolus Martellus (who was but a Subject and Servant to the King) was anointed King in his stead.
Henry the III d. King of France was killed at the Siege of Paris, with an empoysoned Knife by a Jacobine Fryar called Jaques Clement: Which Murther, Pope Sixtus the V th. by a solemn Oration in the Consistory September the 2d. 1589. commended to the Skies, as Rarum, insigne, & memorablile facinus. So publickly was the King killing Doctrine owned by them at that time.
And what effect this Papal approbation did produce, is evident; for upon this encouragement King Henry the IV th. Successor to Henry the III d. was also stabbed with a consecrated Dagger, by a Jesuite named Ravilliac. How frequent the excommunicating and deposing of Princes, the absolving of Subjects from their Duty and Obedience, and the stirring up of Tumults and Seditions against them by Popes and Papalins, hath heretofore been; History is so full, that it would be an Herculean labour to transcribe all the instances thereof.
Now these declared Principles and avowed Practices of Roman Catholicks being put together, and compared with our Explainer's profession; may sufficiently evince how much he hath abused those Persons of Quality, and how unfairly and dishonestly he hath dealt with them in his Explanation of the Roman Catholick's Belief in this Point.
But one would think he durst not deal thus, considering what a solemn Protestation he makes in the Close of his Explanation; For, thus he concludes.
Were we not so well acquainted with the Power of Dispensations, and the force of Mental Reservation among them; did we not know that by these Artifices they can elude the most solemn Protestations, make void all Oaths and Promises, and dissolve any the most sacred Bonds which can be invented to oblige men; it would look very uncharitably to suspect any man after such a solemn Protestation. But that they can do all this, and think they can do it with a safe Conscience, notwithstanding their Protestation to the contrary, is a ruled Case among their Casuists: I shall only at present trouble you with one instance, which is very applicable to the case in hand, and with that conclude.
On occasion of the Powder-plot here in England, an Oath of Allegiance was thought necessary to prevent such horrid attempts in time to come; which a Roman Doctor (cited by Arch-Bpishop Usher under this Character, B. P. [...]. Epistol. I. R. Impres. An. 1609.) taking notice of, laughs aloud at the simplicity of it. His words are worth remembring, Sed vide in tanta astutia, quanta simplicitas! &c. But see what simplicity here is in so great Craft! When he had placed all his security in that Oath, he thought he had framed such a manner of Oath, with so many Circumstances, which no man could any way dissolve with a safe Conscience. But he could not see, that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, all its Knots, whether of being faithfull to the King, or of admitting no Dispensation, are accordingly dissolved. Yea, I will say a thing more admirable; you know, I believe, that an unjust Oath, if it be evidently known to be such, or openly declared such, it obligeth no man: That the King's Oath is un [...], is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself. You see now that the Obligatian of it is vanished into smoke, and that the [...]nd which so many wise men thought was made of Iron, was [...] Straw.