First, saith he, " This church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by apostasy, heresy, or schism." But who told him so ? Might she not cease to be, and so consequently to be such ? Might not the persons of whom it consisted have been destroyed by an earthquake, as it happened to Laodicea ? or by the sword, as it befell the church of the Jews? or twenty other ways? Besides, might she not fall by idolatry, or false worship, or by profaneness, or licen- tiousness of conversation, contrary to the whole rule of Christ ? That, then, he may know what is to be removed by his queries, if he should speak any thing to the purpose, he may do well to take notice that this is the dogma of Protestants concerning the church of Rome : That the church planted there pure, did by degrees, in a long tract of time, fall, by apostasy, idolatry, heresy, schism, and profaneness of life, into that condition wherein now it ia But, says he, —
1. " Not by apostasy ; for that is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title of Christianity; and no man will say that the church of Rome had ever such a fall, or fell thus." I tell you truly, sir, your church is very much beholden unto men, if they do not sometimes say very hard things of her fall. Had it been an ordinary slip or so, it might have been passed over; but this falling into the mire, and wallowing in it for so many ages, as
28 ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
she has done, is in ti-uth a veiy naughty business. For my part, I am resolved to deal as gently with her as possible; and therefore say, that there is a total apostasy from Christianity, which she fell not into or by ; and there is a partial apostasy in Christianity from some of the principles of it, such as St Paul charged on the Galatians, and the old fathers on veiy many that yet retained the name and title of Chris- tians; and this we say plainly that she fell by,— she fell by apostasy from many of the most material principles of the gospel, both as to faith, life, and worship. And there being no reply made upon this instance, were it not upon the ground of pure civihty, we need not proceed any farther with his queries, the business of them being come to an end. 2. But, upon his entreaty, we will follow him a little farther. Supposing that he hath dispatched the business of apostasy, he comes to heresy, and tells us, " That it is an adhesion to some private or singular opinion or error in faith, contrary to the general approved doctrine of the church." That which ought to be subsumed is, that the church of Rome did never adhere to any singular opinion or eiTor in faith, contrary to the general approved doctrine of the church ; but our author, to cover his business, changes the terms in his 25roceeding into the Christian world. To clear this to us a little, I desire to know of him what church he means, when he speaks of the approved doctrine of the church ? I am sure he will say, "The Roman Cathohc church." And if I ask him, what age it is of that church which he intends ? he will also say, "That age which is present when the opinions mentioned are asserted contrary to the approved doc- trine." We have, then, obtained his meaning, — namely. The Roman church did never at any time adhere to any opinion, hut what the Roman church at that time adhered unto; or taught or approved no other doctrine but what it taught and approved ! Now, I verily believe this to be true, and he must be somewhat besides uncivil that shall deny it. But from hence to infer that the Roman church never fell from her first purity by heresy, — that is a thing I cannot yet discern how it may be made good. This conclusion ariseth out of that pitiful definition of heresy he gives us, coined merely to serve the Roman interest. The rule of judging heresy is made the " ap- proved doctrine of the church." I would know of what church : of this or that particular church, or of the Catholic? Doubtless the Catholic must be pretended. I ask. Of this or that age, or of the first ? " Of the first, certainly," I desire then to know how Ave may come to discern infallibly what was the approved doctrine of the Catholic church of old but only by the Scriptures, which we know it unani- mously emliraced, as given unto it by Christ for its rule of faith and worship. If wc should then grant that the approved doctrine of the church were that, which a departure from, as such, gives formality
ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 29
unto heresy, yet there is no way to know that doctrine but by the Scripture. But yet neither can or ought this to be granted. The formal reason of heresy, in the usual acceptation of the word, ariseth from its deviation from the Scripture as such ; which is the rule of the church's doctrine, and of the opinions that are contrary unto it. Nor yet is every private or singular opinion, contrary to the Scripture or the doctrine of the church, presently a heresy. That is not the sense of the word, either in Scripture or antiquity; so that the foundation of the queries about heresy is not one jot better laid than that was about apostasy, which went before. This is that which I have heard Protestants say, — namely, " That the church of Rome doth adhere to \'ery many opinions and errors in faith, contrary to the main princi- ples of Christian religion delivered in tlie Scripture, and so, conse- quently, the doctrine approved by the catholic church;" and if this be to fall by heresy, I add, that she is thus fallen also from what she was. But then he asks, — (1.) " By what general council was she ever condemned ?" (2.) " Which of the fathers ever wrote against her ? By what authority was she otherwise reproved ?" But this is all one as if a thief, aiTaigned for stealing before a judge, and the goods that he had stolen found upon him, should plead for himself, and say, " If ever I stole any thing, then by what lawful judge was I ever con- demned ? What officer of the peace did ever formally apprehend me ? By what authority were writs issued out against me V Were it not easy for the judge to reply, and tell him, " Friend, these allega- tions may prove that you were never before condemned, but they prove not at all that you never stole; which is a matter of fact that you are now upon your trial for." No more will it at all follow that the church of Rome did never offend, because she is not condemned. These things may be necessary that she may be said to be legally convicted, but not at all to prove that she is really guilty. Besides, the truth is, that many of her doctrines and practices are condemned by general councils, and most of them by the most learned fathers, and all of them by the authority of the Scripture. And whilst her doctrine and worship are so condemned, I see not well how .she can escape ; so that this second way also she is fallen.