APOSTASY or THE ROMISH CHURCH. 213
one" principles ascribed unto you: and this you say hath been " de- monstratively proved a hundred times over," and ask me why I do not disprove it, giving a ridiculous answer, as from me, unto your in- quiry. But pray, sir, talk not of demonstrations in this matter: pal- pable sophisms, 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 hath been 'proved, why is it not a sufficient answer in me to remind you that it hath been disproved, and your pretended proofs all re- futed? And according to what rules of logic do you expect argu- ments from me to disprove your assertion, whilst I was only answer- ing 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 supererogation, 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, flourish- ing church ; and if she ever fell, she must fall either by apostasy, heresy, or schism." 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 doth not become us; it is not unlike hers who cried, " I sit 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 inno- cent and unblamable, you tell us, p. 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 unto a spiritual eye. She hath 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 cliurch must fall some time or other. When did she fall ? and how did she fall, — by apostasy, heresy, or schism?" Sir, you very lamely represent my answer, that you might seem to say something unto it, when indeed you say nothing at all. I discovered unto you the equivocation you use in that expression, " The church of Rome," and showed 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 ad quem" of a church's fall. I showed you also that the
214! A VINDICATION OF THE ANKiIADVEESIONS ON FIAT LUX.
church of old, that was pure, fell not whilst 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 fonner question, to which you subjoin my first answer, which was, " It was possible she might fall by on earth- quake, as did those of Colosse and Laodicea;" to which you [reply,] " 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 inquiry 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 unto the consideration of them also, yet your special inquiry being resolved into this general one, from whence it is taken, how a pure, flourishing church may cease to be so? I had rendered your inquiry useless unto your present purpose, though I had not answered your intention ; for certainly that which ceaseth to be, ceaseth to be pure, seeing " non-entis nullge sunt afiectiones." The church of the Britons, in this part of the island now called England, was once as pure a church as ever Avas the church of Home ; yet she ceased to be long since, and that neither by apostasy, heresy, nor schism, 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 "urhis," and not, as you vainly imagine, " orhis ecclesia."