Chapter 4

The third Assertion which you review is, That the Roman profession of Religion, and practice in the worship of God, are every way the same as when first we received the Gospel from Rome, nor can they ever otherwise be; whereunto you say, This indeed though I do no where formally express it, yet I suppose it, because I know it has been demonstratively proved a hundred times over. You deny it has been proved, why do you not then disprove it? Because you decline, say you, all common places. All that I affirmed was, that you did suppose this Principle, and built many of your Inferences on the supposition thereof, which you here acknowledge. And so you have already owned two of the Principles, whereof in the foregoing Page you affirmed, that you could hardly own any one, and that in the sense wherein by me they are proposed and understood. But what do you mean that you no where formally express it? If you mean, that you have not set it down in those syllables, wherein you find it expressed in the Animadversions, no man ever said you did; you do not use to speak so openly and plainly: To do so would bring you out of the corners, which somewhat that you pretend to never lead you into. But if you deny, that you asserted and laboured to prove the whole and entire matter of it, your following Discourse wherein you endeavour a vindication of the Sophisme, wherewith you pleaded for it in your Fiat, will sufficiently confute you. And so you have avowed already two, of the hardly any one, Principles ascribed to you: And this you say has been demonstratively proved an hundred times over, and ask me why I do not disprove it, giving a ridiculous Answer, as from me, to your Enquiry. But pray Sr talk not of Demonstrations in this matter; palpable Sophismes, such as your Masters use in this Cause, are far enough from Demonstrations. And if you think it enough for you to say, that it has been proved, why is it not a sufficient Answer in me to remind you that it has been disproved, and your pretended proofs all refuted. And according to what Rules of Logick, do you expect Arguments from me to disprove your Assertion, while I was only answering yours that you produced in its confirmation? But that you may not complain any more, I shall make some addition of the proofs you require by way of supererrogation, when we have considered your vindication of your former Arguments, for the confirmation of this Assertion, wherewith you closed your Discourse in your Fiat Lux. This you thus propose again, The Roman was once a true flourishing Church, and if she ever fell, she must fall either by Apostasie, Heresie, or Schisme. So you now mince the matter; in your Fiat it was a most pure flourishing and Mother Church; and you know there are many that yet acknowledge her a true Church, as a thief is a true man; who will not acknowledge her to be a pure Church, much less most pure. God be merciful to poor worms, this boasting does not become us; it is not unlike hers who cried, Is it as a Queen and shall see no sorrow; I wish you begin to be sensible and ashamed of it. But yet I fear it is otherwise; for whereas in your Fiat you had proclaimed your Roman Church and Party, to be absolutely innocent and unblameable, you tell us pag. 10. of your Epistle, that you can make it appear that it is far more innocent and amiable than you have made it; more than absolutely innocent it seems, a note so high that it sounds harshly. And whereas we shall manifest your Church to have lost her native beauty, we know that no painting of her, which is all you can do, will render her truly amiable to a spiritual eye: She has too often defiled herself, to pretend now to be lovely. But to this you say I reply, The Church that then was in the Apostles time was indeed true, not the Roman Church that now is; and add, So, so, then I say that former true Church must fall sometime or other, when did she fall, and how did she fall by Apostasie, Heresie, or Schisme. Sr, you very lamely represent my Answer, that you might seem to say something to it, when indeed you say nothing at all. I discover to you the equivocation you use in that expression, the Church of Rome, and show you that the thing now so called by you, had neither being nor name, neither essence nor affection in the days of old; its very being is but the terminus as quem, of a Church's fall. I showed you also, that the Church of old that was pure, fell, not while it was so, but that the men who succeeded in the place, where they lived in the profession of Religion, gradually fell from the purity of that profession, which the Church at its first planting did enjoy. But all that discourse you pass by, and repeat again your former Question, to which you subjoin my first Answer, which was, it was possible she might fall by an Earthquake, as did those of Colosse and Laodicea; to which you, We speak not here of any casual or natural downfall, or death of mortals, by Plague, Famine, or Earthquake, but a moral and voluntary lapse in faith. What do you speak to me of Earthquakes? It is well you do so now explain yourself; your former enquiry was only in general, how or by what means she ceased to be what she had been before, as though it were impossible to assign any such; neither did I exclude the sense whereunto you now restrain your words. And had I only showed you, that it was possible she might fall, and come to nothing, and yet not by any of the ways or means by you mentioned, without proceeding to the consideration of them also, yet your especial enquiry being resolved into this general one, from where it is taken, how a pure flourishing Church may cease to be so, I had rendered your enquiry useless to your present purpose, though I had not answered your intention: For certainly that which ceases to be, ceases to be pure, seeing non entis nullae sunt affectiones. The Church of the Britains in this part of the island, now called England, was once as pure a Church as ever was the Church of Rome, yet she ceased to be long since, and that neither by Apostasie, Heresie, nor Schisme, but by the sword of the Saxons. And to tell you the truth, I do not think the old Church of Rome unconcerned in this instance, then especially when Rome was left desolate by Totilas, and without inhabitant; for the Church of Rome is urbis, and not as you vainly imagine, orbis Ecclesia.

Again, I told you she might fall by Idolatry, and so neither by Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism. To which you reply, Good Sir, Idolatry is a mixed misdemeanor both in faith and manners; I speak of the single one of faith; and he that falls by Idolatry, if he keep still some parts of Christianity entire, he falls by Heresy, by Apostasy if he keep none. I am persuaded you are the first that ever gave this description of Idolatry, and the last that will do so; it is a mixed misdemeanor in faith and manners. Manners you speak of in contradistinction to Faith, and you so explain yourself, in which sense they relate only to moral conversation, regulated by the second Table. That Idolatry has been and is constantly attended with corruption in manners, the Apostle declares (Romans 1), and I willingly grant; but how in itself, or its own nature, it should come to be a mixed misdemeanor in faith and in manners, I know not; neither can you tell me which is the fleshy, which is the fishy part of this Dagon; what it is in it that is a misdemeanor in faith, and what in manners. According to this description of yours, an Idolater should be an ill-mannered, or an unmannerly Heretic. But you speak of the single misdemeanor in faith; but who gave you leave so to restrain your enquiry? I allowed you before to except against one instance, whereby many a Church has fallen; but if you will except Idolatry and Manners also, your endeavor to provide a shelter for your guilt, is shameful and vain. For what you except out of your enquiry, if you confess not to have been, yet you do that it may be, or might have been: and you do wisely to let your adversary know, that he is to strike you only where you suppose yourself armed, but by all means must let your naked parts alone; and doubtless he must needs be very wise who will take your advice. The Church of Judah was once a pure Church in the days of David; how came she then to fall? By Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism? I answer if you will give me leave, she fell by Idolatry, and corruption of manners, against both which the Prophets were protestants (2 Kings 17:13) — [illegible] — God protested against them by his Prophets. Again the same Church reformed in the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel — [illegible] — the men of the Great Congregation, was a pure Church; how did it fall? Not by Idolatry as formerly, but by corruption of life, unbelief, and rejecting the Word of God for superstitious traditions, until it became a den of thieves. You see then there are other ways of a Church's falling from its pristine purity, than those by you insisted on. And if you shall enquire how it may fall, you must exclude nothing out of your enquiry, whereby it may do so, and whereby some Churches have done so. And if you will have my thoughts in this matter, they are, that the beginning of the fall of your Church and many others, lay in unbelief, corruption of life, conformity to the world, and other sins that were found in the most of its members. And it is a fancy to dream of the purity of a Church, in respect of its outward order, when the power and life of godliness is lost in its members; and a wicked device to suppose a Church may not be separated from Christ by unbelief, while it abides in an external profession of the doctrine of faith. Such a Church though it may have a name to live, yet indeed is dead, and dead things are unclean. We speak of its purity and acceptation thereon in the sight of God; neither will men dead in trespasses and sins, be terrible to any, as an army with banners, unless they are like those in Lucilius, who, *Ut pueri infantes credunt signa omnia ahena Vivere & esse homines; sic isti omnia ficta Vera putant; credunt signis cor inesse ahenis*, as Lactantius reports him. But you say, if they fall by Idolatry and yet keep any parts of Christianity, they fall by Heresy. But why so? Would you had thought it incumbent on you to give a reason of what you say. Are Idolatry and Heresy the same? Tertullian who of all the old ecclesiastical writers most enlarges the bounds of Idolatry, defines it to be *omnis circa omne Idolum famulatus & servitus*; any worship or service performed in reference to, or about any Idol. I do not remember that ever I met with your definition of Idolatry in any author whatever. Bellarmine seems to place it in *Creaturum aeque colere ac Deum*, to worship the creature as much or equally with the Creator: which description of it, though it be vain and groundless, for his *aeque* is neither in the Scripture nor any approved author of old required to the constituting of the worship of any creature Idolatrous, yet is not this Heresy neither, but that which differs from it *toto genere*. We know it to be *cultus religiosus creaturae exhibitus*, any religious worship of that which by nature is not God: and so does your Thomas grant it to be. Gregory de Valentia another of your great champions contends, that *tanquam Deo*, as to God, is to be added to the definition: as though religious worship could be given to any thing, and not as to God really and indeed, though not intentionally as to the worshipper. Where a man gives religious worship, there he does ipso facto assign a divine eminence, say he what he will to the contrary: neither will his intention of not doing it as to God, any more free him from Idolatry, than an adulteress will be free by not looking on her adulterer as her husband. I confess he adds afterwards a distinction that is of great use for you, and indispensably necessary for your defense; *de Idol. lib. 2 cap. 7*. Saint Peter he tells us insinuates some worship of Idols, *cultum aliquem simulachrorum*, to wit, that of the holy Images to be right, or lawful, when he deters believers *ab illicitis Idolorum cultibus*, from the unlawful worship of Idols (1 Peter 4:3) [illegible]. This were somewhat indeed, if all epithets were distinguishing, none aggravating or declarative. When Virgil said *dulcia mella premes*, *Geor. 4*, he did not insinuate that there was any bitter honey. Nor is it allowable only for poets, to use explaining and declaring epithets; but Aristotle allows it in the best orators also, so they use not [illegible], long or unseasonable ones, or the same frequently: and the use of this here by Peter is free from all those vices. When the Roman Orator cried out *ô scelus detestandum*, O wickedness to be abhorred, he did not intend to insinuate that there was a wickedness not to be abhorred, or to be approved. But if it will follow hence that your Church is guilty only of lawful Idolatry, I shall not much contend about it. Yet I must tell you, that as the poor woman when the physicians in her sickness told her still that what she complained of was a good sign, cried out [illegible], good signs have undone me; your lawful Idolatry if you take not better heed, will undo you. In the mean time as to the coincidence you imagine between Idolatry and Heresy, I wish you would advise with your Angelical Doctor, who will show you how they are contradistinct evils, which he therefore weighs in his scales, and determines which is the heaviest, *22aeq. 94. a. ad 4*. The Church in the wilderness fell by its [illegible], its making and worshiping a golden Calf, as a representation of the presence of God. That they kept some parts of the doctrine of truth entire, is evident from their proclamation of a feast to Jehovah. Do any men in their wits use to say this fall was by Heresy, though all agree it was by Idolatry? So that your Church might fall by Idolatry and not fall formally by Heresy, according to the genuine importance of the word, the use of it in the Scriptures, or the definition given of it by the Schoolmen, or any sober writer of what sort soever. And here I must desire you to stay a little, if you intend to take Protestants along with you: they constantly return this answer to you in the first place, and tell you, that your Church is fallen by Idolatry; it is fallen in the worship which you give to the Consecrated Host, as you call it, wherein if the Scriptures which call it bread, and the Fathers who term it the figure of the body of Christ, if Reason, and all our senses deceive us not, you are as plainly Idolatrous as the poor wretches which fall down and worship a piece of red cloth: so your own Costerus assures us, *Enchirid. cap. 8*. *Tolerabilior*, says he, *est eorum error, qui pro Deo solunt statuam auream, aut argenteam, aut alterius materis imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia at quondam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis colunt*. Their error is more tolerable who worship a golden or silver statue, or an image of any other matter for a God, as the Gentiles worshipped their Gods, or a rag of red cloth lifted upon a spear, as it is reported of the Laplanders, or living creatures, as did the Egyptians of old, than theirs who worship a piece of bread. This is that which made Averroes cry out, seeing the Christians eat the God whom they worship, let my soul be among the Philosophers. You do the same in your worship of the Cross, which the chiefest among you maintain to be the same that is due to Christ himself. And you are in the same path still in the religious adoration you give to the blessed Virgin, your prayers to her, and invocations of her, which abound in all your books of devotion, and general practice. And what need we mention any particular instances, when you have begun some of your Conciliary actions; the greatest solemnities of Christianity among you, with invocation of her for help and assistance. So did your Council of Lateran joining with Cardinal Cajetan in their opening of the second Session, in these words; *Quoniam nihil est quod homo de semetipso sine auxilio opeque divina possit polliceri, ad Gloriosam ipsam Virginem Dei matrem primum convertam orationem meam*. Seeing there is nothing that a man may promise to himself as of himself without divine help and assistance, I will first turn my prayer to the Glorious Virgin the mother of God. This was the doctrine, this the practice, this the Idolatry of your Lateran Council. And again in the 7th Session, *Deiparae nostrae presidium imploremus*; let us pray for the help or protection of our blessed mother of God. And in the 10th Session of the same Council, Stephen Archbishop of Patras prays; *Vt ipsa beata Virgo, Angelorum Domina, fons omnium Gratiarum, quae omnes Hereses interemit, cujus opera magus reformatio, Concordia Principum, & vera contra Infideles expeditio fieri debet opem ferre dignetur*: That the blessed Virgin, the Lady of Angels, the fountain of all graces, who destroys all heresies, by whose assistance, the great Reformation, the Agreement of Princes, and sincere expedition against the Infidels (the business of that Council) ought to be performed, would vouchsafe to help him, that he might, etc. And thereupon sings this Hymn to her, recorded in the Acts of the Council; *Omnium Splendor decus & perenne Virginum Lumen, genetrix superni Gloria humani generis Maria unica nostri. Sola Tu Virgo dominaris astris, Sola Tu Terrae Maris atque Coeli Lumen, inceptis saveas rogamus Inclyta nostris. Vt queam sacros reserare sensus Qui latent chartis nimium severi Ingredi & celsae, duce te benigna Maeniaterra.* O Mary the beauty, honor and everlasting light of all Virgins, the mother of the Highest, the only glory of mankind; You Virgin alone rules the Stars; You alone are the light of Earth, Sea and Heaven; do you O glorious Lady, we entreat, prosper my endeavors; that I may unfold the sacred senses which lie hid in the too severe writings (of the Scripture) and kindly give me under your goodness to enter the walls of the heavenly countries. I suppose it cannot be doubted from where the pattern of this Conciliary Prayer was taken; it is but an imitation of *Phaebe, Sylvarumque potens Diana Lucidum Coeli decus, O colendi Semper & culti, date quae precamur tempore sacro. Alme Sol curru nitido diem qui Promis & celas aliusque & idem Nasceris, possis nihil urbe Roma visere majus. Rite maturos aperire partus Lenis Itithia, tuere matres Sive tu Lucina probas vocari seu Genitalis Diva.* And if this be not plainly to place her in the throne of God I know not what can be imagined so to do. Your worship of Angels and of Saints is of the same importance, concerning whom you do well to entitle your paragraph Heroes; your doctrine and practice concerning them, being the very same with those of the ancient Heathen, in reference to their Daemons and Heroes. So your own learned Vives confesses of many of you; *in August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 28. cap. ult.* *Multi Christiani*, says he, *Divos Divasque non aliter venerantur quam Deum; nec video in multis quod sit discrimen inter eorum opinionem de Sanctis, & id quod Gentiles putabant de suis Diis.* Many Christians worship he and she Saints, no otherwise than they do God; neither do I see in many things what difference there is between their opinion concerning the Saints, and that which the Heathen thought of their Gods. And it is known what Polidore Virgil before him affirmed to the same purpose: your Idolatry in the worship of images of all sorts shall be afterwards declared. Be then this a single or mixed misdemeanor it matters not, a misdemeanor it is, whereby we affirm that the Roman Church is fallen from its pristine purity. And this we think is a full answer to your enquiry. We need not, you cannot compel us to go one step farther. But our way is plain and invites us. I shall therefore proceed to let you see once again that she is fallen by all the ways you thought meet to confine your enquiry to.

You proceed, finding your self puzled, in the third place you lay on load, she fell say you, by Apostasie, Idolatry, Heresie, Schisme, Licentiousness and prophaneness of Life. And in this you do not much unlike the drunken youth, who being bid to hit his Masters finger with his, when he perceived he could not do it, he ran his whole fist against it. Seriously Sr, you have the worst success in your Attempts for a little wit and merriment that ever I met with. If you would take my advice, you should not strain your Genius for that which it will not affoard you: you forget the old rule, Tu nihil invita dies faciesve Minerva. Any other diversion were better than this which proves so succesless: Yet I must confess you deserve well of pastime, seeing to serve its interests you so often make your self ridiculous, as you now do in this pittifull story. And I cannot tell you whether my Answer have touched your finger or no, but I am sure, if it be true, it strikes your Cause to the heart; and I am as sure of the Truth of it, as I am that I am alive. And you see how I am pusled, even as he was who cryed inopem me copia fecit. Your Church has fallen so many wayes, all so foully and evidently, that it is hard for any man to chuse what instance to insist upon, who is called on to charge her, as you by your enquiry of them, do on your Protestant Readers. And for my part, I had rather you should take your choyce, against which of the things mentioned you think your self best able to defend her. And may it please you to chuse your Instance, if I prove not your Church to have fallen by it, I will promise you to become a Papist. You proceed to your own particulars, and ask, Did shee fall by Apostasie: to which you subjoyn my words, by a partiall not a totall one; with your reply, Good Sr, in this division Apostasie is set to express a totall relapse in opposition to Heresie which is the partiall. I see you have as little mind to be drawn to the consideration of your Apostasie, as of your Idolatry; and would fain post off all to Heresie, under a corrupt notion of which terme, you hope to find some shelter for your self and your Church, although in vain. But Verte omnes tete in facies, & contrahe quicquid Sive animis, sive arte vales. You must bear the charge of Apostasie also. For why must that needs be the notion of these termes in the division you made, that you now express? Is it from the strict sense and importance of the words themselves, or from the Scripturall or Ecclesiasticall use of them, or from where is it, that it must be so, and that it is so? None of these will give you any relief, or the least countenance to your fancie. Both [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], are words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in themselves of an indifferent signification, denoting things or acts, good or evill, according to their accidentall limitations and applications. It is said of some [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). And the same Apostle speaking of them that name the name of Christ, says, let every one of them depart from iniquity, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (2 Timothy 2:19). So that the word it self signifies no more but a single and bare departure from anything, way, rule, or practice be it good or bad, wherein a man has been ingaged, or which he ought to avoid and fly from. And this is the use of it in the best Greek Authors: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] are such in Homer who are farre distant or remote on any account from any thing or place. And [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Aristotle things very remote. To leave any place, company, thing, Society, or Rule, on any cause, is the common use of the word in Thucydides, Plutarch, Lucian, and the rest of their companions in the propriety of that language. Apostasia by Ecclesiasticall writers, is restrained to either a back sliding in Faith subjective and manners, or a causeless relinquishment of any Truth before professed. So the Jews charge Paul (Acts 21:21), [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], you teach Apostasie from Moses Law. Such also is the nature of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a speciall option, choyce, or way in profession of any Truth or Error. So Paul calls Pharisaisme [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Acts 26:5), the most exact heresie or way of Religion among the Jews. And Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, lib. 8. calls Christian Religion [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the best Heresie. And the great Constantine in one of his Edicts calls it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Catholick or generall Heresie; and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the most holy Heresie. The Latines also constantly used that word in a sense indifferent. Cato, says Cicero, est in ea heresi quae nullum orationis florem sequitur. The words therefore themselves you see are of an indifferent signification, having this difference between them, that the one for the most part is used to signifie the Relinquishment of that which a man had before embraced, and the other a choice or embracing of that which a man had not before received or admitted. And this difference is constantly observed by all Ecclesiasticall writers, who afterwards used these words in the worst or an evill sense; so that Apostasie in this appropriation of it, denotes the relinquishment of any Important Truth or way in Religion; and Heresie the choice or embracement of any new destructive Opinion or Principle or way in the profession thereof. A man then may be an Apostate by partiall Apostasie, that is depart from the Profession of some Truth he had formerly embraced, or the performance of some duty which he was engaged in, without being an Heretick, or choosing any new opinion which he did not before embrace. Thus you signally call a Monke that deserts his Monasticall Profession an Apostate, though he embrace no opinion which is condemned by your Church, or which you think hereticall. And a man may be an Heretick, that is choose and embrace some new false opinion, which he may coyn out of his own imagination, without a direct renunciation of any Truth which before he was instructed in. And this is that which I intended, when I told you that your Church is fallen by partiall Apostasie and by Heresie. She has renounced many of the important Truths which the old Roman Church once believed and professed, and so is fallen by Apostasie. And she has invented or coyned many Articles pretended to be of faith, which the old Roman Church never believed, and so is fallen by Heresie also. Now what say you hereunto? Why, good Sr, in this division Apostasie is set to express a totall relapse in opposition to Heresie, which is the partiall. But who gave you warrant or leave so to set them? It would it may be somewhat serve your turn, in evading the Charge of Apostasie, that lyes against your Church; but, Good Sr, will not prove that you may thus confound things for your advantage. Idolatry is Heresie, and Apostasie is Heresie, and what not, because you suppose you have found a way to escape the imputation of Heresie. I say then yet again in answer to your enquiry, [illegible] that your Church is fallen by Apostasie, in her relinquishment of many important truths, and neglect of many necessary duties, which the old Roman Church embraced and performed. That these may be the more evident to you, I shall give you some few instances of your Apostasie, desiring only that you would grant me, that the primitive Church of Rome believed and faithfully retained the doctrine of truth, wherein from the Scripture it was instructed.

That Church believed expressly, that all they who die in the Lord do rest from all their labours (Revelation 14:8), which truth you have forsaken, by sending many of them into the flames of Purgatory.

It believed, that the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed in us (Romans 8:18). Your Church is otherwise minded, asserting in our works and sufferings a merit of, and condignity to the glory that shall be received.

It believed, that we were saved freely, by grace, by faith, which is not of our selves, but the gift of God, not by works, lest any one should boast (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:5), and therefore besought the Lord not to enter into judgment with them, because in his sight no flesh could be justified (Psalm 130:4; 143:2). And you are apostatized from this part of their faith.

It believed, that Christ was once only offered (Hebrews 10:12), and that it could not be that he should often offer himself, because then he must have often suffered and died (Hebrews 9:25). Which faith of theirs you are departed from.

It believed, that we have one only Mediator and Intercessor with God (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:2), wherein also you have renounced their persuasion; as likewise you have done in what it professed, that we may invocate only him, in whom we do believe (Romans 10:14).

It believed, that the command to abstain from meats and marriage, was the doctrine of Devils (1 Timothy 4:1, 2). Do you abide in the same faith?

It believed, that every soul without exception, was to be subject to the higher powers (Romans 13:1). You will not walk in the steps of their faith herein.

It believed, that all image-worship was forbidden (Exodus 20). And whether you abide in the same persuasion, we shall afterwards examine. And many more instances of the like kind, you may at any time be minded of.

You have come to that you would fain be at, which will be found as little to your purpose, as those whose consideration you so carefully avoid. You say, Did she fall by heresy in adhering to any error in faith, contrary to the approved doctrine of the Church? Here you smile seriously, and tell me, that, since I take the Roman and Catholic Church to be one, she could not indeed adhere to any thing, but what she did adhere to. Sir, I take them indeed to be one: but here I speak ad hominem, to one that does not take them so. And then, if indeed the Roman Church had ever swerved in faith, as you say she has, and be herself as another ordinary particular Church, as you say she is, then might you find some one or other more general Church, if any there were, to judge her; some Oecumenical Council to condemn her; some Fathers, either Greek and Latin, expressly to write against her, as Protestants now do; some or other grave authority to censure her; or at least some company of believers, out of whose body she went, and from whose faith she fell. None of which, since you are not able to assign, (wherein you have spoken more rightly, than you were aware of; for, not to be able to assign none of them, infers at least an ability to assign some, if not all of them) my query remains unanswered, and the Roman still as flourishing a Church as ever she was.

Answer 1. You represent my answer lamely. I desire the Reader to consult it in the Animadversions, pag. 66, 67, 68. What you have taken notice of, discovers only your fineness, in making heresy an adherence to an error in faith, contrary to the doctrine of the Church; and your selves the Church, whereby you must needs be secured from heresy, though you should adhere to the most heretical principles that ever were broached in the world. But nothing of all this, as I have showed, will be allowed you. 2. As we have seen some of the reasons, why you were so unwilling to try the cause of your Church, on the heads of idolatry and apostasy; so here you discover a sufficient reason, why you have passed over your other head of schism, in silence. You avow your self one of the most schismatical principles, that were ever adhered to by any professing the name of Christ. The Roman Church and the Catholic are with you one and the same. Is not this Petilianus his, in parte Donati; yes Basilides his, [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉]. Epiphanius, Heresy 4. We only are men, all others are dogs and swine. Macte virtute! If this be not to show moderation, and to pursue reconciliation, at once to shut out all men but your selves from the Church here, and consequently Heaven hereafter, what can be thought so to be? In earnest, Sir, you may talk what you please of moderation, but while you avow this one wretched schismatical principle, you do your endeavour to exclude all true Christian moderation out of the world. 3. Why do you conclude, that your query is not answered? Suppose one question could not be answered, does it necessarily follow that another cannot? I suppose, you take notice that this is another question, and not that at first proposed, as I told you before. Your first inquiry was about your Church's crime, this is about her conviction and condemnation; and your conclusion has no strength in it, but what is built on this unquestionable maxim, that, None ever offended, who was not publicly judged; as though there were no harlot in the world but those that have been carted. It is enough, Sir, that her condition is sub judice, as it will be, whether you or I will or no; and that there is not evidence wanting for her conviction, nor ever was since her fall, though it may be it has not at all times been so publicly managed. And yet so vain is your triumphant conclusion, that we rest not here, but prove also that she has been of old judged and condemned, as you will hear anon.

And thus I have once more given you an answer to your enquiry, how your Church fell; namely, that she has done so by all the ways and means, by which it is possible for a Church to fall. She failed under the just hand of God, when the persons of that Urbick Church were extirpated, partly by others, but totally by Totilas; as the British Church in England fell by the sword of the Saxons. She has fallen by idolatry, and corruption of life, as did the Church of the Jews before the Captivity. She has fallen by her relinquishment of the written Word, as the only rule of faith and worship, and by adhering to the uncertain traditions of men, as did the Church of the Jews after their return from captivity. She has fallen by apostasy, in forsaking the profession of many important truths of the Gospel, as the Church of the Galatians did for a season, in their relinquishment of the doctrine of justification by grace alone. She has fallen by heresy, in coining new articles of faith, and imposing them on the consciences of the disciples of Christ, as the Montanists did with their new Paraclete, and rigid observances. She has fallen by schism in herself, as the Judaical Church did when divided into Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees: setting up Pope against Pope, and Council against Council, continuing in her intestine broils for some ages together; and from all others, by the wretched principle, but now avowed by you, as the Donatists did of old. She has fallen by ambition, in the Hildebrandine principle, asserting a sovereignty in the Pope over the kings and potentates of the earth, whereof I can give you no precedent instance, unless it be of him, who claimed the kingdoms of the world to be his own, and boasted that he disposed of them at his pleasure (Matthew 4). And now I hope you will not take it in ill part, that I have given you a plain answer to your question, which, as I suppose, was proposed to us for that end and purpose.

But although these things are evident and sufficiently proved, yet I see nothing will satisfy you, unless we produce testimonies of former times, to manifest that your Church has been arraigned, judged, condemned, written against, by Fathers, Councils, or other Churches. Now though this be somewhat an unreasonable expectation in you, and that which I am no way bound to by the law of our discourse to satisfy you in; yet to prevent for the future such invasions, as you have made use of on all occasions in your Epistle, I shall in a few pregnant and unquestionable instances, give you an account both when, how, and by whom the falls of your Church have been observed, reproved, condemned, and written against. Only to what shall be discoursed to this purpose, I desire liberty to premise these three things, which I suppose will be granted. Dabitur ignis tamen, et si ab inimicis petam.

The first is, that, what is by any previously condemned, before the embracing and practice of it, is no less condemned by them, than if the practice had preceded their condemnation. Though you should say that your avowing of a condemned error, would make it no error; yet you cannot say that it will render it not condemned: for that which is done, cannot be undone, say you what you will.

Secondly, that, where any opinion or practice in religion, which is embraced and used by your Church, is condemned and written against, that then your Church which so embraces and uses it, is condemned and written against. For neither do Protestants write against your Church, or condemn it, on any other account, but of your opinions and practices; and you require but such a writing and condemnation, as you complain of among them.

Thirdly, I desire you to take notice, that I do not this, as though it were necessary to the security and defence of the cause which we maintain against you. It is abundantly sufficient and satisfactory to our consciences, in your casting us out from your communion, that all the ways whereby we say your Church is fallen from her pristine purity, are judged and condemned in the Scripture, the Word of truth; where we appeal for the last determination of the differences between us. These things being premised, to prevent such evasions as you have accustomed yourself to, I shall, as briefly as I can, give you somewhat of that, which you have now twice called for.

1. Your principle and practice in imposing upon all persons and Churches a necessity of the observation of your rites and ceremonies, customs and traditions, casting them out of communion who refuse to submit to this your great principle of all the schisms in Europe, was contradicted, written against, condemned by Councils and Fathers, in the very first instance that ever you gave of it. Be pleased to consider that this concerns the very life and being of your Church: for if you may not impose your constitutions, observances, and customs upon all others, actum est, there is an end of your present Church state. Let us see then how this was thought of in the days of old: Victor the Bishop of Rome, Anno Dom. 96. condemns and excommunicates the Churches of Asia, because they would not join with him in the celebration of Easter precisely on the Lord's day. Did this practice escape uncontrolled? He was written against, by the great Irenaeus, and reproved that he had cast out of communion [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], whole Churches of God, for a trivial cause. His fact also was condemned in the justification of those Churches, by a Council in Palestine, where Theophilus presided; and another in Asia, called together for the same purpose by Polycrates (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapters 22, 23, 24, 25). This is an early instance of a considerable fall in your Church, and an open opposition by Councils and Fathers made to it. And do not you, Sir, deceive yourself, as though the fact of Victor were alone concerned in this censure of Irenaeus and others. The principle before mentioned, which is the very life and soul of your Church, is condemned in it. It was done also in a repetition of the same instance attempted here in England by you, when Augustine that came from Rome would have imposed on the British Churches the observation of Easter according to the custom of the Roman Church; the Bishops and Monks of these Churches, not only rejected your custom, but the principle also from where the attempt to impose it on them did proceed; protesting, that they owned no subjection to the Bishop of Rome, nor other regard, than what they did to every good Christian (Concil. Anglican. p. 188).

2. Your doctrine and practice of forcing men by carnal weapons, corporal penalties, tortures, and terrors of death, to the embracement of your profession, and actually destroying and taking away the lives of them that persist in their dissent from you, is condemned by Fathers and Councils, as well as by the Scriptures, and the light of Nature itself. It is condemned by Tertullian, Apol. cap. 23. Videte, says he, ne & hoc ad irreligiositatis elogium concurrat, adimere libertatem Religionis, & interdicere optionem Divinitatis, ut non liceat mihi colere quod velim, sed cogar colere quod nolim; with the like expressions, in twenty other places. All this external compulsion he ascribes to profaneness. So does Clemens Alexand. Stromat. 8. So also did Lactantius; all consenting in that Maxim of Tertullian, Lex nova non se vindicat ultore gladio: The Law of Christ revengeth not itself with a punishing sword. The Council of Sardis, Epist. ad Alexand. expressly affirms, that they dissuaded the Emperor from interposing his secular power to compel them that dissented. And you are fully condemned in a Canon of a Council at Toledo, Cap. de Judae. distinc. 45. Praecipit sancta Synodus, nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre; cui enim vult Deus miseretur, & quem vult indurat. The holy Synod commandeth, that none hereafter shall by force be compelled to the faith: for God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitar. falls heavily on the Arians, that they began first to compel men to their heresy, by force, prisons, and punishments; from where he concludes of their Sect, atque ita seipsam quam non sit pia nec Dei cultrix manifestat: it evidently declares itself hereby, to be neither pious, nor to have any reverence of God. In a Book that is of some credit with you, namely Clemens his Constitutions, you have this among other things for your comfort, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Christ left men the power of their wills free (in this matter), not punishing them with death temporal, but calling them to give an account in another world. And Chrysostome speaks to the same purpose on John 6. [in non-Latin alphabet]. He asked them saying, Will you also go away? which is the question of one rejecting all force and necessity. Epiphanius gives it, as the character of the semi-Arians, [in non-Latin alphabet]. They persecute them that teach the Truth, not confuting them with words, but delivering them that believe aright to hatreds, wars and swords, having now brought destruction not to one city or country alone, but to many. Neither can you relieve yourselves, by answering that they were true believers whom they persecuted; you punish heretics and schismatics only, for they thought and said the same of themselves, which you assert in your own behalf. So Salvian informs us, Haeretici sunt, sed non scientes, denique apud nos sunt Haeretici, apud se non sunt. Nam intantum se & Catholicos judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo Haereticae pravitatis infament; quod ergo illi nobis sunt, & hoc nos illis. They are heretics, but they know it not; they are heretics to us, but not to themselves: for they so far judge themselves to be Catholic, that they condemn us for the guilt of heresy: So then, what they are to us, that we are to them. Especially was your whole practice in this matter solemnly condemned in the case of Priscillianus, recorded by Sulpitius Severus in the end of his second Book, the only instance that Bellarmine could fix upon in all Antiquity for the putting of any men to death upon the account of Religion; for, the other whom he mentions, he confesses himself to have been a magician. Ithacius, with some other Bishops his associates, procured Maximus the Tyrant to put Priscillianus a Gnostic, with some others, to death; and to banish some of their followers. What says the Historian thereon: Hoc modo, says he, homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati, aut exiliis mulctati; On this manner, were those unworthy wretches either slain or punished by banishment, by a very evil precedent. And what was the success of this zeal? Non solum, says he, non repressest haeresis, sed confirmata & latius propagata: The heresy was so far from being repressed by it, that it was the more confirmed and propagated. And what ensued hereupon in the Church itself? Inter nostros perpetuum discordiarum bellum exarsit, quod jam per quindecim annos foedis dissensionibus agitatum nullo modo sopiri poterat. Et nunc cum maxime discordiis Episcoporum turbari & [illegible] omnia cernerentur, cunctaque per eos odio aut gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, [illegible], arrogantia, somno, desidia essent depravata; postremo plures adversum paucos bene consulentes, insanis consiliis & pertinacibus studiis certabant. Inter haec plebs Dei, & optimus quisque, probro atque ludibrio habebatur: With which words he shuts up his ecclesiastical story. Among ours, a lasting war of discord was kindled, which, after it has now for fifteen years been carried on with shameful contentions, can by no means be allayed. And now especially when all things appear to be troubled and perverted by the discord of the Bishops, and that all things are depraved by them through hatred, favor, fear, inconstancy, envy, faction, covetousness, pride, sleepiness and sloth; the most with mad counsels and pertinacious endeavors opposing themselves to the few that are better advised. Among all these things, the people of God and every honest man, is become a reproach and scorn. Thus that Historian complaining of the consequents of this proceeding. But good men left not the matter so: Martinus Turonensis presently refused all communion with them who had any hand in the death or banishment of the persons mentioned. So does Ambrose declare himself to have done (Epist. 27.), as did the rest of the sober godly Bishops of those days. At length both Ithacius and Idacius, the promoters of this work, were solemnly excommunicated, though one of them had before for very shame foregone his Bishopric. See Prosp. Chron. 389. and Isidore de Viris Illustribus. So that here also the judgment and practice of your Church which she is fallen into, is publicly condemned and written against, 1300 years ago. Should I insist on all the testimonies that of this kind might be produced, Ante diem clauso componet vesper olympo than I could make an end of them. I have added this instance to the former, as knowing them to be the two great pillars on which the tottering fabric of your Church is raised; and which if they were removed, the whole of it would quickly fall to the ground: and you see how long ago, they were both publicly condemned.

3. Your Papal Oecumenical Supremacy has two main branches: 1. Your Pope's spiritual power over all persons and churches, in the things of religion. 2. His power over Emperors, Kings, and Potentates, in reference to religion; or, as you speak, in ordine ad spiritualia. The first your Church stumbled into by many degrees, from the days of Victor, who made the first notable halt to this purpose. The latter you stumbled into in the days of Gregory the seventh, or Hildebrand. It were endless to declare how this fall of your Church has been declared, written against, opposed, condemned by churches, councils, Fathers, Princes, and learned men in all ages. Some few evidences to this purpose, to satisfy your request, I shall direct you to: it was written against and condemned by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and that in a council at Carthage, an. 258. upon an attempt made by Stephen Bishop of Rome, looking in some small degree towards that usurped Supremacy, which afterwards was attained to. You may, if you please, there see him rebuked, and the practice of your Church condemned. The same Cyprian had done no less before, in reference to some actings of Cornelius the predecessor of Stephen (Epist. ad Cornel.). Though the pretensions of Cornelius and Stephen were modest in comparison of your present vast claim; yet the churches of God in those days could not bear them. It is prejudged in the most famous council of Nice, which assigned bounds to the jurisdiction of Bishops, giving to several of them equal authority, Can. 6. [in non-Latin alphabet]. Let the ancient customs be observed, that, as to Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them, (or the churches in them) for so is the custom of the Bishop of Rome, (that is, to have power over the adjoining churches;) likewise about Antioch, and in other Provinces, that the ancient rights of the churches be preserved. Your great Pope whom you so frequently call the Pastor of Christendom, was here but [in non-Latin alphabet], the Bishop in the City or Church of Rome, or of the Church in the City of Rome. And bounds are assigned to the authority which he claimed by custom, as to his of Alexandria and Antioch. It is true, the Church of Alexandria has some power assigned, ascribed, or granted to it, above other churches of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, for a warranty whereof, the usage of the Roman Church in reference to her neighbor churches, is made use of: which to deal freely with you, and to tell you my private thoughts, was a confirmation of a disorder by your example, which you were from that day forward seldom wanting to give plenty of. So to this purpose, Concil. Antioch. Can. 13, and 15. an. 341. Concil. Constantinop. Can 2. an. 381. But this Canon of the Nicene Fathers openly condemns and is perfectly destructive of your at present claimed Supremacy. Three councils together in Africk, within the space of twenty years, warned your Church of her fall into this heresy, and opposed her attempts for the promotion of it. The first at Carthage, an. 407. which forbids all appeals to any beyond the Sea; which Rome was to them in Africk, no less than it is to us in England. The next was the second Milevitan, an. 416. where the same prohibition is revived with express respect to the See of Rome, as Binius acknowledges. The same order is again asserted by another council in Africk, wherein the pretensions of Boniface to some kind of superintendency over other churches, are sorely reproved, and his way of prosecuting his attempt by pretended Canons of the council of Nice, after great pains taken and charge disbursed in the discovery of the forgery, censured and condemned. All these testimonies of the condemnation of this fall of yours by Fathers and councils you have gathered to your hand in the Cod. Can. Conc. Afric. and by Binius, with others. Also the substance of all these Canons of provincial Synods is confirmed in the fourth chapter of the Decree of the third Oecumenical council at Ephesus, an. 431. Act. 7. [in non-Latin alphabet]. It seemed good to the holy and general council, that every Province retain its rights, pure and inviolate, which, according to ancient custom, it had from the beginning. The Decree, I confess, was purposely framed against the Bishop of Antioch, who had taken on him to ordain Bishops in Cyprus out of his Province; but it is built on that general reason, which expressly condemns the Roman pretensions to an unlimited Supremacy. The great and famous council of Chalcedon, an. 451. condemned the same heresy, and plainly overthrew the whole foundation of your Papal plea, Act. 15. Can. 18. as the Canons of that council are collected by Balsamon and Zonaras; though some of them, with intolerable partiality, would separate this and some others, from the body of the Canons of that council, giving them a place by themselves. The Decree contains the reasons of the council's assigning privileges next to, and equal with, the Roman, to the Constantinopolitan Church; [in non-Latin alphabet], say they, [in non-Latin alphabet]. The Fathers (our Predecessors) granted privileges to the See of ancient Rome, because that was the Imperial City. Do you see from where proceeded all the privileges of the Roman throne? — merely from the grants and concessions of former Bishops; and I wish they had been liberal only of what was their own. And what was the reason of their so doing? Because the City was Imperial; in which one sentence, both their Supremacy and the grounds of it are discarded and virtually condemned; for their pretensions are utterly inconsistent with this synodical determination. They proceed: for the same reason, [in non-Latin alphabet]. They (the hundred and fifty Bishops) assigned the same or equal privileges to the holy See of new Rome, rightly determining that the City which is honored with the Empire and Senate, should enjoy equal privileges in things ecclesiastical with the ancient Queen-Rome, or Rome regent of old. Is not your present Supremacy here sufficiently condemned, and that by as famous a council as ever the Christian world enjoyed? And it will not avail you, that you fell into this heresy fully afterwards, and not before the determination of this council; for he that falls into a heresy after the determination of a council, is no less condemned therein, than he that fell into it before, and gave occasion to the sentence; yes, his guilt is the greater of the two, because he despised the sentence which he knew, which the other it may be neither did, nor could foresee. I gave you an instance before, how it was condemned and written against by the British Church here in this Island, and many more instances of the same nature might be added.

The Hildebrandine branch of your Supremacy, I mean the power that you challenge over Kings and Potentates, in ordine ad spiritualia, which having made some progress by insensible degrees, was enthroned by Pope Gregory the seventh, has as little escaped opposition, censure, and condemnation as any heresy whereinto your Church is fallen. This Gregory may be accounted the chief Father of this heresy, for he sicked the unshapen Monster into that terrible form, wherein it has since ranged about in the earth. What this mans Principles and Practices were, I shall not desire you to learn of Cardinal Benno, whom yet I have reason to judge the more impartial Writer of the two, but of Cardinal Baronius, who makes it his business to extoll him to the skies: Facit eum apud nos Deum, virtutes narrat, he makes almost a god of him, or at least [illegible], as Socrates tells us the Lacedaemonians called an excellent man, Plato in Menn. The chief Kingdoms of Europe, as England and Spain, with Sicilia and Sardinia, and sundry other Principalities, he claimed as his own unquestionable fee. The Empire he accounted his proper care, making the deposing of Emperors much of his business. The Principles he proceeded upon, the same Cardinal informs us of, in his Annals ad 1076. n. 30. And he has done well to record them, that they might be preserved In perpetuam rei memoriam, that we might learn what your great Father exercised himself about, Dum succus pecori & lac subducitur agnis, while the poor sheep famished for want of knowledge and instruction. They are called Dictata Papae, and ex tripode we may not doubt, being in number twenty seven, whereof I shall mind you of a few. The first is, Quod Romana Ecclesia à solo Domino sit fundata; That the Roman Church was founded by the Lord alone. 2. Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure vocatiur Vniversalis; That the Roman Bishop is rightfully called Universal. So some think indeed, ever since Pope Gregory the first taught them, that he who assumed that Title, was a forerunner of Antichrist. 3. Quod ille solus possit deponere Episcopos, vel reconciliare; That he alone can depose Bishops, or restore them; which agrees well with the practice of all the Councils from that of Antioch, which deposed Paulus Samosatenus. 7. Quod illi soli licet, pro temporis necessitate, novas leges condere; That he alone as necessity requires can make new Laws. Let him proceed; 8. Quod solus possit uti Imperialehus insigniis; He alone can use Imperial ensigns. It is a great kindness in him doubtless to lend them to any of his neighbours, or rather subject, Kings. 9. Quod slius Papo pedes omnes Principes deosculaetur; That it is the Pope alone whose feet all Princes may or ought to kiss. Yes, and it is a kindness if he kick not their Crowns from their heads with his foot, as one did our King John's; or tread upon their necks, as another did on the Emperor Frederick's. 11. Quod unicum sit nomen in mundo, Papa scilicet; That there is only one name in the world, to wit, that of the Pope; no other name it seems given under heaven. Once more; 12. Quod illi liceat, Imperatores deponere; That it is lawful for him to depose Emperors. I hope you will not be offended at the calling over these heresies, because the so doing is not suited to our present design. I took them out of your Cardinal Baronius, in the place above quoted, who has placed them as on a pillar, V. D. P. L. P. where they may be easily read by all men. And that you may not think that these were the heresies of Gregory alone, the same Baronius affirms that these Dictates were confirmed in a Synod at Rome, whereby they became the heresies of your whole Church. Did Peter thus feed the sheep of Christ? Seeing Pasce oves meas, is the great pretence for all these exorbitances. Alas Hic alienus oves custos his mulget in hor[illegible] all this is but the shearing, milking, and slaying of a stranger; the shepherds being driven into corners. But have these noisome heresies of your Church, think you, passed without control? Was she not judged, censured, written against, and condemned in the person of her chief Pastor? You must be a very stranger to all History, if you can imagine any such thing. A Council assembled by the Emperor at Worms in Germany, reckons up the miscarriages of this Hildebrand, and pronounces him deposed, with all those that adhered to him. Another Synod, an. 1080. at Brixia in Bavaria, condemns him also for the same causes. All the heroic Potentates of Europe, especially the Emperors of Germany, the Kings of England, and France, with whole Assemblies of their Clergy, have always opposed and condemned this branch of your Supremacy. And to this purpose, hundreds of their Laws, Decrees, Edicts, and Declarations, are at this day extant.

4. Your Pope's Personal Infallibility with the requisite qualifications, is another heretical opinion that your Church has fallen by. And herein you are [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], condemned of your selves, and we need no further witness against you; you have been often taken [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in the very fact. I know there is an opinion, secretly advancing among some of you, whereby you would cast out of the bounds of your defence this Personal Infallibility of your Pope; but we have no more reason to esteem that opinion the doctrine of your Church, than we have to conclude that the Jesuits new position, asserting him Infallible in matter of fact, is so. And though I know not perfectly, what your opinion is in this matter; yet I may take a time to show how utterly unserviceable to your purpose the new way of the explication of Infallibility is. For it has but these two general inconveniences attending it. First, that it is not the opinion of your Church; secondly, if that be the only Infallibility we are to rest on, the whole claim of your Church, and its interest therein, falls to the ground; both which I hope to have an opportunity to manifest. In the mean time, we take that for the doctrine of your Church which is declared by its self so to be, which is explained and defended by her most famous champions. And indeed, you in your Fiat, assert, as I have showed, the Pope (Personally) to be an unerring guide, which is that we enquire after. Bellarmine tells us, that all Catholicks agree in these two things: 1. Pontificem, cum Generali, Concilio, non posse errare in condendis decretis fidoi, vel generalibus praeceptis morum; That the Pope with a general Councell cannot erre in making decrees of faith, or general precepts concerning manners. 2. Pontificem solum, vel cum suo particulari Concilio, aliquid in re dubia statuentem, sive errare possit sive non, esse ab omnibus fidelibus obedienter audiendum; All believers must willingly obey the Pope, either alone, or with his particular Councell, determining in doubtful matters, whether he may erre or no. I confess, if this be so, and he must be obeyed, whether he do right or wrong, whether he teaches truly or falsely, it is to no great purpose to talk of his Infallibility; for, follow him we must wherever he leads us, though it should be to Hell. And the Catholick proposition that he asserts himself, is, that, Summus Pontifex, cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare potest. The Pope when he teaches the whole Church, can in no case erre in those things which appertain to faith (De Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 2, 3). What a blind that is, of teaching the whole Church, children can see. The Pope can no way teach the whole Church, but as he declares his opinion, or judgement, which may be divulged to many, as those of another man. Let us see then, how well they have made good this their Infallibility; and how well their judgement has been approved of by the Church of old. I will not here mind you of the Decree fathered on Clemens, wherein he determines that all things among Christians ought to be common; and, among them, wives; because I know, it is falsely imposed on him, though you may be justly charged with it, who are the authors of those forgeries whereof that is a part. Nor shall I rake the Epistles which you ascribe to divers of the Ancient Bishops of Rome, that are full of ignorance, errors, and pitiful non-sense; because they are, questionless, Pseudopigraphical, though you who own them, may be justly charged with their follies. Nor will I much insist on the testimony of Tertullian in his book against Praxeas, that the Bishop of Rome owned the prophesies of Montanus, until Praxeas persuaded him to the contrary; because, it may be, you will say, that perhaps Tertullian spoke partially in favor of a sect whereunto he was himself addicted; though, for ought I know, he is as sufficient a witness in matter of fact, as any one man upon the roll of antiquity. But what say you to Marcellinus? Did he not sacrifice to idols, which, according to you, is a mixed misdemeanor in faith and manners (Con. Tom. 1. Vita Marcell.), and therefore certainly a shrewd impeachment of his Infallibility: and was he not judged for it? What think you of Liberius, did he not subscribe to Arianism? Soomen tells you expressly that he did so (Lib. 4. cap. 15); and so does Athanasius Epist. ad Solitarios, giving the reason why he did so, namely out of fear; and so does Hierome both in Script. Ecclesiast. Fortunat. and in Euseb. Chron. Pope Honorius was solemnly condemned for a Monothelite-Heretic in the sixth general Councell (Act. 12, 13), which sentence was afterwards ratified by your own darling, the second of Nice (Act. 3 and Act. 7), and is mentioned in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo the second. So Infallible was he during his life, so infallible was he thought to be when he was dead; while he lived he taught heresy, and when he was dead, he was condemned for a heretic, and with him the principle which is the hinge of your present faith. Neither did Vigilius behave himself one jot better in his chair. The Councell of Pisa deposed Gregory the twelfth, and Benedict the thirteenth, for Schismatics and Heretics. The Councell of Constance accused John the twenty third of abominable heresy (Sess. 11). And that of Basil condemned Eugenius, as one, à fide devium & pertinacem Haereticum (Sess. 34), an erroneous person and obstinate heretic. Other instances of the like nature might be called over, manifesting that your Popes have erred, and been condemned as persons erroneous; and therein the principle of their Infallibility.

I would be unwilling to tire your patience, yet upon your reiterated desire I shall present you with one instance more: and I will do it but briefly, because I must deal with you again about the same matter.

5. Your Church is fallen by Idolatry; as otherwise, so in that religious veneration of images which she uses, whereunto you have added heresy in teaching it for a doctrine of truth, and imposing the belief of it by your Tridentine Determination, on the consciences of the disciples of Christ. I know you would fain mince the matter, and spread over the corrupt doctrine of your Church about it, with silken words, as you do the posts that they are made of with gold; when as the Prophet speaks of your predecessors in that work, you lavish it out of the bag for that purpose. But to what purpose? Your first council, the second of Nice (which yet was not wholly yours neither, for it condemns Honorius, calls Thurnsius the Oecumenical Patriarch, and he expounds in it, the Rock on which the Church was built to be Christ and not Peter) your last council that of Trent, your Angelical Doctor Thomas of Aquine, your great champions Bellarmine and Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, and the rest of them, with the Catholic practice and usage of your Church in all places, declare sufficiently, what is your faith or rather misbelief in this matter. Hence Azorius Institut. Lib. 9 cap. 6. tells us, that, Constans est Theologorum sententia, Imaginem eodem honore & cultu coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago; It is the constant judgement of divines, that the image is to be worshipped with the same honor and worship, wherewith that is worshipped whose image it is. The Nicene Council, by the instigation of Pope Adrian, anathematizes every one who does but doubt of the adoration of images (Act. 7). Thomas contends that the Cross is to be worshipped with Latria (p. 3. q. 25. a. 4.), which is a word that he and you suppose to express religious worship of the highest sort. And your Council of Trent in their decree about this matter, confirmed the doctrine of that Lestricall convention at Nice, whose frauds and impostures were never paralleled in the world, but by itself. And do you think that a few ambiguous flourishing words of you, an unknown person, shall make the world believe that they understand not the doctrine and practice of your Church, which is proclaimed to them, by the fathers and masters of your persuasion herein, and expressed in practices under their eyes, every day? Do you think it so easy for you, Cornieum oculos configere, as Cicero tells us an attorney, one Cn. Flavius, thought to do, in going beyond all that the great lawyers had done before him (Orat. pro Muraena)? We cannot yet be persuaded, that you are so great an interpreter of the Roman oracles, as to believe you before all the sages before mentioned, to whom hundreds may be added. And what do you think of this doctrine and practice of your Church? Has it been opposed, judged, and condemned, or no? The first writers of Christianity, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, utterly abhorred the use of all images, at least in Sacris. The council held at Eliberis in Spain, twelve or thirteen years before the famous assembly at Nice, positively forbid all use of pictures in churches (Can. 36): Plaquit, Picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur; The council resolved that pictures ought not to be in churches, that which is worshipped and adored, be not painted on walls. Cyprian condemns it (Epist. ad Demetriad.). And so generally do all the fathers, as may be gathered in the pitiful endeavors and forgeries of the second Nicene Council, endeavoring to confirm it from them. Epiphanius reckons it among the errors of the Gnostics; and himself broke an image that he found hanging in a church (Epist. ad Johan. Hierosol.). Austin was of the same judgement; see Lib. de moribus Eccles. Cathol. cap. 34. Your adoration of them is expressly condemned by Gregory the Great, in an Epistle to Serinus (Lib. 7. Ep. 111, and Lib. 9. Epist. 9.). The Greek Church condemned it, in a synod at Constantinople, an. 775. And one learned man in those last days undertaking its defense, (and indeed the only man of learning that ever did so, until of late) they excommunicated and cursed him. This was Damascenus, concerning whom they used those expressions repeated in the second Nicene Council: To Mansour of an evil name, and in judgement consenting with Saracens, Anathema; To Mansour, a worshipper of images and writer of falsehood, Anathema; To Mansour, contumelious against Christ and traitor to the Empire, Anathema; To Mansour, a teacher of impiety and perverse interpreter of Scripture, Anathema (Synod. Nic. 2. Act. 6.). For that it was Johannes Damascenus that they intended, the Nicene fathers sufficiently manifest in the answer following, read by Epiphanius the Deacon. And this reward did he meet withal, from the seventh Council at Constantinople, for his pains in asserting the veneration of images; although he did not, in that particular, pervert the Scripture as some of you do; but laid the whole weight of his opinion on Tradition, wherein he is followed by Vasquez among yourselves. Moreover, the Western Churches, in a great council at Frankford in Germany, utterly condemned the Nicene Determination, which in your Tridentine Convention you approve and ratify, an. 794. It was also condemned here by the Church of England, and the doctrine of it fully confuted by Albinus (Hoveden Annal. an. 791.). Never was any heresy more publicly and solemnly condemned, than this, whereby your Church is fallen from its pristine purity. But hereof more afterwards.

It were no difficult matter to proceed to all the chief ways, whereby your Church is fallen; and to manifest that they have been all publicly disclaimed and condemned by the better and sounder part of professors. But the instances insisted on, may, I hope, prove sufficient for your satisfaction. I shall therefore proceed to consider what you offer to the remaining principles, which I conceived to animate the whole discourse of your Fiat Lux.