And thus I have once more given you an answer to your inquiry how your church /eZ^, — namely, that she hath 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 urbic church were extirpated, partly by others, but totally by Totilas ; as the Bri- tish church in England fell by the sword of the Saxons. She hath fallen by idolatry and corruption of life ; as did the church of the Jews before the captivity. She hath 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 hath fallen by apostasy, in forsak- ing 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 hath 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 Para- clete and rigid observances. She hath 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 hath fallen by ambition, in the Hilde- brandine principle, asserting a sovereignty in the 'po2Je over the kings and potentates of the earth ; whereof I can give you no precedent in- stance, 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.
APOSTASY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 225
]\Iatt. iv. And now I hope you will not take it in ill part that I have given you a plain answer unto your question; which, as I sup- pose, was proposed unto 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 for- mer times, to manifest that your church hath 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 unto by the law of our discourse to satisfy you in, yet, to prevent for the future such evasions 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 ob- served, reproved, condemned, and written against. Only unto what shall be discoursed uuto this purpose, I desire liberty to premise these three things, which I suppose will be granted.
" Dabitur ignis tamen, etsi 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 embraceth and useth it, is condemned and written against. For neither do Protestants write against your church, nor 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 amongst 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 sixfficient and satisfactory unto our consciences, in your casting us out from your communion, that all the ways whereby we say your church is fallen from her pris- tine purity are judged and condemned in the Scripture, the word of truth, Avhither we appeal for the last determination of the differences between us. These things being premised, to prevent such evasions as you have accustomed yourself unto, 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 'U2)on all p)er sons and churches a necessity of the observation of your rites and ceremo- nies, customs and traditions, casting them out of communion who refuse to submit unto this your great principle of all the schisms
VOL. XIV. 15
226 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
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, A.D. 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 ras oXag IxxXrisiac, rou Qsou, — " whole churches of God," for a trivial cause. His act 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, Euseb. Eccles. Hist., lib. v. cap. 22-25. This is an early instance of a considerable fall in your church, and an open opposition by councils and fathers made imto it. And do not you, sir, deceive yourself, as thouofh the act of Victor were alone concerned in this censure of Irenseus 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 b}^ you, when Austin, that came from Rome, would have imposed on the British churches the observation of Easter according to the cus- tom of the Roman church. The bishops and monks of these churches not only rejected your custom, but the principle also from whence 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.