It believed that " we have one only mediator and intercessor with God," 1 Tim. ii. 5, 1 John ii. 1 ; — 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," Rom. x. 14.
It believed that the " command to abstain from meats and mar- riage was the doctrine of devils," 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; — do you abide in the same faith?
It believed that " every soul," without exception, " was to be sub- ject to the higher powers," Rom. xiii. 1 ; — you will not walk in the steps of their faith herein.
It believed that all " image-worship was forbidden," Exod. xx. ; and whether you abide in the same persuasion we shall afterward
APOSTASY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 223
examine. And nicany more instances of the like kind you may at any time be minded of.
You baste to tbat you would fain be at, whicb 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 Catho- lic church to be one, she could not indeed adhere to any thing but what she did adhere unto. Sir, I take them indeed to be one; but here I speak ' ad hominem,' to one that doth 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 gene- ral church, if any there were, to judge her; some oecumenical council to condemn her, some fathers, either Greek or Latin, expressly to write against her, as Protestants now do; some or other grave autho- rity 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."
Afis. 1. You represent my answer lamely. I desire the reader to consult it in the " Animadversions," pp. b"6-68.^ What you have taken notice of discovers only your finesse in making heresy an ad- herence to an eiTor in faith, contrary to the doctrine of the church ; and yourselves 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 suffi- cient reason why you have passed over your other head of schism in silence. You avow yourself one of the most schismatical principles that were ever adhered unto by any professing the name of Christ. The Roman church and the Cathohc are with you one and the same. Is not this Petilianus's, in '' parte Donati ;" nay, Basilides's, ' H/aeTs tC/y/SV o'l av&puiroi. oi bi aWoi -xavrig -/.uvzg ytai v'sg, Epiphan. Heres. iv. — " 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 yourselves from the church here, and consequently heaven hereafter, what can be thought so to be? In ' See pp. 28, 29, of the present volume.
224 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
earnest, sir, you may talk what you please of moderation ; but whilst you avow this one wretched schismatical principle, you do your en- deavour to exclude all true Christian moderation out of the world, 8. Why do you conclude that your query is not answered? Suppose one question could not be answered, doth it necessarily follow that another cannot? I suppose you take notice that this is another ques- tion, 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 hath 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 harlots 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 hath 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 hath been of old judged and condemned, as you will hear anon.