AN ANSWER To a Late Printed Paper Given about by some of the CHURCH OF ROME In a LETTER to a GENTLEMAN The Third Edition Imprimatur April 8. 1686. Rev. 2. 5. Remember from whence thou art faln and repent and doe the first works or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy Candlestick out of his place except thou repent LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE Popish Paper IT will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and Mother Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism I. Apostasie is not onely a renouncing of the Faith of Christ but the very Name and Title to Christianity No Man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus II. Heresie is an adhesion to some private and singular Opinion or Errour in Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any singular or new Opinion disagreeable to the common received Doctrine of the Christian World I pray satisfie me as to these particulars viz. 1. By what General Council was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her Or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For It seems to me a thing very incongruous that so great a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemn her III. Schism is a departure or division from the Unity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her self by Schism from any other Body of faithful Christians or brake Communion or went forth from the Society of any Elder Church I pray satisfie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted Schismatical when there cannot be assigned any other Church different from her which from Age to Age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whence she departed To my honoured Friend Mr. S. B. SIR I Had no sooner perused the Paper which I received from you but I perceived that it was penn'd for the sake of such as either are not well acquainted with the matters of Controversie betwixt Us and the Church of Rome or with the Way and Method of arguing To such as these they are wont to pretend high To those that are ignorant of the former they talk of Antiquity and Universality and to such as are unskilful in the latter of Demonstrations and self-evident Principles of Axioms and Definitions But all this is a mere flourish of Words for if these things come strictly to be examined instead of Antiquity we shall too frequently find Forgery and Imposture instead of the Catholick Church the Church of Rome instead of Demonstrations and Definitions Sophistry and Fallacious Arguments And after this strain is this Paper wrote in which things are so artificially mingled that they look very speciously to those that do not understand them and are so well fitted to work upon the easie the ignorant and inconsiderate that after it had been printed as I perceive long since in Fiat Lux it is again singled out to be put into the Hands of such as they have a design upon But I shall endeavour to unravel it and hope by that time that I have done that what is therein said will appear to be wholly insufficient to justifie their Church and acquit it of those Crimes it is charged with And this I shall doe by shewing First That the whole is false Secondly That the particulars are very fallacious The former I shall make good by these following Considerations I. That a Church may fall from what it once was II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times when it might most of all pretend to be as he calls it a most pure excellent and flourishing Church III. That the alteration from what it was then to what it is now is to the worse and that it is thereby intolerably corrupted If these Propositions be proved then the way taken by our Authour will signifie nothing since it will not be worth the while to enquire how it is whether it be fallen by Apostasie Heresie or Schism when it is demonstrable that so it is that it is fallen I. That a Church may fall from what it once was that is from its primitive Purity and Simplicity in Faith and Manners is evident to any that will read the Scriptures and mind what is therein said of the Churches of the Jews Sardis and Laodicea or that are acquainted with Ecclesiastical History And this they of the Church of Rome are bound to grant who must acknowledge according to their own Principles that we once were a Church when in their Communion and that call us Apostatical Heretical and what not since we have forsaken it II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times but is changed in Principles and Practice First In Principles as 1. That the Pope is Christ's Vicar that is that he is the Universal Pastor over Christ's Flock and hath a Jurisdiction over all Churches whatsoever is a new Principle This the Scripture which the Church of Rome of old used to appeal to is so far from giving any Countenance to that our Saviour expresly cautions the Apostles against any such Usurpation Luke 22. 25. When there was a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest he said unto them The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. but it shall not be so but he that is the greatest or will be great Mark 10. 43. among you let him be as the younger c and in the 30. v. saith ye shall sit upon twelve Thrones c. not preferring one before the other And lest what he had occasionally spoke to Peter Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. should be misconstrued he doth give the same power to the rest of the Apostles both before his Death Mat. 18. 18. and also after his Resurrection Joh. 20. 23. And if we would understand the sense of Antiquity as to this matter I know no surer nor shorter way than to see what is said by the Councils for then the Fathers may be supposed to speak most impartially and with greatest authority and of this I shall give you a brief Account The first general Council was that of Nice called by Constantine the Great and held An. 325. which in the sixth Canon doth thus decree That the Bishop of
the Church to be because the Church is constituted per unitatem fidei by the unity of the Faith So that according to these the respect which Heresie hath to the Church is onely from the respect which the Church hath to the Faith And to find out what Heresie is we must enquire not what the Church is but what is the Faith. And if so a Church even that of Rome may fall by Heresie though she may hold the general approved Doctrine of the Church But I doubt if we should admit the whole and yet take it in any sense but one viz. for the general approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the last Ages of it that we shall find her guilty in this point also Shall the Church be taken for the primitive Church three or four hundred years after our Saviour then they are guilty of Heresie who will have the Pope to be Christ's Vicar and to have Jurisdiction over all Churches that do maintain worshipping of Images Angels and Saints to be lawful and necessary c. contrary to the general approved Doctrine of those Ages Should we take the Church for the Church Catholick in any Age as Cassander doth Consult Artic. 22. that is the Congregation of Christ's faithful people all over the World then still Rome would fall into the same condemnation since that she is but a little part in comparison of the whole Should we take Church again for the Romish Church in the first Ages of Christianity it would then also condemn it self as I have before shewed And I see no way for them even according to this definition which is perfectly one of their own making to avoid this imputation but by stifly maintaining that they thereby understand the Church of Rome for some Ages last past if that will doe and then we know where to find them and what to understand when they talk of the Church 4. Schism he saith is a departure from the Vnity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church is broken This is as lame and fallacious a definition as any of the rest For by foisting in that word Former which he after runs upon he restrains it to one particular Branch of Schism and it 's just as if he should say A Church is an Assembly of Christians that join in Communion with each other in the City of Rome which none will allow to be a sufficient definition of a Church For that term added In the City of Rome doth no more than prove that the Assembly of Christians there met is a Church but is no definition of a Church for then no Church could be out of the City of Rome and every Church if it be a Church must be in that City and no where else if that be a true definition of it So it is here the word Former added to the definition of Schism here given doth prove no more than that a departure from the Unity of a Former Church is a species and sort of Schism but is no adequate definition of it For if it is then no Church can be guilty of Schism that doth how unwarrantably soever refuse to hold Communion with or doth break off from the Communion of a Church that was not a Church before it And consequently though the Church of Jerusalem had denied to hold Communion with any Church whatsoever though it were even with the Church of Rome it self she could not be guilty of Schism because she was the first Church and none was prior to her And we also should be quit of that blame if we had nothing else to say for our selves forasmuch as a Church was founded here in Britain two years before that of Antioch and St. Peter was seven years at Antioch before he presided at Rome as Baronius saith An. 35. Num. 5. and An. 39. Numb 23. from whom and from which time they pretend alone to derive their Supremacy And now this will hold although the Church thus separated from had given no reason or colour at all for it For according to the definition of our Authour it must be a Former Church which the departure must be from to make it Schism We may indeed say that Schism is when the Band or Communion held with any Church is without just reason broken and dissolved because all Christian Churches ought to maintain Communion with each other where it may be had But if so then the Church of Rome is the most Schismatical in the World that denies Communion with all Churches that are not in all Tridentine points one with her If you now Sir reflect upon his Scheme and frame of Arguments you will see that they hold in nothing which he produceth them for For what will it signifie if it be granted that the Church of Rome was once a most pure flourishing Church if she be now abominably corrupted What if she was a Mother-Church planted by the Apostles and watered with their Doctrine and their Bloud when she now preacheth another Doctrine than she was taught by them and hath grosly corrupted that Faith which they did there establish What if she was a Mother-Church to some other Churches yet that as it gives her no Authority over those whom she was not in any sense a Mother to so even not over such as she might pretend that Relation to when she is now not to be approached to or held Communion with without apparent hazard of Salvation and is faln from those Principles and that Faith which she at their first conversion instructed them in When she is faln by Apostasie Heresie and Schism By Apostasie as she hath forsaken the Primitive Church and is not now what she originally was either in Faith or Manners By Heresie as she hath received new Articles of Faith that were not such before and so obstinately persisted therein that she hath turned the Anathema upon all Dissenters in those points from her Such Articles she hath embraced and doth now hold as have been condemned by Councils wrote against by Fathers and reproved by Authority Some of these she was particularly charged with and reproved for and in others she is as much concerned as if particularly charged because she hath embraced those things which were by them condemned For if the things and principles were condemned whoever holds them is as much so condemned by that Authority as if particularly named As they will acknowledge that if a Church now in Communion with them should fall off from them she is thereby as much under the Anathema of the Council of Trent as if she had at the meeting of that Council been so far faulty and thereby been particularly condemned By Schism she is faln as she denies Communion with all other Churches in the World whether they were so before she was a Church or were Churches converted and established at the same time with her or that have embraced the Christian Faith since she did The company of such she hath left From these Bodies she is gone forth And these were the true Churches which she forsook So that she will be found as often guilty of Apostasie as there are particulars of Faith Doctrine Worship and Manners which she is fallen from the Primitive Church in As often of Heresie as she hath new Principles of Faith and which the Church was not then acquainted with As often of Schism as there are Churches in the World that she will not hold Communion with onely because they will not embrace those Principles or join with her in those practices which she holds contrary to them and with them to the Primitive Church And thus Sir I have made good I hope what I first undertook and if thereby any service can be done to you or our Religion it will be a great satisfaction to SIR Your Servant FINIS * Rom. 1. 8. * Rom. 16. * Rom. 6. * White defence of his Way p. 435. * King Jam. in his Speech to the Parliament * Whitaker in his Answer to D. Sand. * 2 Demonst. * Fulk in c. 22 Thes. Sect. 7. * Reynolds in his 5th Conclusion ‖ L. 2. de Rom. Pon. cap. 24. * Can. 31. * Comment in 4. Sent. Scoti l. 4. Dist. 11. Q. 3. disp 42. Sect. 1. ‖ Com. in 4. Sent. p. 101. col 1. Ven. 1607. and p. 142. col 1. * In 4 Sent. dist 11. q. 3. SS ad argument pro prima dist 10. q. 1. SS quantum ergo ‖ Bellarmin l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2◠‖ Sess. 4. dâ—cr 1. * Câ—m in Joh. 6. p 317. ‖ In Iâ—a c 6. c. 8. * De Verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. ‖ Consult Artic 21. sect 4. * Defens Eccl. cont Whitaker l. 1. c. 2. Tom. 1. p. 868. ‖ Sent. l. 4. dist 45. * In 4. dist 45. Q 4. ‖ Sess. 25. de Invocat ‖ Haeres 79. * Sess. 13. ‖ Artic. 22.
forgotten And it seems they themselves did then as little understand their own Privileges as they did the Principles of Faith for this was never so much as thought of in all those Councils which were called on purpose for the suppression of Heresies and where the Legats of the Pope were present Nay to this very day they are at a loss where to go for it whether to the Pope or a Council or both or Tradition or the Collective Body of Christians that is they know not whether to give up the Cause or to maintain it I must confess if I should hear a person solemnly declare that he hath Treasure enough in his possession to enrich the whole World and should gravely invite all persons to address themselves to him but in the mean time perceive though he hath been of the same Mind for several Years that he can neither tell where it is nor is he and his Family for all this the richer or in a better condition than other Folk I should vehemently suspect him either to be a notorious Impost or or perfect Lunatick And when we hear the Church of Rome confidently asserting its own Infallibility but find withall that she knows not where to fix it and that its ruptures and differences are in the mean time as great as in other Churches and what are never ended by the way it pretends to but by plain downright force I cannot for my heart but think there is for the most part more of Interest than Reason in the Case and what they themselves do rather live by than believe But in my mind there is no better Evidence that this is new than that it 's false and no better evidence that it is false than that it hath mistaken Of which besides what hath been or shall be farther said of alterations in that Church I shall give you two plain Instances The Council of Trent saith that Traditions are to be received with equal reverence as the Scriptures and Maldonat tells us that The giving the Eucharist to Children was a Tradition in the Church for 600 Years after Christ which is now condemned as he shews by the Council of Trent Again S. Hierom saith that the Latine Church then did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Canonical Scriptures But that is now taken into the number by them and required so to be under an Anathema Sess. 4. Decr. 1. Conc. Trid. Now Infallibility and Fallibility are contradictory and if that Church hath erred as erred she hath then she cannot be infallible and so consequently the Infallibility of the Church of Rome was not the Principle of the Primitive Church of Rome I could shew as much of Novelty in the Doctrines of Indulgences Purgatory the Mass's being a Propitiatory Sacrifice and of no Salvation out of the Romish Church c. but what I have said I think is sufficient Secondly The Alterations are as great in point of Practice the Church of Rome differs therein as much from what she originally was As 1. The keeping the Scriptures and publick Service in an unknown Tongue is new The first is evident from the Translations of the Scripture into several Languages and especially into the Latine at that time a vulgar Tongue of which no sufficient Reason can be given were it not for the use of those that understood not the Originals The latter is not onely clear from 1 Cor. 14. but what Bellarmine doth acknowledge who saith That the custome of the Peoples saying Amen that is to what they understood as they did in the Apostles time continued long in the Western as well as Eastern Church 2. Worshipping of Images which was first established in the second Council at Nice but is so different from and contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church that Cassander an Authour of theirs saith that the Christians had not then so much as Images in their Churches and doth farther declare from Origen that the Ancients ab omni veneratione the very word used by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. decret de Invocat imaginum abhorruerunt that all Veneration of them was abhorred To this I refer the worshipping of Saints which was so little thought of that many of the Fathers did not think that the Souls of any should enjoy the beatifick Vision and be in a state of happiness till the Resurrection as Stapleton doth shew And it seems not to have been an Article of Faith in the time either of Lombard or Scotus the former of which saith It's not incredible the Saints do hear what we say and the latter that it 's probable God doth reveal our prayers that are offered unto them It was then the Doctrine of probability onely but now all are required to believe it under an Anathema by the Council of Trent As much is to be said concerning the Innovation of Worship to the Virgin Mary of which we read nothing in Scripture or Antiquity unless in what was practised by the Hereticks called Collyridiani in Epiphanius that used to carry about her Image and offer Cakes and Worship to it with whom that good Father thus encounters What Scripture hath delivered any such thing c. Let Mary be in honour but let the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost be worshipped let no man worship Mary 3. Communion in one Kind expresly contrary to the Scripture and the former practice of the Romish Church The former is acknowledged by the Council of Constance when they decreed with a notwithstanding for it The latter is acknowledged by Cassander who saith That the Roman Church it self retained the practice of receiving in both Kinds for above one thousand years after Christ as is evident from innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers To these I might add the practice of saying private and solitary Masses of the Adoration of the Host and carrying it about in Procession Confession as used in their Church c. But I shall forbear III. These alterations are to the worse and gross Corruptions For if the Pope is not Christ's Vicar originally and by his Deputation then he is so far a great Usurper If he hath not a Power over Kings to depose them and absolve their Subjects from Allegiance to them then those of them that have used that power have been notorious disturbers of the World. If their Church be not infallible and can no more penetrate into or resolve and determine points of Faith than another they do deceive and are deceived If Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of their own and not of Christ's they usurp upon his Prerogative If the Scriptures are free to all then their Church is guilty of the damnation of all amongst themselves that perish through the want of knowing and understanding them and of all the ignorance in the Christian World which proceeds from that cause If worshipping Images Saints and Angels the Host and Reliques be not Christian Doctrine